Why doesn't Judaism want converts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Historically Judaism has always been ethnocentric. It is a fairly recent phenomenon for them to take converts.
 
Kaninchen said:
just keep to the Noahide Covenant and, from a Jewish perspective, you should be OK.
Click to expand...
It is tricky because is it not true that there are rabbis who say that Christianity is idolatrous? And what about Hinduism. The Noahide Laws require that you avoid idolatry.
 
@AlNg:

From Religion News Service: “Orthodox Rabbinic Statement on Christianity”
"We understand that there is room in traditional Judaism to see Christianity as part of God’s covenantal plan for humanity, as a development out of Judaism that was willed by God,” said Rabbi Irving Greenberg.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
It is tricky because is it not true that there are rabbis who say that Christianity is idolatrous?
Click to expand...
To my “Judaism is more about doing/not doing,” I should also have added that Judaism is also a “on the one hand, meanwhile on the other hand, however on quite another hand altogether” religion - in other words, there’s an argument to be had about everything/anything.

From my experience, I’d say that Christianity isn’t but some Christians seem to teeter on the brink - for example, my background includes ‘Italy’ and the relationship of some to all that Baroque/Rococo imagery . . . .

On the other hand, superstition, over-veneration of certain people and magical-thinking exists throughout human experience - Christians are certainly not unique in that, it’s part of all our histories.

Meanwhile, perhaps the idol most worshipped is derived from our common tendency to self-righteousness?
 
AlNg said:
True, but Maimonides is highly respected and you know what he wrote about it.
Click to expand...
The complexities of the Christian belief in the Trinity are quite beyond me, I tend to go with the idea that believing in it would be idolatry for me but not for a Christian.
 
Actually, while rare and discouraged, converts are still allowed in most forms of Judaism. If someone is serious about becoming a Jew and goes through all the step then he’ll be considered adopted into that nation, literally taking the surname “ben Abraham”.
 
Some people convert for the weddings, Protestant ceremonies are too bland, let alone secular humanist ones.

Maybe the Church could have a “trial period” before someone is allowed to baptise. I know it sounds business-like.
 
Dan_Defender said:
Historically Judaism has always been ethnocentric. It is a fairly recent phenomenon for them to take converts.
Click to expand...
They were doing it in Jesus’ day, and they were serious about it. Jesus spoke of them “traversing land and sea to make one proselyte.” And Nicholas, one of the seven first deacons, was a convert to Judaism, a “proselyte from Antioch”.

D
 
BlueKumul said:
Maybe the Church could have a “trial period” before someone is allowed to baptise. I know it sounds business-like.
Click to expand...
But don’t we already have that, in the form of RCIA and the scrutinies?
Tis_Bearself said:
40.png
DeniseNY:
Or want to change things/wonder why things aren’t done in a way in which they are accustomed.
Click to expand...
Yes. “I’ve been in the Church for 3 months and I have all these great ideas about how we could change it to be more like the church I just left/ or more like my fantasy ideal of what a church should be…but no one will listen to me. Catholic people are so cold and unfriendly and not open to new ideas.”
Click to expand...
True, but I also don’t think it can be denied, that “newcomers” — in any enterprise (and I hate to refer to the Church as an “enterprise”) — can bring a fresh perspective, “thinking outside the box”, and can see flaws and shortcomings that are not seen by people who have never known what it’s like to be anywhere other than that enterprise. You see this everywhere in monocultures where everybody does a certain thing a certain way “because we’ve always done it like that”, regardless of whether it’s inefficient, nonsensical, or what have you. I’m reminded of Tevye the fiddler’s spoken-word poem about "tradition!"

I ran into the gentile version of this a lot in Poland — “we do X this way because we’ve always done X this way, we really don’t know why, we’ve never given it any thought, and we’re just a little taken aback that you would question it”.

 
Well, there are ways for “newcomers” to present their ideas in order to be persuasive, such as by first getting well established in the new organization, making contacts, building up some support, and then maybe starting a new initiative with other people who have been there longer. Which is far different from joining, then almost immediately complaining because things aren’t the way you want, then pouting because people didn’t react positively to your complaining.

Also, not all new or “think outside the box” ideas are automatically good ones.
 
Some Rabbi’s, especially Orthodox, actually see see conversion as a possible disservice to the individual converting to Judaism. That’s why they want to make certain the person knows exactly what they are accepting, and may be discouraging.

By converting to Judaism (in the Orthodox view), one would be bound to all 613 mitzvot or commandments…which isn’t easy, if not burdensome.
By not converting and accepting the Noahide laws, one is only bound to 7…which is much more attainable.
In other words, conversion may be discouraged because as a Jew God expects more of you, when you you don’t really need to do that.
 
DaveBj said:
They were doing it in Jesus’ day, and they were serious about it. Jesus spoke of them “traversing land and sea to make one proselyte.” And Nicholas, one of the seven first deacons, was a convert to Judaism, a “proselyte from Antioch”.
Click to expand...
It goes back at least 400 years before Christ…at least. The Book of Ruth in the Bible is about Ruth’s conversion. In fact there are many parallels to Ruth’s conversion process and the modern conversion processes.
 
I’ve never heard of a Rabbi stating that Jews should only be born into the religion but I can imagine a few who do! Typically, the tradition is if someone is seeking to convert, they need to be denied three times to assure they are serious and willing to follow the laws.

Ancient Judaism has accepted converts. What changed was all the persecutions of the Middle Ages when being Jewish could also be a death sentence. Since the modern era and better acceptance of Judaism, the persecution complex has eased but it is still a life changing event.

For example, following kosher law…it’s easy for those who’ve never known anything different but to an outsider, it changes everything about food…what you’re allowed to eat, the dishes you use for various foods, the cuts of meat that are allowed, what you do if you accidentally cut the butter with a meat knife…it’s just not a familiar way of eating for the convert.

The ideas of salvation are quite different as well. The Jews were given the law to set them apart as a different people. They are to be a light unto the world but you aren’t required to be Jewish to be a part of the world to come…so, why bother unless you greatly desire to live under the law?
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Well, there are ways for “newcomers” to present their ideas in order to be persuasive, such as by first getting well established in the new organization, making contacts, building up some support, and then maybe starting a new initiative with other people who have been there longer. Which is far different from joining, then almost immediately complaining because things aren’t the way you want, then pouting because people didn’t react positively to your complaining.

Also, not all new or “think outside the box” ideas are automatically good ones.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say they were. Nor are they automatically bad ideas.

The line of argument in this thread is a case in point. @Babochka makes an excellent case for making reception into the Church, whether as an infant or as an adult, into a “trifecta” of baptism, confirmation, and first communion. This might be a case of “the East had this right all along, let’s make their practice universal for the whole Church, East and West, when you stop and think about it, their practice is better than ours”.
40.png
Being Confirmed in a State of Mortal Sin Liturgy and Sacraments
I’ve often thought about this and heard Confirmation described as a sacrament in search of a theology. Doesn’t the entire existence of the sacrament of Confirmation kind of say that anyway? Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace, to increase (boost?) the gifts of the Holy Spirit, to more perfectly bind an individual to the Church. Why aren’t these things accomplished in just one sacrament? And if that “boost” is needed, why go around with an incomplete baptism for yea…
Click to expand...
 
I don’t think it’s a bad idea to try to be certain as to the motivations behind someone wanting to convert. I kind of feel the same when I see/hear Latin Rite Catholics complaining and they think Eastern Catholicism is their answer… then they are upset with the way we do things (infant communion, etc…)
 
Babochka isn’t new to Catholicism. East v. West is not a case of new converts (usually from Protestantism) wanting to change everything minutes after they’ve joined. It’s more a question of people being open to the theology and traditions of both lungs of the Church rather than the one lung they were raised or catechized in.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top