Difference between revisions of "Approaches"
Abrahamson (talk | contribs) |
Abrahamson (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
The sources we will be examining need to be categorized in multiple dimensions; to divide them simply between “pro-dialogue” and “anti-dialogue” would be to erase their richness. The most obvious of these dimensions is that which categorizes positions as exclusivist, inclusivist, or universalist/pluralistic. | The sources we will be examining need to be categorized in multiple dimensions; to divide them simply between “pro-dialogue” and “anti-dialogue” would be to erase their richness. The most obvious of these dimensions is that which categorizes positions as exclusivist, inclusivist, or universalist/pluralistic. | ||
| − | ===Exclusivist=== | + | ===[[Judaism_and_Other_Religions#Exclusivist Position|Exclusivist]]=== |
Let me explain. For the exclusivist, one's own community, tradition, and encounter with God is the one and only exclusive truth; all other claims on encountering God are a priori false. The pluralist takes the opposite tack, accepting that no one tradition can claim to possess the singular truth. In between is the inclusivist who acknowledges that there are many communities with their own traditions and truths, but maintains the importance of his own way of seeing thing as culminating, subsuming, or perfecting all other truths. | Let me explain. For the exclusivist, one's own community, tradition, and encounter with God is the one and only exclusive truth; all other claims on encountering God are a priori false. The pluralist takes the opposite tack, accepting that no one tradition can claim to possess the singular truth. In between is the inclusivist who acknowledges that there are many communities with their own traditions and truths, but maintains the importance of his own way of seeing thing as culminating, subsuming, or perfecting all other truths. | ||
| − | ===Inclusivist=== | + | ===[[Judaism_and_Other_Religions#Inclusive Position|Inclusivist]]=== |
For the inclusivist, other religions are explained by his own religion. He acknowledges a world outside his own, but relies on his own worldview to make it comprehensible and give it meaning. He speaks the language of his own theology, and uses its vocabulary to describe outsiders. | For the inclusivist, other religions are explained by his own religion. He acknowledges a world outside his own, but relies on his own worldview to make it comprehensible and give it meaning. He speaks the language of his own theology, and uses its vocabulary to describe outsiders. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
In this, he differs from the pluralist, who will address others in their own language. The pluralist can be criticized for trying stepping outside his own religious language rather than pushing its boundaries, but can be admired for naming others in their own terms. | In this, he differs from the pluralist, who will address others in their own language. The pluralist can be criticized for trying stepping outside his own religious language rather than pushing its boundaries, but can be admired for naming others in their own terms. | ||
| − | ===Universalist/Pluralist=== | + | ===[[Judaism_and_Other_Religions#Universalist/Pluralist|Universalist/Pluralist]]=== |
The pluralist accepts that truth is not in the possession of any one tradition, understanding religion as a way of approaching, rather than defining and naming, God. He accepts his limitations in understanding the wider world and believes God is present and active within the world. | The pluralist accepts that truth is not in the possession of any one tradition, understanding religion as a way of approaching, rather than defining and naming, God. He accepts his limitations in understanding the wider world and believes God is present and active within the world. | ||
Revision as of 01:14, 1 October 2006
- Main article Judaism and Other Religions
In wikinoah we attempt to present a range of traditional and authentic opinions concerning Noahidism and Noahide faith(s) within halakhic Judaism. To hightlight the different approaches a selection of Rabbis have been selected with an aim of highlighting the widest array of opinions, for the purpose of beginning discussion; this is not designed to be either a complete anthology of approaches, or a definitive word on categorizing the authories on this subject.
Contents
How the approaches are categorized
The sources we will be examining need to be categorized in multiple dimensions; to divide them simply between “pro-dialogue” and “anti-dialogue” would be to erase their richness. The most obvious of these dimensions is that which categorizes positions as exclusivist, inclusivist, or universalist/pluralistic.
Exclusivist
Let me explain. For the exclusivist, one's own community, tradition, and encounter with God is the one and only exclusive truth; all other claims on encountering God are a priori false. The pluralist takes the opposite tack, accepting that no one tradition can claim to possess the singular truth. In between is the inclusivist who acknowledges that there are many communities with their own traditions and truths, but maintains the importance of his own way of seeing thing as culminating, subsuming, or perfecting all other truths.
Inclusivist
For the inclusivist, other religions are explained by his own religion. He acknowledges a world outside his own, but relies on his own worldview to make it comprehensible and give it meaning. He speaks the language of his own theology, and uses its vocabulary to describe outsiders.
In this, he differs from the pluralist, who will address others in their own language. The pluralist can be criticized for trying stepping outside his own religious language rather than pushing its boundaries, but can be admired for naming others in their own terms.
Universalist/Pluralist
The pluralist accepts that truth is not in the possession of any one tradition, understanding religion as a way of approaching, rather than defining and naming, God. He accepts his limitations in understanding the wider world and believes God is present and active within the world.
For the exclusivist, the other religions are simply false. There is no broader, outside world whose claims need to be harmonized and addressed; there is only the realm of the “other side.” While this position may be at odds with ethical (and therefore universal) sensitivities, it plays a powerful sociological role for groups who feel embattled and threatened by the majority culture.
Irrelevantist
The irrelevantist considers other faith communities as religions worthy of tolerance without a theory of other religions. Although this approach is not particularly useful for understanding Noahidism, it deserves mention because is the most common approach of halakhic Jews today.
Convention used for naming approaches
Here is a brief overview of these approaches (listed A-Z by last name):
Rabbi Benamozegh
Liberal approach based in part on teachings rooted in Jewish mysticism. Assumes that current religions are distorted Bnei Noach faiths. This approach assumes that there are many Noahide faiths.
Chabad
Conservative approach based in part on teachings rooted in Jewish mysticism. Assumes that current religions are false and obstacles to the emergence of a true noahide faith. This approach assumes that there is only one Noahide faith.
Oath Brit
An innovative approach to the Noahide laws. Liberal approach based in part on teachings rooted in Jewish mysticism, but mostly on the teachings of Rabbi Moshe Kerr. This approach assumes that there is only one Noahide faith and attempts to define that faith in terms of traditions, customs and practice.
Rambam
Conservative and described as "harsh" approach, decreeing capital punishment for the smallest crimes. Assumes that current religions are false, but part of the process of preparing mankind for the truth. This approach assumes that is only one Noahide faith.
Rabbi Soloveitchik
Conservative and isolationist approach. Held by the majority of halachic Jews today. Generally a "live and let live" approach. While denying that either Christianity or Islam qualifies as a noahide faith, it does not require them to change their faith. This approach avoids the question as to the nature of the Noahide faith.
Tosafists
Liberal approach based what appear to be compromises for comercial and social reasons. Assumes that current religions are distorted Bnei Noach faiths. This approach assumes that there are many Noahide faiths.
