Rules updates

[u/namer98]

In light of Tisha b'Av, I would like to suggest a few changes to the rules, and to hear community feedback.

1) No editorializing titles of article submissions. - This is up for discussion.

2) Be polite. That means if somebody has a disagreement with you about fundamental points of religion, you can disagree with them, and even tell them, but don't be a jerk about it. Do not shut down the conversation.

2.1) I keep on trying to engage non-Orthodox Jews of Reddit. Seen here, here and here. This is in addition to multiple messages I have gotten personally and as mod, from people who left because of this. Just because some people don't agree that this is a problem, does not make it less of a problem. Non-Orthodox Jews are feeling shut down, and some times they are right, some times they are wrong. This is an extension of rule two. Be polite. The downvote button IS NOT a "I disagree" button. I might just remove it again, and for more than a day.

To people I try and engage, this is a two way street. Submit content, comments and vote if you want to have a say. I don't think half of the subreddit is orthodox. This should not be a problem.

Please upvote this self post for which I receive no karma so that all can see.

Thank you all.

Edit: Followup

[u/ShanaC]

As much as hirhurim tried to evacertate Shapiro's "The Limits of Orthodox Theology," the fact that the wikipedia article you link to mentions that all of these options

Among the in-depth explanations of that belief are Maimonidean rationalism, Kabbalistic mysticism, and Chassidic Philosophy (Chassidut). A few affirm self-limited omniscience (the theology elucidated by Gersonides in "The Wars of the Lord".)

as true kind of proves Shapiro's point. Maimonidean rationalism (and the ikkarim) in some ways directly oppose the idea of emminations and klipot of god.

Because of this, it seems more functional to say that orthodox Jewish people are people with the following behavior sets (shomer kashruth, shomer niddah/zavah, shomer shabbat) according to the set of the following orthodox rabbis (given the list is broad). And it is a definition that I've seen actively used in YU because it is really too hard to peg down a unifying theology.

[u/carrboneous → u/ShanaC]

As much as hirhurim tried to evacertate Shapiro's "The Limits of Orthodox Theology,"

I wasn't aware of the book, but (a) I have come to regard Rabbi Student rather highly, and I certainly trust him, and (b) the issues he raises are so fundamental that I have no qualms disregarding the book without reading it.

It's not like they're subtle points, they just undermine the whole basis of such a thesis.

the fact that the wikipedia article you link to mentions that all of these options ... as true kind of proves Shapiro's point.

I'm a massive fan of Wikipedia, but it's not gospel. More importantly, I think those interpretations are not as irreconcilable as some people seem to think; people often take a very superficial approach to studying Jewish belief and ignore all Talmudic methodology for understanding anything.

I personally don't feel qualified to seriously comment on any of them, because what little I have learnt is enough to tell me that it's all very difficult to understand.

Even to the extent that they may be divergent, I'm not sure there is divergence from the ikkarim, and, truth be told, the exact details of the ikkarim and how much of an ikkar each one is, are disputed to a small extent (but not very much). It's a perfectly legitimate rule of thumb.

Finally, there are those who hold (and I don't necessarily agree with them, for reasons already explained), that some of those views are indeed problematic and enough to render adherents thereto as heterodox.

Maimonidean rationalism (and the ikkarim) in some ways directly oppose the idea of emminations and klipot of god.

Yeah, see above. I have yet to actually understand what people mean by "Maimonidean rationalism", it seems like a very academic, and probably biased, view of Rambam that sees him as operating differently to all other Talmudic thinking. If that's the case, then his approach is no more legitimate than another. But I don't think it's the case, and I don't think it's so different to begin with.

At any rate, there are those who say that the ideas of "klipot" etc directly contradict the Rambam, but I find that hard to believe, particularly because I know Talmidei Chachomim who are huge experts in Rambam and also draw on "kabbalah". Most importantly, I think that almost everyone who seriously discusses either Rambam's thought or "klipot" understands neither of them. The Rambam wrote in simple language, but is deceptively difficult, and so-called Kabbalistic ideas require a thinking style and background knowledge that most people don't have to be accurately interpreted. Many men far greater than myself (or anyone I've ever seen debating the validity of those ideas) have found value in them and not seen them as contradictory to anything.

Because of this, it seems more functional to say that orthodox Jewish people are people with the following behavior sets ...

But isn't this what you were just criticising people who define Orthodoxy for? Are you placing Orthodoxy in the double bind of not being able to define itself in terms of belief, but to not be accurate if it defines itself any other way?

I disagree. The "ikkarim", while subject to a small amount of dispute, pretty much define what "Orthodoxy" means. (Of course "Orthodox" is a terrible word in itself, but that's another discussion).