Pages

Friday, September 28, 2012

Carl Kinbar's Definition of Judaism (It's Interesting)

So I'm all for dialogue and learning from other people's points of view.  Carl Kinbar today gave an interesting definition for Judaism.  Here it is:



[DISCLAIMER:  Carl wanted me to add the following disclaimer:  "As I wrote, the definition is “unedited.” Feel free to post it on your blog with this disclaimer: “This definition was written at the request of Peter —-. It is unedited, so reading a particular sentence or phrase very closely may reveal the lack of editing rather than the author’s intention.”]

"Here are my unedited reflects on “What is Judaism.”
It’s been mentioned that there have always been varieties of Judaism. So in the broadest sense, Judaism consists of a variety of approaches that Jews have fashioned to living out a substantial version of the Jewish past in the here and now, from Essene Judaism to today’s Humanistic Judaism.
Although virtually all varieties of Judaism have provided a place for non-Jews through conversion and other forms of association, Judaism is essentially a Jewish enterprise.
The limits of the varieties of Judaism are crossed in two ways: (1) when Jews shape a way of living in the present with no conscious effort to connect substantially with the Jewish past (e.g, AIPAC, formed by Jews to promote American-Israeli relations, is not a form of Judaism); (2) when non-Jews play a formative role in shaping the so-called “Judaism” and, especially, when the group who practices it is preponderantly non-Jewish (e.g., the Church of those drawn from the nations). .
So all Judaisms envision a unique calling of the Jewish people for the sake of the whole world. The integrity of that calling is guarded by the establishing and sustenance of varieties of Judaism that protect the identity and calling of the Jewish people in national and geopolitical situations in which they are a tiny, tiny minority.
The notion of a Judaism that legitimately connects with the Jewish past but is shaped by non-Jews for a group of non-Jews is an innovation of the last few decades (excepting groups that claimed to be Jewish by descent but probably were not). As far as I can tell, these so-called Judaisms do not protect the identity and calling of the Jewish people in a practical way. They advocate for the rights of Gentiles to the Jewish inheritance rather than the importance of Jews and their calling.
I choose to believe that these so-called Judaisms consist of sincere men and women who, though mistaken in some of their beliefs and practices, love Yeshua and seek to walk in his ways."

11 comments:

  1. This is not a description of Judaism. This is a pure attack on OL. It doesn't have anything to say about the actual branches of Judaism, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox or reconstructionist.

    This should never been titles "definition." More like "deception."

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is not a description of Judaism. This is a pure attack on OL. It doesn't have anything to say about the actual branches of Judaism, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox or reconstructionist.

    This should never been titles "definition." More like "deception."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Dan,

    I wrote this descriptive definition at Peter's request, knowing that he advocates OL. Were it not for that, I would not have included the last two paragraphs. Addressing current branches of Judaism would require an encyclopedia article! Be well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Carl, then why call it "definition?"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter called it "an interesting definition."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I enjoyed hearing your definition of Judaism. What did you call it, a descriptive definition? While I don't agree with it, it's very helpful in understanding your perspective. I'm curious, on what basis do Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform reject Messianic Judaism? Has anyone heard a definitive answer? Because it seems like any definition that would exclude Messianic Judaism as a Judaism would also exclude certain others.

      Delete
  6. Peter,

    Of course there is dissonance between those two thoughts AS YOU UNDERSTAND THEM. If you had simply asked me to explain how I can hold them logically or, better yet, what I mean by them, you could have avoided insulting me. But no – you see fit instead to imply that I am stupid (“don’t you see the dissonance”?) and illogical before taking the simple step of asking for an explanation. You even imply that I don’t “like” logic.

    IMO, you jump to conclusions like this too frequently (on the other blog you even accused me of “making fun” of you, which I did not and never would do – and you repeated the false accusation in your Sept. 25th post on this blog) and your responses are, to be frank, less than gracious.

    I wanted to exit this discussion without laying any blame because I truly believe that we are approaching the issue from such different and deeply held approaches that further discussion is pointless. But you feel the need to assign blame. This is all very sad – insult and unfounded blame are not the stuff of grace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carl,

      I'll tell you what I'd tell any brother of mine: stop being so sensitive. If you want to debate me, expect a tough debate. I'm not going to sugarcoat what I have to say to you. You hurt the gentiles with your false doctrines. So when I call you out and you cry about it I don't have a lot of sympathy for you.

      You shouldn't run from debates--it just makes you look scared. I notice you don't allow comments on your blog. That figures. You're afraid of losing a debate. You're more concerned about protecting the supposed integrity of your lofty office in the UMJC than pursuing truth through heated debate.

      Here's what your blog says beneath each post: "Comments Off."

      This tells us everything we need to know about you.

      Guess what? My comment system is up and running and I'll NEVER shut it down.

      Have a nice day,

      Peter

      Delete
  7. The comment above is in response to Peter's comment on the other post dated Sept. 28th.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Peter, You write, "You're afraid of losing a debate."

    Amazing. THIS kind of comment is the reason I'm signing off. I expressed my reasons but you can't accept that I'm telling the truth so, in essence, you're calling me a coward AND a liar. THIS is your idea of "pursuing truth through heated debate"?

    You continue, "You're more concerned about protecting the supposed integrity of your lofty office in the UMJC than pursuing truth through heated debate."

    What lofty office? I've never held office in the UMJC (or the MJRC, for that matter).

    Then you write,"Here's what your blog says beneath each post: "Comments Off." This tells us everything we need to know about you."

    So you can read my mind and tell WHY I have the comments turned off? And that insight tells you everything you need to know about me as a human being. Amazing!

    Anyway, this is your blog so you will continue to write as you wish. I won't be part of that conversation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carl and Everyone,

      Carl's statement that he doesn't hold office in the UMJC is false. The UMJC includes its Rabbinic School (MJTI). Carl belongs to the faculty of MJTI. Thus, Carl serves on the Rabbinical training arm of the UMJC. See the following links for proof:

      http://www.mjti.org/about/faculty

      http://www.umjc.org/education-mainmenu-49/schools

      How can you trust someone who says such misleading things? He's clearly a part of the UMJC. To be ordained in the UMJC you have to go through MJTI faculty such as Carl.

      Oy vey. Just speak plainly and be honest about your position.

      Delete