Religion and codependency

[Olivier]

So anyway, I was reading this thread: How to get to Heaven, which as per Shadow girl's request I'm not going to derail with theist/atheist debate. But two posts stuck out:

God doesn't send people to Hell. They send themselves there when the reject the truth and salvation.

It hurts God when people go there.

It hurts Him?

But He is supposedly all powerful. Why not just change the rules? Can't He snatch good people up from Hell? Does He have no power there? Or does he just not want to?

So one one hand we have God, who stands by and watches those he loves get hurt, and never lifts a finger....

and:

This diagram illustrates that God is holy and people are sinful. A great gulf separates us. The arrows illustrate that we are continually trying to reach God and the abundant life through our own efforts, such as a good life, philosophy, or religion -- but we inevitably fail.

and on the other hand we have people striving to please God but feeling inevitably unfulfilled.

Where else do we encounter such a pair of attitudes?

It's a classic case of psychological codependency.

What is codependency? What's the definition?

There are many definitions used to talk about codependency today. The original concept of codependency was developed to acknowledge the responses and behaviors people develop from living with an alcoholic or substance abuser. A number of attributes can be developed as a result of those conditions.

However, over the years, codependency has expanded into a definition which describes a dysfunctional pattern of living and problem solving developed during childhood by family rules.

One of many definitions of codependency is: a set of *maladaptive, *compulsive behaviors learned by family members in order to survive in a family which is experiencing *great emotional pain and stress.

*maladaptive - inability for a person to develop behaviors which get needs met.

*compulsive - psychological state where a person acts against their own will or conscious desires in which to behave.

*sources of great emotional pain and stress - chemical dependency; chronic mental illness; chronic physical illness; physical abuse; sexual abuse; emotional abuse; divorce; hypercritical or non-loving environment.

As adults, codependent people have a greater tendency to get involved in relationships with people who are perhaps unreliable, emotionally unavailable, or needy. And the codependent person tries to provide and control everything within the relationship without addressing their own needs or desires; setting themselves up for continued unfulfillment.

God fits that last part perfectly:

* unreliable (prayers are not always answered)

* emotionally unavailable (your relationship with God is all about what you feel, and just having faith that God loves you back)

* needy (He needs your love, or else He'll let you go to Hell)

and the marker of codependency: "continued unfulfillment", just like in Shadow girl's diagram.

Shadow girl has posted her (unattributed, but its from CCCI) quote and diagram before, with the warning that an abundant life is impossible without God. And that "impossible without" is the essence of codependency.

As I have pointed out to Shadow girl before, I consider myself to live a life of almost embarrassing abundance. I feel fulfilled, secure, and joyful every day. Without God. So it's clearly not impossible.

On the other hand, Shadow girl, for all her acceptance of Jesus as her saviour, seems to be restlessly searching for fulfillment through evangelism, utterly focussed on what others believe/do as a source of self-esteem.

Which really does seem unhealthily codependent.

Thoughts?

[Ceron]

Interesting take on God's relationship with people.

My problem with Christianity (and some other religions) lies with belief as the path to redemption. Belief is easy. We have people in this world that believe we haven't landed on the moon or that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If all God or another deity wanted was belief, he could just descend from the heavens, do a couple tricks, and have all the belief he wanted. Easy as that. Getting people to think critically, to question what they know, however, is a completely different story. I would certainly hope that if there was some kind of supernatural being, belief wasn't on the top of his list of criteria to achieve eternal happiness.

[hyenaboy]

God fits that last part perfectly:

* unreliable (prayers are not always answered)

* emotionally unavailable (your relationship with God is all about what you feel, and just having faith that God loves you back)

* needy (He needs your love, or else He'll let you go to Hell)

and the marker of codependency: "continued unfulfillment", just like in Shadow girl's diagram.

The Judeo-Christian God fits it. It's worth noting that it's possible to believe in God (or any such 'higher power') without being Jewish or Christian. (I don't know of many other organized theistic religions to comment on them, however, I'm specifically thinking of Deism as a religion that believes in a God doesn't fit this mold...)

Also, I agree with the above post by Ceron.

[jmerry]

I wouldn't call it universal across Christianity either; this is mostly about the evangelical church in the United States.

An anecdote from today:

There was a "street fair" nearby today, with several blocks of a major street closed to vehicles and lined with booths. Most of the space was of course devoted to selling things, with some spots for entertainment.

At one intersection, there were two men holding up signs; one had the message "Repent or Else".

Some distance away, on a side street, an atheist organization had a booth, featuring a donation jar, buttons, and several people open for conversation.

Which approach do you think works better? To my sensibilities, an offer of information and community, delivered in a generally pleasant way, is vastly more effective than threats and condemnation. I don't think that most evangelical Christians are very good at evangelism; that message of fear just doesn't work on anyone not already agreeing.

[Olivier]

I wouldn't call it universal across Christianity either; this is mostly about the evangelical church in the United States.

Yeah. I thought that at one point in my post I'd explicitly written "Evangelical Christian God" rather than just "God" but it seems I didn't :)

I don't think that most evangelical Christians are very good at evangelism; that message of fear just doesn't work on anyone not already agreeing.

I think that that's because most most Evangelicals don't see "Turn to Jesus or burn in Hell" as a message of fear. Seriously. They've turned to Jesus. They're sure they're saved, rapture ready, or whatever. So they have no more fear, and to them they're offering a way out of fear.

As you say, it only makes sense if you've already bought the product.

[SorryNotSorry]

The Albigensians, a heretical medieval Christian splinter sect in southern France, believed God would be good enough to forgive everyone when they died, so it didn't matter what sins they committed in life... to make a long story short, that sect was the origin of the English term "bugger". On a less blatant note, before the Unitarian and Universalist churches merged in 1961, some theologians remarked that Unitarians believed God was too good to damn anyone, while Universalists believed no one was evil enough to be damned.

After having read Marvin Harris, however, I've started to wonder: how did an insurgent rabbi who tried to organize a revolt against Roman rule, morph into a universal savior with supernatural powers???

[Sally]

The Judeo-Christian God fits it. It's worth noting that it's possible to believe in God (or any such 'higher power') without being Jewish or Christian.

Christianity and Judaism are very different religions. The two religions have completely different attitudes toward God and toward what are the responsibilities of human beings toward God and toward other human beings. You really can't conflate them. It's worth noting that Jews don't talk about the "Judeo-Christian God." Our concept of God has remained mostly the same for almost 5,000 years. It didn't change when Christianity arose.

Many, many other religions utilize the concept of a god or gods.

Shadowgirl proselytizes because that is what fundamentalist Christians are supposed to do. That is part of their particular brand of Christianity: you must do everything you can to "bring people to Jesus." It is inexorable, but it isn't codependent. It's simply a tenet of their religion.

Most other religions don't proselytize. Judaism doesn't; Hindus don't. When have you been proselytized by a Buddhist? When we're talking about Christianity, let's call it Christianity, not general religion.

[Olivier]

Shadowgirl proselytizes because that is what fundamentalist Christians are supposed to do. That is part of their particular brand of Christianity: you must do everything you can to "bring people to Jesus." It is inexorable, but it isn't codependent. It's simply a tenet of their religion.

Most other religions don't proselytize. Judaism doesn't; Hindus don't. When have you been proselytized by a Buddhist? When we're talking about Christianity, let's call it Christianity, not general religion.

It's not the proselytising that I think is codependent, it's more the principle of organising your life around the concept of external approval from someone who needs to be feared, and for whom no amount of good behaviour is ever enough, while putting your own needs second.

And are Hare Krishnas proselytising Hindus? They're not as pushy as Evangelicals, but they do try hard to spread their version of "the Word".

[Næt.]

Christianity and Judaism are very different religions. The two religions have completely different attitudes toward God and toward what are the responsibilities of human beings toward God and toward other human beings. You really can't conflate them. It's worth noting that Jews don't talk about the "Judeo-Christian God." Our concept of God has remained mostly the same for almost 5,000 years. It didn't change when Christianity arose.

Many, many other religions utilize the concept of a god or gods.

So, what are all these different views of God?

Most other religions don't proselytize. Judaism doesn't; Hindus don't. When have you been proselytized by a Buddhist? When we're talking about Christianity, let's call it Christianity, not general religion.

Early Buddhism was quite into proselytising. Today, however, not as much, as far as I'm aware; although I'm sure there are people who do.

[Guest (?)]

I've have absolutely no problem with people being of any faith

the only time I have problems with religion is when it stops being a personal faith and they try and force the religions views/teachings on others

[Sally]

So, what are all these different views of God?

All I can present is the Jewish view.

The Jewish view of God doesn't emphasize God's all-knowingness/omnipotence/constant presence in your everyday life. We don't pray to him for things, against things, for people, whatever; we simply praise him and acknowledge him as God. God was the original impetus for the creation of earth (impetus, not Creation 6,000 years ago) and the creator of Jews as a distinct group (through Abraham's conversion) and gave us a set of rules to live by, on this earth. He is our "father", but as with all fathers, sometimes the children argue, and we have and do. The Jewish view doesn't present God as expecting us to vow allegiance to a specific set of beliefs, except for monotheism, or demand belief in any sort of savior. The messiah mentioned by the Torah has not come yet, and that messiah issue is not prominent in Judaism -- precisely because we do not hold the concept of original sin, or the necessity for someone, mortal or god, to atone for our sins. We are completely, absolutely monotheistic -- no "savior" to pray to, no saints.

[hyenaboy]

The Judeo-Christian God fits it. It's worth noting that it's possible to believe in God (or any such 'higher power') without being Jewish or Christian.

Christianity and Judaism are very different religions. The two religions have completely different attitudes toward God and toward what are the responsibilities of human beings toward God and toward other human beings. You really can't conflate them. It's worth noting that Jews don't talk about the "Judeo-Christian God." Our concept of God has remained mostly the same for almost 5,000 years. It didn't change when Christianity arose.

I certainly don't consider them the same religion, however, both Christianity and Judaism use the Old Testament (and unless I'm misinformed, no other religion does). That's why I grouped them.

[Næt.]

I think bits of Islam also use bits of the Old Testament.

[Tikva]

The Judeo-Christian God fits it.

Please don't take this wrong, I'm not trying to, or mean to offend but, "Judeo-Christian God" is a Christian term, and ONLY a Christian term. "Judeo-Christian" is never used by Jews (except those trying to curry favour with Christians, and even they wouldn't go so far as to say the "Judeo-Christian God") and is, in fact, considered highly disturbing, insulting and uncomfortable to Jews. The term is a 100% oxymoron. "Judeo-Islamic God/Allah" would make sense as both are strictly monotheistic. "Judeo-Christian God" makes ZERO sense.

The central tenet of Judaism is the 'Sh'ma': G-d is ONE. (There is no other).

The central tenet of Islam is: Allah does not beget nor is He begotten.

In Judaism the Adam and Eve story is an allegory. Mythology. There is NO concept of 'Original Sin'. NO 'Fallen Angel'/Lucifer/Devil. NO Hell. No need to be 'saved'. No need for proselytizing. No definition of an 'afterlife' (most Jews believe that when you die that's it. You're just dead. Full stop). Of those Jews who believe there is some kind of Heaven or Paradise, everyone goes there. Some Jews believe in reincarnation.

No such thing as "Judeo-Christian".....in any context.

The Judeo-Christian God fits it. It's worth noting that it's possible to believe in God (or any such 'higher power') without being Jewish or Christian.

Christianity and Judaism are very different religions. The two religions have completely different attitudes toward God and toward what are the responsibilities of human beings toward God and toward other human beings. You really can't conflate them. It's worth noting that Jews don't talk about the "Judeo-Christian God." Our concept of God has remained mostly the same for almost 5,000 years. It didn't change when Christianity arose.

I certainly don't consider them the same religion, however, both Christianity and Judaism use the Old Testament (and unless I'm misinformed, no other religion does). That's why I grouped them.

Judaism does NOT use the "Old Testament". Judaism uses the Tanakh. Christianity took the Tanakh, mistranslated and changed everything to fit Christian beliefs, renamed it the "Old Testament" and glued it to front of the Christian Bible ONLY because the Christian Bible would make even less sense without the (extremely corrupted ) version of the Tanakh used in the Christian Bible.

And Fish is right. Islam uses concepts from both the Tanakh and the Christian Bible.

[Sally]

Just an addition, although both Tikva and I (who seem to be the semi-official AVEN Jews) have said this elsewhere: The Tanakh is made up of the Torah (T, Genesis through Deuteronomy), the Neviim (N, for prophets), and the Ketubim (K, for other writings). All that smooshed together was the original Tanakh, and remains so for Jews. That's the book that the Christians misnamed the "Old Testament." Since the Christian book is the New Testament, it was intended to be somewhat of a slap at Judaism: the OT is what we came from, but here's the NT, which is really what we follow now. That's understandably a little less than considerate treatment of another religion's holy book.

[hyenaboy]

Alright, I apologize for my ignorance. (I'm an ex-Christian, so most of my education concerning other religions is in comparison to Christianity. That's not an excuse for ignorance, of course, just the reason for it.)

I still don't believe in God within the context of either religion. Personally, I think they're both flawed ideas of a supreme being.

[Sally]

I still don't believe in God within the context of either religion. Personally, I think they're both flawed ideas of a supreme being.

I support you completely in any belief or non-belief you hold. Every human being has a right to their own mind. I think everything's a flawed idea, frankly! :lol: I just go with the one that appears best to me, as should everyone.

[Shadow girl]

On the other hand, Shadow girl, for all her acceptance of Jesus as her saviour, seems to be restlessly searching for fulfillment through evangelism, utterly focussed on what others believe/do as a source of self-esteem.

Which really does seem unhealthily codependent.

Thoughts?

Actually no I don't take it as a need for fulfillment. I do it because I want you to hear if from someone with that kind of relationship. Plus it says in the Bible that I should share it with others.

I don't care what people think of me if that's what you think. You should really ask me first but I'm telling now. I'm having a great life thanks to God. Yeah it has difficulties but the object is to never give up.

Also you forgot this part of the diagram.

[Tikva]

Shadowgirl proselytizes because that is what fundamentalist Christians are supposed to do. That is part of their particular brand of Christianity: you must do everything you can to "bring people to Jesus." It is inexorable, but it isn't codependent. It's simply a tenet of their religion.

Most other religions don't proselytize. Judaism doesn't; Hindus don't. When have you been proselytized by a Buddhist? When we're talking about Christianity, let's call it Christianity, not general religion.

It's not the proselytising that I think is codependent, it's more the principle of organising your life around the concept of external approval from someone who needs to be feared, and for whom no amount of good behaviour is ever enough, while putting your own needs second.

I think the problem is using the word "Religion" in the thread title. Some religions very obviously fit the definition of codependent, such as the previously mentioned fundamentalists. But there are other religions that don't fit the definition. Religions not based on fear, external approval, putting ones own needs second, etc. do exist.

That being said, I don't know how to word the title differently....

I still don't believe in God within the context of either religion. Personally, I think they're both flawed ideas of a supreme being.

I think it's interesting to read about the ancient mythologies that most modern ideas of a supreme being came from, how those primitive concepts morphed into their present forms.

It's also interesting to speculate about how geography and climate influenced religions. Using Christianity and Judaism as examples, they both have two broad splits. In Christianity it's Catholic and Protestant. In Judaism it's Ashkenazi and Sephardi. (I realise that's very simplified and I'm not meaning to disregard Orthodoxy {Christianity} or Mizrahi {Judaism}, okay, moving on...)

I'm Sephardi and always just took it for granted that we were from the Meditteranean areas (Spain, Turkey, Levant) whereas the Ashkenazim (Yiddish) were from north of the Alps, Eastern Europe, Germany, etc. Sephardi=warmer climes, Ashkenazi=colder ones. Ashkenzim tended to stay separated from the "world" and kept to their own tight knit groups. Sephardim tended to mingle with their neighbors while maintaining their separate identity. Just last week someone pointed out to me that Protestant Christianity never took hold in the Meditteranean areas, just like Ashkenazi Judaism never did either. They both flourished in the more northern, colder areas, and both have a more rigid interpretation of their (respective) holy books.

I thought that was interesting...although I forgot where I was going with that......

[oneofthesun]

And are Hare Krishnas proselytising Hindus?

No they're not. They are a separate cult. Technically to be Hindu you have to be born Hindu. So no, it's not a proselytizing religion.

[inter\m/ent]

And are Hare Krishnas proselytising Hindus?

No they're not. They are a separate cult. Technically to be Hindu you have to be born Hindu. So no, it's not a proselytizing religion.

I like that, I've always viewed Hinduism as a bunch of cults that have similarities in beliefs and practices. While deities are representations of different virtues, some hindus still conceptualise them as real deities. There are also the very distinct tribal and philosophical aspects and schools of thought which have different gurus, and trends tend to differ with geographic origin. But Hare Krishnas are a non-hindu cult (Wikipedia says I'm wrong but HKs probably keep editing that article) who believe in a hippie interpretation of the Christian bible and have very different beliefs to all hindus I've met or read. I do not know of any other Hindus who are proselytizing but one isn't born hindu, whoever wants to join a school of thought, an ashram/congregation or call themself hindu may well do so if they fit the description. People who were not born into it may well know more about the religion than people who were.

Back to the topic: I thought every reasonable theist these days thought of god as something than which nothing greater can exist rather than someone ... If one has to go with the Christian reasoning some questions come to mind: does god get a kick out of being worshipped? Can that be morally right? and something George Carlin said, can God make a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it? If so is he still all-powerful?

[Sally]

Ashkenzim tended to stay separated from the "world" and kept to their own tight knit groups. Sephardim tended to mingle with their neighbors while maintaining their separate identity.

But the Sephardim, whether living in Spain (when they could) or Italy and the Ottoman territories (when they couldn't live in Spain) were living among peoples who didn't always directly threaten them. The Ashkenazi generally were -- in ghettos, in shtetls, in Galicia which was constantly being tossed back and forth between Austria, Germany, Poland, and Russa, and Germany which for a great period of time ghettoized the Jews. Hassidism grew up as an internalized defense against the outer world and is quite different from Reform Judaism, whereas the Sephardim in Seattle pretty much practice the same Judaism that was practiced in Spain.

Sorry for the internal specialized discussion, AVENites. But maybe this does bear on the codependency issue (in some way I can't quite identify at the moment )

[rlib]

Judaism does NOT use the "Old Testament". Judaism uses the Tanakh. Christianity took the Tanakh, mistranslated and changed everything to fit Christian beliefs, renamed it the "Old Testament" and glued it to front of the Christian Bible ONLY because the Christian Bible would make even less sense without the (extremely corrupted ) version of the Tanakh used in the Christian Bible.

I know that the order of the books is different, and that there are differences in interpretation, but I don't think all Christian translations of the OT can be labeled "extremely corrupted". For one thing, there are dozens of translations of the Christian bible, and new ones are published every few years by people who study the Hebrew and Greek originals in order to produce clearer and more accurate translations.

Secondly, I've read parts of the תנך in Hebrew, parts in English translation (by Jewish translators), and parts in English in Christian translations, and apart from the ordering of the books I didn't notice any major discrepancies.

It's also interesting to speculate about how geography and climate influenced religions. Using Christianity and Judaism as examples, they both have two broad splits. In Christianity it's Catholic and Protestant. In Judaism it's Ashkenazi and Sephardi. (I realise that's very simplified and I'm not meaning to disregard Orthodoxy {Christianity} or Mizrahi {Judaism}, okay, moving on...)

I'm not sure about that. Catholic and Protestant are religious splits, while Ashkenazi and Sephardi are ethnic splits. I think you can compare different denominations (catholic and protestant vs orthodox and reform) or ethnic groups (Polish and Spanish vs Ashkenazi and Sephardi), but the cross comparison doesn't make much sense to me.

Polish Catholics and Spanish Catholics are different ethnic groups, with different customs, living in different climates, but practice basically the same religion. The same is true of orthodox Ashkenazim and Sephardim.

[AVENCakes]

I don't kno wanything about the bible- I tried reading and only got a few pages in. I'm not going to claim to be an expert at this. But it can be used for that- anything cna be used for that. People can be religious and fully self-reliant, no matter how devout, or they can use their religion as an excuse to not have to think or take responsibility ofr their lives. The fact that some religions can prey on the latter isn't that great- a good anything (in my eyes) should help teach you how to become the former, how to think for yourself and all that- but then you don't mindlessly follow what the leader says, so I guess some people don't like that.

And, like I said, this isn't at any one religion or organization- any group with any goals can prey on the weak and easily manipulated- any group with any goals can also take those people and try to help them grow and be more sure of themselves.

[Tikva]

Ashkenzim tended to stay separated from the "world" and kept to their own tight knit groups. Sephardim tended to mingle with their neighbors while maintaining their separate identity.

But the Sephardim, whether living in Spain (when they could) or Italy and the Ottoman territories (when they couldn't live in Spain) were living among peoples who didn't always directly threaten them. The Ashkenazi generally were -- in ghettos, in shtetls, in Galicia which was constantly being tossed back and forth between Austria, Germany, Poland, and Russa, and Germany which for a great period of time ghettoized the Jews. Hassidism grew up as an internalized defense against the outer world and is quite different from Reform Judaism, whereas the Sephardim in Seattle pretty much practice the same Judaism that was practiced in Spain.

Yes, you're right, and I should have clarified my statement. The Ashkenazim were definitely among very hostile neighbors and had to remain apart from them out of a desperate attempt for survival. The Sephardim generally lived among neighbors who were non-threatening and they therefore had more freedom to mingle.

Judaism does NOT use the "Old Testament". Judaism uses the Tanakh. Christianity took the Tanakh, mistranslated and changed everything to fit Christian beliefs, renamed it the "Old Testament" and glued it to front of the Christian Bible ONLY because the Christian Bible would make even less sense without the (extremely corrupted ) version of the Tanakh used in the Christian Bible.

I know that the order of the books is different, and that there are differences in interpretation, but I don't think all Christian translations of the OT can be labeled "extremely corrupted". For one thing, there are dozens of translations of the Christian bible, and new ones are published every few years by people who study the Hebrew and Greek originals in order to produce clearer and more accurate translations.

Secondly, I've read parts of the תנך in Hebrew, parts in English translation (by Jewish translators), and parts in English in Christian translations, and apart from the ordering of the books I didn't notice any major discrepancies.

I stand by my statement regarding the "extremely corrupted" version known as the "Old Testament". The newer translations you speak of are very recent---latter half of the 20th cent. Prior to that the KJV was used for Protestants, and the Latin versions for Catholics. Both were corrupted to fit Christian theology. Even though many of the mistranslations have recently been corrected (but not all), the mistranslations are still firmly part of Christian beliefs. E.g. the non-existant 'Virgin Birth' prophesy in Isaiah, JC 'prophesy(s)' in Tehillim, the total misinterpretation of the four songs in Yeshayahu, etc., etc., etc.

It's also interesting to speculate about how geography and climate influenced religions. Using Christianity and Judaism as examples, they both have two broad splits. In Christianity it's Catholic and Protestant. In Judaism it's Ashkenazi and Sephardi. (I realise that's very simplified and I'm not meaning to disregard Orthodoxy {Christianity} or Mizrahi {Judaism}, okay, moving on...)

I'm not sure about that. Catholic and Protestant are religious splits, while Ashkenazi and Sephardi are ethnic splits.

Ashkenazi and Sephardi are also religious splits.

Sephardim do NOT have 'Orthodox', 'Conservative', 'Reform', 'Reconstructionist', 'Renewal' like the Ashkenazim do. Our Siddur is different than the Ashkenazim as well as our nusach, and halakhah. Hence, religious split. Minhag, food, music, language, history etc., goes without saying...hence, ethnic split.

I think you can compare different denominations (catholic and protestant vs orthodox and reform) or ethnic groups (Polish and Spanish vs Ashkenazi and Sephardi), but the cross comparison doesn't make much sense to me.

That doesn't make sense to me either. Sephardim don't have different denomination---Ashkenazim do. So comparing Orthodox and Reform is comparing Ashkenazi to Ashkenazi and has nothing to do with Sephardim at all.

Polish Catholics and Spanish Catholics are different ethnic groups, with different customs, living in different climates, but practice basically the same religion. The same is true of orthodox Ashkenazim and Sephardim.

While it's true that Ashkenazim and Sephardim are different ethnic groups, with different customs, it is not true that Orthodox Ashkenazim and "Orthodox" Sephardim are the same, other than the fact that we're both Jewish. Sephardim don't use the term "Orthodox" since we are not split into denominations. The Ashkenazim put that label on us. To us, using the word 'Orthodox' doesn't make sense when applied to our liturgy/nusach. The Ashkenazim have put all kinds of labels and definitions on us, such as referring to all non-Ashkenazim as "Sephardi" without regard to the fact that, for example, Mizrahim are NOT Sephardi--they are from Arab counties and Iran and have no Iberian history. There are many Sephardi groups working very hard to correct this Ashkenazi misinformation which is so prevalently accepted as "truth". Sephardim will grudgingly go along with Ashkenazi labels--to a point--just to be acepted. But at the Esnoga (or Kal) it is quite a different situation....

[rlib]

Judaism does NOT use the "Old Testament". Judaism uses the Tanakh. Christianity took the Tanakh, mistranslated and changed everything to fit Christian beliefs, renamed it the "Old Testament" and glued it to front of the Christian Bible ONLY because the Christian Bible would make even less sense without the (extremely corrupted ) version of the Tanakh used in the Christian Bible.

I know that the order of the books is different, and that there are differences in interpretation, but I don't think all Christian translations of the OT can be labeled "extremely corrupted". For one thing, there are dozens of translations of the Christian bible, and new ones are published every few years by people who study the Hebrew and Greek originals in order to produce clearer and more accurate translations.

Secondly, I've read parts of the תנך in Hebrew, parts in English translation (by Jewish translators), and parts in English in Christian translations, and apart from the ordering of the books I didn't notice any major discrepancies.

I stand by my statement regarding the "extremely corrupted" version known as the "Old Testament". The newer translations you speak of are very recent---latter half of the 20th cent.

I'm not sure that 50 years really qualifies as recent :)

Prior to that the KJV was used for Protestants, and the Latin versions for Catholics. Both were corrupted to fit Christian theology. Even though many of the mistranslations have recently been corrected (but not all), the mistranslations are still firmly part of Christian beliefs. E.g. the non-existant 'Virgin Birth' prophesy in Isaiah, JC 'prophesy(s)' in Tehillim, the total misinterpretation of the four songs in Yeshayahu, etc., etc., etc.

According to Wikipedia, the word 'young woman' got turned into 'virgin' in the Septuagint - which was a translation of the Tanakh into Greek by Jewish scholars, which was later used by Christian translators. So I think we have to share some of the blame on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Birth#Old_Testament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Cr..._the_Septuagint

It's also interesting to speculate about how geography and climate influenced religions. Using Christianity and Judaism as examples, they both have two broad splits. In Christianity it's Catholic and Protestant. In Judaism it's Ashkenazi and Sephardi. (I realise that's very simplified and I'm not meaning to disregard Orthodoxy {Christianity} or Mizrahi {Judaism}, okay, moving on...)

I'm not sure about that. Catholic and Protestant are religious splits, while Ashkenazi and Sephardi are ethnic splits.

Ashkenazi and Sephardi are also religious splits.

Sephardim do NOT have 'Orthodox', 'Conservative', 'Reform', 'Reconstructionist', 'Renewal' like the Ashkenazim do. Our Siddur is different than the Ashkenazim as well as our nusach, and halakhah. Hence, religious split. Minhag, food, music, language, history etc., goes without saying...hence, ethnic split.

You'll have to pardon my ignorance. I once met a guy at a reform shul who said he was Sephardi, had a Spanish passport and could speak both Spanish and Ladino. So I got the impression that there were reform Sephardis. Maybe he converted, or was only half Sephardi?

The Ashkenazim have put all kinds of labels and definitions on us, such as referring to all non-Ashkenazim as "Sephardi" without regard to the fact that, for example, Mizrahim are NOT Sephardi--they are from Arab counties and Iran and have no Iberian history.

But many of them seem to use the Sephardi nusach. According to Wikipedia, after the invention of printing, most siddurim were printed in Italy and were available in only two versions, Ashkenazi and Sephardi, so many Mizrakhi Jews simply adopted the Sephardi siddurim which were closer to theirs. I suppose you could say this was their first taste of European cultural imperialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardic_Jud...#Post-expulsion

In a process lasting from the sixteenth through the nineteenth century, the native Jewish communities of most Arab and Ottoman countries adapted their pre-existing liturgies, many of which already had a family resemblance with the Sephardic, to follow the Spanish rite in as many respects as possible. Some reasons for this are:

1. The Spanish exiles were regarded as an elite and supplied many of the Chief Rabbis to the countries in which they settled, so that the Spanish rite tended to be favoured over any previous native rite;

2. The invention of printing meant that Siddurim were printed in bulk, usually in Italy, so that a congregation wanting books generally had to opt for a standard "Sephardi" or "Ashkenazi" text: this led to the obsolescence of many historic local rites, such as the Provençal rite;

3. R. Joseph Caro's Shulִhan Aruch presupposes a "Castilian rite" at every point, so that that version of the Spanish rite had the prestige of being "according to the opinion of Maran";

4. The Hakham Bashi of Constantinople was the constitutional head of all the Jews of the Ottoman Empire, further encouraging uniformity. The North Africans in particular were influenced by Greek and Turkish models of Jewish practice and cultural behaviour: for this reason many of them to this day pray according to a rite known as "minhag Hida" (the custom of Chaim Joseph David Azulai).

5. The influence of Isaac Luria's Kabbalah, see the next section.

So ethnically there are many groups, but liturgically, it seems most fall into either Ashkenazi or Sephardi. To quote the wiki article linked above, "Sephardic Judaism is the practice of Judaism as observed by the Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews".

But even the Sephardi vs orthodox Ashkenazi split is very minor compared to the split between Ashkenazi orthodox and reform.

They both flourished in the more northern, colder areas, and both have a more rigid interpretation of their (respective) holy books.

I don't think that's true in general. The Pope seems to frequently visit Africa for the sole purpose of telling the Catholics there that if they use condoms they'll go to hell. Even in countries where 20% of the population has HIV (like our neighbours Swaziland, Lesotho, Botswana...) Even if someone is married to an AIDS sufferer. After one such visit I saw the wife of an AIDS sufferer in an East African country interviewed on TV, saying that now she knew not to use condoms so she wouldn't go to hell. She's probably dead or dying of AIDS by now. And yet you say that Catholicism is less rigid?

I have nothing against Catholics but I think the Pope is making an incredibly huge mistake.