FACTIONS-----reform
-
qwert Posted - 01 September 2000 6:13
my mom and I always get into this argument what’s better reform or non religious.
I say reform and she says non religious. I say reform cuz at least they are happy to be Jewish and proud, and not hiding it. they like the Jews and would wanna support them if that’s what their calling themselves.
my mom says non religious because she says simply you can’t make up your own religion. well these ppl go on and celebrate no Jewish holidays but all the Goyish ones and they forget who they are and the mix married prob more frequently than reform and stuff, and they can go on to be anti Semites when they themselves can be pure Jewish but forgotten. so what do you think is better?
MODERATOR Posted - 01 September 2000 20:14
They're both bad, but Reform has an added sin, and that is distorting the Torah. At least the non-religious don't falsify our religion.
Because Reform falsifies our religion, they cause others to sin because there are those who want to be religious, and Reform tells them that their way is the way G-d wants them to be. So reform makes others non-Religious.
Other than that, falsifying the Torah is itself a grave sin. If you don't want to religious, that's one thing, but don't misrepresent G-d.
A non-religious person can say he really believes, but he is not ready or willing to keep the Mitzvos. That's like a guy who is caught for speeding and tells the judge I'm guilty, but I have no excuse. I just wanted to get home quicker.
But the Reform are like someone who is caught speeding and tells the judge that he disagrees with the speed limit, and that the judge has no right to tell him how fast to drive.
One is guilty of speeding. The other is making a revolution against the lawmaking process.
So a non-religious Jew violates the Law. Reform rebels against it, telling people that they do not have to follow it, that it is not binding.
Look at it this way: Jews for Jesus.
They believe in the Torah as much as the Reform, or perhaps more:
1) Jews for Jesus believe in G-d, Reform does not have to
2) Jews for Jesus believe in the revelation at
3) J4J believe that G-d literally wrote the Torah, Reform does not
4) J4J believes in the wrong Messiah. Reform believes in no Messiah at all
5) And one more difference, between a Reform rabbi and the Pope:
The Pope wears a Yarlmuka.
So if I were to ask you if J4J are "proud to be Jewish", what would you say?
Obviously, what they call "Jewish" and what we call "Jewish" are 2 different things. Although they are 100% Jewish if they had Jewish mothers, the religion they are practicing certainly is not Judaism.
So too the Reform. They are not practicing Judaism.
I think this whole pluralism thing would be looked at in a different light if we were to include Jews for J as Judaism.
Why in the world should they be left our more than, say, Reform? They are Jews too, right?
Yes.
So why does anybody consider Reform a "branch" of Judaism and not Jews for Jesus? Jews for Jesus is much closer to real Judaism than Reform.
ShevachviShira Posted - 03 September 2000 3:19
There’s an important question you are leaving out.
And it’s all irrelevant of the fact that it’s better technically to be a nothing Jew than a reform because they are distorting things.
The question is in one 2 or 3 generations who is more likely to still be Jewish? in your answer you overlooked this. Its clear the reform does not have very good numbers when it comes to intermarriage etc... (so they change things) but after all that they still have a more likely choice of keeping someone Jewish, long enough till maybe 2 or 3 or even 4 difference a grandchild or great grandchild will be mekareved by someone and realize the truth.
but people who are nothing Jews lose their jewishness even faster than reform in a generation -2 or 3 max they won't be Jewish anymore.
as for your J4J comparison, the J4J are worse because they have a really strong believe the reform for the most part know they’re whole thing is trash, most reform Jews and conservative Jews don’t even practice acc to the levels of reform or conservative. J4J won’t be mekareved too easily but sons and grandsons of reform are and will.
so even if it’s wrong if it’s keeping the Jewish pride in them long enough that they remain Jewish and can have a good chance of one day returning to the truth. its better!
In Israel the situation is (at least was) different) If you’re a Chiloni in Israel you are still a Chiloni, you’re a non observant but you know that Jewish religion is Orthodox but were starting to lose the battle in Israel...therefore my opinion In Israel would be different for a number of reasons, first people in Israel aren’t losing their jewishness, second, reform is still small don’t let it grow! let the people be non practicing orthodox.
But in
MODERATOR Posted - 03 September 2000 3:26
It's true that "non-affiliated" Jews have a greater intermarriage rate than even reform, but so do Jews for Jesus.
In any case, it depends what your question of "which is worse Reform or nothing?" means. If you mean who is a greater sinner, the answer is reform. If you mean who is further from Hashem, the answer is reform. If you mean who's grandchildren are more likely to be still be Jewish and therefore become Baalei Teshuva, the answer, too, is Reform.
But then again, if the question is who is more likely to cause others to become irreligious and therefore intermarry the answer to that, too, is Reform.
MODERATOR Posted - 07 September 2000 17:15
All the points are well taken, but we need to keep in mind throughout the discussion that we are talking about Reform, which is no more a legitimate "branch" of Judaism than Jews for Jesus.
So we may as well ask, Which is worse: Christianity or Reform?
Well, if a Reform Jew is an atheist, and he may be, then the Christian Jew is clearly on a higher level, since idolatry is one step above atheism.
ShevachviShira Posted - 08 September 2000 9:37
We are not discussing whether it is better to be a Christian or a reform, the issue was that in generations from now it is more likely (even with all the craziness with patrilineal and all)that the reform Jew will stay Jewish, and will see the truth and thus be makareved.
a non observant Jew with no Jewish identity (unless he lives in
A Christian is not Jewish now nor never will be (unless he converts)
so when we look at what is better to be, the answer is reform than atheist, or j4j or Christian,
when we look at what is worse a sin. maybe reform is worse then atheist but the main issue is that both of these people are lost so what is better for the future generations.
MODERATOR Posted - 08 September 2000 9:44
I'm referring to J4J. I don't know that Reform has any greater chance of their children becoming frum in future generations than J4J. I actually cannot find any data on that.
But the issue is not just who has a greater chance of having frum grandchildren. The issue is, in general, "who is worse?" Therefore, you also need to consider the ill effect that Reform has on other Jews who want to be "committed" but are duped into thinking Reform is legit. Non-affiliated do not cause such a problem, and neither do Jews 4 Jesus, since they are not looked upon as a branch (sic) of Judaism.
So even though the Reform's children may be brought back easier than non-affiliated, Reform still causes more intermarriage through preventing people from really being religious.
qwert Posted - 05 October 2000 18:44
when a reform considers Jewish ppl his ppl is he considering orthodox too or just reform? cuz if he also has a pride for orthodox doesn’t he get some credit for being proud of his people and not embarrassed and ashamed. Or are reforms embarrassed and ashamed of orthodox?
Do you think if the Jews were in some sort of crisis situation, chas veshalom though it shouldn’t happen, but do you think all the Jews would try and help each other or would they separate into their little groups because reform is not really orthodox and as you’re saying basically 2 different religions?
MODERATOR Posted - 08 October 2000 17:34
qwert,
Whether Reform - or anyone - get reward for being proud to be a Jew depends on why you are proud to be a Jew, and what your definition of "Jew" is.
If someone is proud of the Torah that we have and our relationship with Hashem, he gets credit for pride. But if someone is proud that he is part of a culture like any other culture, a religion like nay other religion, then that is not Jewish pride; because in such a case you’re not proud to be part of the Jewish religion, but rather some religion you invented and merely call it Judaism.
qwert Posted - 13 October 2000 14:20
I get what you’re saying about the reforms, but what about the people that were born into Judaism but that’s where it ends. the mixed marriages, and some kids can be a Jew cuz of the mother and not know it. so what’s right with that either?
MODERATOR Posted - 13 October 2000 16:31
Those who you describe are considered, according to many poskim, like "tinikos shenishbu". This means they are not punished for their sins, since they did not know any better.
However, if someone who doesn't believe in G-d does Mitzvos, they do not count, since to them, they are not doing a Mitzvah but rather performing meaningless motions. It's like if someone let's say wants to buy a nice citrus fruit to eat and comes upon a pile of esrogim in the
AviahMorag Posted - 18 June 2001 20:41
There are a few terms of this debate that I think need to be clarified. First, a few facts:
- The term "non-religious" (and "Chiloni" is
- Though Reform does not believe in Mitzvot as something binding, the fact that they have places of worship, etc., make for a very different situation from the "non-religious".
- I really enjoy this message board because, despite my disagreement with various things, people here seem to really think. But we're in the minority, not just in our own community, but in the world. Do you think that people who say "you don't have to keep Mitzvot" have any idea what they're talking about? Or even that everyone who says "you DO have to keep Mitzvot" does? (Let's be fair.)
Not everyone who espouses apikorsut is an apikores - in fact, I would say that someone who "knowingly perverts the emet" is quite rare. When you speak of the "Reform", decide on what you mean. Are you referring to the "Reform movement" as an organization? Or to a particular Reform community that you are familiar with? Or to people who label themselves "Reform" in general?
MODERATOR Posted - 22 June 2001 19:26
aviah,
As Rav Chaim Brisker ZTL said, nebach an apikores is oich an apikores. Meaning, even if someone is an apikores out of lack of knowledge, they are still equally unentitled to the privileges of religious Jews. Olam Habah included. Because although you can’t be held responsible for what you don’t know about, you also can’t be rewarded for what you didn’t do. So nobody is going to punish those who don’t know better but they wont be rewarded either.
The maharitz chiyos writes regarding conservative that the simple people in their congregations are not responsible for believing what their rabbis taught them but the rabbis are responsible for misleading their congregants.
A person is responsible for whenever he should know better. There is a moral obligation and expectation to be objective and try to find the truth. If someone believes in a religion that makes no sense, and they are capable of seeing it makes no sense, then they are responsible if they do not.
ProudJew613 Posted - 06 August 2001 18:35
Is a reform considered to have to know what he should do in the world because he knows that he’s a Jew?
MODERATOR Posted - 06 August 2001 18:43
I once heard from Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach ZT"L that if a Jew (a) knows he is Jewish, and (b) can become religious, and (c) the government won’t persecute him if he is religious, then he is no longer a Tinok Shenishbah and is therefore responsible for his actions.
There is a big machlokes about this. Regarding Reform, the rabbis themselves are definitely responsible for their actions, since they know enough to realize their religion is not Judaism (See Kol Kisvei Maharitz Chiyos III:p.1003); whether an average reform Jew is responsible would be a machlokes.
Achiezer Posted - 07 October 2001 20:35
R' Yaakov Kaminetzky (as recorded in the Artscroll biography "Reb Yaakov") says the following:
"If one asks an average student which is worse--for a Jewish man to marry a gentile woman or to marry a Jewish woman who does not observe the laws of family purity--he will likely respond that the latter is worse since it involves the more serious punishment of kareis.
But in fact the former is a graver sin with consequences far beyond the personal tragedy of its perpetrator."
Does this not contradict your opinion?
MODERATOR Posted - 07 October 2001 21:59
Not at all. Why should it? What opinion of mine do you think this statement is relevant to?
Rav Yaakov was saying what we said here in the "Why do they only care about Tznius" forum -- that the damage an aveirah can do is not always proportionate to its severity.
Like talking to guys can do much more damage than other sins since it has long term effects, so too marrying a gentile has obviously terrible long term effects, not the least of which is all the guys' kids are going to be goyim, plus his chances of ever doing Teshuva are wildly reduced, plus the fact that he's living a totally non-Jewish lifestyle, likely celebrating Xmas and other idolatrous practices and he’s likely to go totally lost to the Jewish people forever.
So what's the chidush?
Achiezer Posted - 08 October 2001 1:19
Because he's saying that even though the sin with the more severe punishment (in our case, Reform) is technically worse, it’s still a graver sin to do something that will lower the chances of a later generation being frum (i.e. marrying a goy or being secular).
Whereas you said that even though there’s a greater chance of a Reform kid becoming frum than a secular kid, being Reform is still worse.
MODERATOR Posted - 08 October 2001 1:27
Marrying a goy does more to your children than "lowering the chances of them becoming frum." It makes them Goyim, when they could have been Jews. That means basically, it murders them. Plus, never mind the children - it means that you are going to live a Goyish lifestyle, or at least semi-Goyish. Celebrate Xmas maybe, etc. Rav Yaakov's statement is not surprising, but it has nothing to do with the issue of secular vs. Reform. It is secular Jew vs. a Goy - big difference.
Satmar_Wannabe Posted - 16 July 2003 22:32
I appreciate all the Moderator has written. A few comments and questions on a few specifics:
“..idolatry is one step above atheism."“
I recall R' Avigdor Miller, ZT'L saying that the Rambam says this. I would be grateful to anyone who can provide an exact citation.
Also, is it certain that this applies to Yidden as well as goyim? Someone (certainly no authority) once told me that for a Yid, idolatry is worse.
------
“However, if someone who doesn't believe in G-d does Mitzvos, they do not count, since to them, they are not doing a Mitzvah but rather performing meaningless motions.”
I understand, however:
1. Isn't it still a tremendous accomplishment for someone to get them to *refrain* from doing *aveiros*? For example, if someone can encourage them to minimize their chillul Shabbos- even for the wrong reasons, isn't each and every moment of reduced chillul Shabbos a precious accomplishment?
2. Even if the person will not be rewarded with fulfilling the mitzvos, can't there be value in:
a) the fact they may , over time, lead to increased observance (and with regards to avoiding and minimizing transgressions, even that alone can be beneficial, as per above) and even starting to believe.
b) If and when they do start believing, whatever mitzvos they observed before that will have served as training for them.
------------
“Regarding Reform, the rabbis themselves are definitely responsible for their actions, since they know enough to realize their religion is not Judaism (See Kol Kisvei Maharitz Chiyos III:p.1003);”
While that may very well have been true originally, can it really be said of the average Reform "Rabbi" of today? I would say that the average Reform "rabbi" of today was raised without any real chinuch and appreciation of Judaism and what being a Jew truly means and is pitifully ignorant of Judaism. The average Orthodox bar-mitzvah bochur is far more versed in Judaism and the most fundamental source texts than even the average *Conservative* "rabbi"!
MODERATOR Posted - 16 July 2003 22:47
“..idolatry is one step above atheism."“
It’s from the Gemora. An idol worshipper has the status of lo morodin vlo maalin - we don’t save him but we don’t cause his death. An apikores is moridin belo maalin.
The Gemroa in avodah zorah (I think its 17a -- maybe I'm a page off, but its on amud alef for sure) says that the ONLY aveirah, compared to which incest is considered "the smallest of the small" is apikorsus. That’s clear cut that apikorsus is the worst aveirah.
That applies to a yid as well.
“1. Isn't it still a tremendous accomplishment for someone to get them to *refrain* from doing *aveiros*? For example, if someone can encourage them to minimize their chillul Shabbos- even for the wrong reasons, isn't each and every moment of reduced chillul Shabbos a precious accomplishment?”
Yes, that is correct.
“2. Even if the person will not be rewarded with fulfilling the mitzvos, can't there be value in:
a) the fact they may , over time, lead to increased observance (and with regards to avoiding and minimizing transgressions, even that alone can be beneficial, as per above) and even starting to believe.”
If that is true, then the value is in continued education and affiliation, NOT the doing of the Mitzvah. The Mitzvah itself means nothing - it’s like blowing his nose. That accomplishes nothing. But if he comes every day to Yeshiva to blow his nose, maybe something good will happen. Those who put tefillin on atheists in a one-time event and say good by to him wasted their time; they accomplished nothing.
“b) If and when they do start believing, whatever mitzvos they observed before that will have served as training for them.”
No. Those Mitzvos are not Mitzvos. They do not train a person to believe in G-d, and if they did train a person to do the mitzvos, then they have the sand status as lets say a person put on leather straps with comic books in them, not tefillin. They don’t retroactively count at all. They may help as fake training tools, but they have no intrinsic value in the slightest.
“While that may very well have been true originally, can it really be said of the average Reform "Rabbi" of today? I would say that the average Reform "rabbi" of today was raised without any real chinuch and appreciation of Judaism and what being a Jew truly means and is pitifully ignorant of Judaism. The average Orthodox bar-mitzvah bochur is far more versed in Judaism and the most fundamental source texts than even the average *Conservative* "rabbi"!”
The reform rabbi today goes through training which, as twisted as it may be, gives him the opportunity to willingly reject real Judaism in favor of Reform, which makes him very responsible.
No comments:
Post a Comment