Raksha said:
One question: How do you define "idolatry"? Do you equate idolatry with goddess worship?
linda,
that's actually really a very difficult question and in order to answer it properly it would take an in-depth knowledge of the relevant texts that i cannot claim to have, in particular the gemara on avodah zara and how it has been interpreted through the ages by the rishonim and aharonim. it's easier to say what it *isn't* nowadays. for example, i'm not sure it's sufficient to say that polytheism
tout court is idolatry, because for me idolatry is less about theology than it is about *behaviour*. in this i consider myself to be following the me'iri (france C12th) whose position - and, obviously, writing in the context of mediaeval state catholicism - was:
"idolatry is not about statues".
in this, he directly contradicts rambam for a start and virtually anyone writing in an islamic context, muslims, of course, taking a very dim view of the depiction of any human form. rambam is unequivocal in condemning the trinity as idolatrous and in this the popular viewpoint continues to this day. of course, if you understand anything about trinitarianism (and, again, i am no expert) it is precisely the same criticism that can be made of, say, the sefirot, or even the veneration of a sefer Torah. me'iri got this and, as far as i am aware, it was his view, not rambam's that made it into the bet yosef and consequently into the shulhan arukh, although somehow the maimonidean viewpoint has persisted (as in so many other ways) despite it being a) a minority view and b) despite so many of his other theological innovations being apparently maintained even whilst what he himself meant by them is conveniently ignored.
i think, fundamentally, there are certain things that i would associate with idolatry as defined biblically:
violence (particularly sexual violence)
torture (of humans or animals)
bloodshed (to oneself or others in anything less than strictly controlled and consensual circumstances)
anything which involves acts which might be construed as worshipping or attributing divine-type powers to humans, alive or dead (e.g. bowing to pictures of real people, relics of the dead etc)
valuing objects more than people or treating people like objects
i think the common denominator here is some form of harm. in terms of things defined rabbinically as idolatry, some things i agree with, others i don't - particularly in terms of non-jewish theology, which they're often unqualified to comment on. either way, it is one thing for G!D to object to something and another for humans to put a fence around it. i have no problem with rabbinic authority to add fences for jews, but i do have one when they start legislating for non-jews. thus, something may be idolatrous for jews (e.g. bowing to a statue) but not for non-jews. there is also the matter of time. there is a statement somewhere, i think BT sanhedrin 64a, to the effect that the "evil impulse" (yetzer ha-ra') for idolatry began to die out in the time of nechemiah - idolatry these days ain't what it used to be, just like we can no longer identify the seven nations of canaan that we should be exterminating, so that commandment can safely be said to have become unobservable, about which i hope G!D Is Pleased.
I became aware (again) of the extreme contrast between the way you relate to Dauer and the way you relate to me. It's painfully obvious that you consider him an equal, but with me you're patronizing and sarcastic. And it's NOT like you don't disagree with him, because you disagree with him quite often but you still never take that tone with him.
well, to be honest, linda, he doesn't take the tone with me that you appear to do, namely that i'm a 'sexist, lying, chauvinist pig with suspicious motives, like all traditional jews'. i've also known him longer and to be honest, his position is one with which i have more sympathy and one which, whilst "progressive", is well within the boundaries of the jewish ecosystem as i understand it. i admit i have difficulty with the idea that syncretism is compatible with judaism. you, of course, have no trouble with boundaries and appear to take pleasure in the transgressive nature of your beliefs. that is all very well and i respect your integrity insofar as it clearly represents deeply personally held views which are held with good reason and has been caused by circumstances which i deeply sympathise with. but - and this is a big but - i dislike your hostility and your apparent rush to condemn things which you disagree with whether you understand them or not. that sort of thing gets my back up and dauer doesn't do it. you are quite happy to congratulate yourself for getting angry with people whose views you find detestable, fine - but if you want a more civilised, polite discussion, try treating me less as someone who is presumed to beat his wife.
What I really mean is that certain arguments and certain examples simply would never come up with Dauer because you'd know you could never get them past him.
he's called me on many things, many times. sometimes i have been forced to concede a point as far as i remember.
Anyway, I said something to the effect that we have no reason to believe the female judges condemned goddess worship. And you answered, "Why not, if it was wrong?"
my presumption is that, unless textual evidence to the contrary is presented, that someone like deborah would have taken the view that goddess worship was not compatible with monotheism and therefore idolatrous and therefore to be condemned. it is a reasonable presumption to make, so the comment ought to be fair comment.
it isn't hard to figure out that she was a very influential person, and not only a judge and prophetess but most likely a priestess of Astarte--possibly Asherah but most likely Astarte in her character as war goddess.
i can see why you would be likely to assume that, as it confirms the assumptions that you are working to. by the same logic, i have heard it argued that "it isn't hard to figure out that" the suffering servant in isaiah is jesus. you've already decided what you think is right and you're extrapolating the rest of the story from your assumptions, as you state here:
I am 95% sure of it, and just because the Tanakh doesn't mention it doesn't mean it wasn't so.
now, you're entitled to do so if you wish, goodness knows the book of judges is full of some pretty controversial leaders many of whom engage in pretty questionable behaviour (look at jephthah for a start!) but you've got no textual evidence to show that your view should be presumed to be correct as opposed to a more normative traditional view. there is no way of resolving this to our mutual satisfaction, short of a letter signed by deborah herself saying she was or wasn't a priestess of asherah and however much you yell at me that won't make the argument any less an argument of post hoc rationalisation and patriarchal cover-ups.
The point I'm making here is that looking at the story in the actual historical context as far as we can reconstruct it, there is just NO WAY any Israelite of the period (male or female) would have considered goddess worship "wrong," least of all a highly influential priestess.
as it says in the last verse of judges itself: "in those days there was no king in israel, everyone did as they liked." i would accept it if you had said "there is just no way that EVERY israelite of the period....etc", but instead, you've made it a universal. i find this position unconvincing at best.
that you should not have used that argument with me AT ALL, and the fact that you did shows a very basic lack of respect for me. You were taking advantage of my ignorance, and the fact I had not YET read The Hebrew Goddess.
if i were accustomed to argue like that, i would hardly have recommended that you go and read it. again, you're showing that you don't consider me to speak in good faith and, in a dialogue environment, that is a basic requirement. i'd take offence, but clearly there'd be little point.
But when you use these arguments from authority with me when you already know I reject them, you are simply insulting my intelligence.
i'm not sure why you think this is an argument from authority. my axioms are different from yours and i trust where you do not and vice versa.
pretty obvious who he considers an equal and who he doesn't. He talks to Avi and Dauer as if they were grown-ups, but he talks to me like I'm a little kid who doesn't know any better, or maybe worse than that...a woman??? I didn't actually think of that before today, but that could very well be what's at the bottom of it.
and *that's* not an argument from authority? what next, are you going to call me a racist because i disagree with intermarriage? way to shut down debate there.
Saltmeister said:
bananabrain can be intimidating towards Christians and Wiccans (jewiccan seems to imply that)
i dislike syncretism. i do not see how there can be such a thing as a "jewiccan" - other than a jew who professes wicca, who is, in jewish terms, simply an apostate jew, but a jew nonetheless. however, the two systems are not combinable in any meaningful sense - i don't say this as a point of principle, but as one of the few people i am aware of that have ever actually done any jewish-wiccan dialogue (or jewish-astruar dialogue, incidentally). on the other hand, since looking into it in some detail, i have consistently argued that there is nothing about wicca or the vast majority of neo-pagan beliefs and practices that jews ought to worry about. i had a significant influence (according to her anyway) on the author of this book:
Philosophy of Wicca: Amazon.co.uk: Amber Laine Fisher: Books
and our own neo-pagan mod here, bgruagach would, i hope, confirm my lack of prejudice in this department.
from my observations it's never been Christianity or Wicca, or anything else specifically that drove him nuts, but people claiming things that he didn't consider true with regards to Jewish teachings.
to be precise, it is people claiming that judaism teaches X or that a jewish text teaches Y when i know as someone who has been taught or studied these subjects that they do nothing of the sort. there are jews that get these things wrong as well and they drive me nuts too.
he will simply stop at nothing to say why you're wrong. He will often outlast you because he knows a lot.
if an argument is based on someone simply not knowing what the rules actually are or what the text actually teaches, then "knowing a lot" has to be the basis of argument. i would hope that i don't continue arguments just because i like to win - i hope, anyway.
I wonder if it's characteristic of certain groups of people living in Israel or England to be overly sarcastic the way he is? Sometimes when I watch British drama programs it appears as if Britons don't have a sense of humour. It's like they're always serious and sarcastic. It's bananabrain on television.
i'd argue that not only is it british, it's also quite characteristic of where i went to school and my youth movement background. you know sacha baron cohen? the borat/bruno/ali g bloke? he was in the year below me. also, you're seeing me at my most analytical and that can get academic in its waspishness.
I don't think he even realises he's being sarcastic half the time.
oh i do, i just don't think it's always obvious when i'm being playful if you're not british - and the web doesn't convey tone all that well.
b'shalom
bananabrain
