Debate between SIMSHALOM and those who want to class Jewish mysticism and even Judaism as part of "MYTHOLOGY"
On Wikipedia:
 
(Please read  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License  if you use this material. Thank you.)

Category:Jewish mythology

Simshalom says:
"Category:Jewish mythology" seeks to arbitrarily decide that Jewish beliefs and much that Judaism holds dear, such as belief in God falls under "Jewish mythology". This is most offensive and an insult to Judaism. "Jewish mythology" may be a legitimate subject for separate DISCUSSION and there are views on it, but it cannot be the chief heading for subjects and texts related to Judaism. IZAK 03:49, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wetman says:
It's not the whole category that should be deleted, just the offensive remarks. Would you delete Christian mythology? or Greek mythology? Wetman 03:52, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
If it's the "main heading" under which all "Jewish beliefs" in Judaism would fall then yes it should be deleted as it would be a false claim. Greek mythology is well known as it's "belief" system was based on it. I am not sure about Christianity, don't they believe in the truth of the Bible? As for Judaism, its inner-workings are not based on "myths" , but rather on the laws of the Torah (Bible) and Jewish Law Halakha, unless you say that the Bible is a "myth" and in that case you are being contentious. Would one also talk about "Athiest mythology" or "Secular mythology" or "Scientific mythology" such as "evolution" or that there is "life in outer space" and on and on...so why subject Judaism to something so alien to its nature??? IZAK 04:31, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Uther says:
No one is saying that the Torah is a myth. However, it contains both myths (stories to explain the mysteries of the universe, such as its creation) and laws (rules describing how to be a member of the tribe). These are not incompatible items; all religions are composed of such collections, whether they are collected in written form (Judaism being the first major religion of this type) or collected in oral form. - UtherSRG 12:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
You seem to miss the point that the word "myths" also strongly implies "NOT TRUE" as in "Fairy Tales", whereas "mystical" implies something on the level of extremely "secret" and "incomprehensible" allowing room for it to be as true and real as the "laws" which are not "rules" for "membership", but are rather manifestations of a bond or "covenant" between the ones who observes the laws and the One who commanded theme, which makes it part of Judaism. There is thus a need to be careful of understanding how the Jewish faith itself has always perceived these matters rather than falling victim to a categorization process that may be true for other genuine myths, such as the polytheistic Greek and Roman ones, in contradistinction to the monotheistic Jewish ones. Quite a difference. And it would be unfair to fuzz the picture. IZAK 09:01, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Uther says:
You seem to be missing the point, so I'll be more explicit. I'd be equally supportive of Category:Christian mythology for the parts of the religion which fit the definition of mythology - stories to explain the mysteries of the universe. No matter how much anyone believes them to be true, that the creation stories in the Torah are mythological; they are parables; they are poetic license. This doesn't remove any power that those stories have. Creation in six days and then a day of rest? Great story which comes as pre-emphasis of the law later on in the Torah. The law is the law. The story is mythology. - UtherSRG 15:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Rephrasing: The law is what you must do in the religion. The stories underlying the law are the mythology. - UtherSRG 15:50, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Wrong! This is not about "equal opportunity intellectual distortion/s". It's more straightforward than that. The "stories" are not the mythology at all, they are true facts, how can you argue with a Torah text accepted for thousands of years by billions of people? A few secular intellectuals' poor arguments is not sufficient to class Abraham, Moses (and even ol' Pharaoh) et al "into the Nile" of "mythology" just because they don't grasp the notions. You ask jokingly: "Creation in six days and then a day of rest?", and the answer is YES, not just Jews but most Christians and Moslems accept that too, ever heard of the the Sabbath days of Jews, Christians, and Moslems? That makes about four BILLION people...not bad for a book of "fables"...and how many people really believe the scientific myths that people evolved from amoebas and apes?: Did you or anyone else witness that? All the poor scientists can do is go digging for some old rotten bones in some miserable desert to dig up little itty-bitty shards of dog bones and say looky here, we got us an "ape-man"...if you go with that, and think that that is NOT evolutionary mythmaking in action as seen right now, then I'll just be happy to smile and tell you: Silly boy! There are no people coming out of monkeys, they come out of ladies wombs... So please, leave the theology to the theologians. IZAK 18:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Uther says:
Again, I'm not saying the stories aren't true. They are obvious true for you and many other people. Just as the ancient Greeks and Romans and Egyptians, and modern Christians and Muslims have stories they they know for absolutely certain that they are true, so too do Jews have stories they know for certain are absolutley true. Perhaps you are just arguing my semantics, and don't like "stories". My apologies if that's all it is. Mythology, by definition, is that part of religion that is the explanation of the mysteries of the universe. It's not the entirety of the religion, but it is a central part of all religions. Another part of religion are those acts that are required, allowed, or prohibited. These are generally called laws by the religion. The laws and the mythology combined make up (at least in part) of the beliefs - a person believes they must do/not do/may do certain acts, because of the explanation of the mysteries of the universe underlying the religion. (And by the way, I'm a Jew.) And let's not lower ourselves to name calling ("Silly boy") ok? - UtherSRG 18:28, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) Furthermore (again), your same diatribe can be said of any religion - how can you not believe in the Greek Gods? Countless Greeks believed in them for ages and ages!. Was it more people/longer time than those who've believed in the words of the Torah? I don't know, and neither do you, so your numerical argument is not valid. the number of belivers/amount of time vested in the religion is a logical fallacy. - UtherSRG 18:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Hi again SRG:The ancient Greeks and their beliefs are long dead, so what they said is a moot point really. The question at hand is about correct definitions about Judaism. Again, Judaism cannot be defined as starting with "myths" or "mythology" as those two words, whilst they may seem innocuous to you and some others, are actually interpreted by most people in the common sense of "fairy tales" such as stories about "Snow White & the 7 dwarfs" or "Peter Pan and Wendy" and to use this type of "axiom" as a starting point for a category such as Judaism is just plain downright silly! Judaism can only be defined, and correctly described and explained by FIRSTLY using its own classes of very abundant definitions available through its texts and teachings which are not restricted. Only after one has made that presentation and categorization ONLY then can one SPECULATE and insert one's own academic viewpoints and prejudices and say, for example, "well, as a secular or athiestic or whatever type of person I am, this is how I 'think' or 'imagine' or 'hypothesize' this subject is about". But to do the reverse, by first imposing one's (incorrect) assumptions about what the beginnings of Judaism are about would be to create a false set of axioms which would not be fair to the genuinely curious non-judgmental observer. So it is very logical and rational to say that this is what Judaism ITSELF believes and these are the categories and names Judaism itself uses to define itself, and for over 3,500 years the Torah and its ancilary texts have not fitted into what one calls "mythology". As you say, it may be semantics. But the accurate semantic for "mythology" in Judaism is called mysticism (roughly, Kabbalah) Sadly, there are those (many are Anti-Semitic or anti-religious too) who want to place the actual Torah text/s itself or anything to do with the Bible as being mere "mythology", but that is only a reflection of their own intellectaul short-sightedness and prejudices and in no way does it tell you what the Torah and Bible are actually all about. By the way, I am not trying to be personal, this is only a mature discussion on an important topic. Thanks. IZAK 09:16, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Person says:
There are no articles in Category:Jewish mythology, so I'm not sure what the problem is. You don't seem to be arguing for deleting the category, but for keeping it distinct from Jewish religious beliefs, which appear to be currently at Category:Judaism. Thus, things are currently the way you apparently want them to be. I'll add Golem to Category:Jewish mythology, as this is mentioned at Jewish mythology as being mythological folklore. Please take further dicussion to Category talk:Jewish mythology unless you wish to propose the category for deletion.

Tuf-Kat says:
Though it is off-topic, mythology does not denote falsehood, and both the Torah and the Bible are part of Jewish and Christian mythology. There is an article on scientific mythology, and very well could be a category on it in the future too. I don't know if there is any scholarly study of atheist mythology or secular mythology, but both ideas certainly exist (i.e. mythology important to the lives of atheistic and secular people and institutions, respectively). Tuf-Kat 06:51, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Eisnel says:
I agree, from Merriam-Webster: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. - Eisnel 12:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pedro says:
delete. -Pedro 19:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Drop says:
keep. I agree with Tuf-kat, I don't propose that any of the articles primarily related to the Jewish faith be put in that category, but there are Jewish mythologies, such as the Golem. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:54, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Uther says:
Keep. Golem. Dybbuk. Etc. - UtherSRG 23:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore, the descriptions at mythology and mysticism support the notion to keep both Category:Jewish mythology and Category:Jewish mysticism. What seems to be the stumbling block is that Judaism is the first major religion whose mythology is based upon a written text and not simply on oral retellings, and that the writings are considered sacred. (I say this as someone raised Jewish and who still feels an affinity to the religion.) To attempt a succinct comparison: Mythology is the collection of stories explaining the mysteries of universe, while mysticism is the direct experience of those mysteries. Over time, stories of mysticism may become entwined into that culture's mythology. - UtherSRG 12:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sean says:
Keep, for reasons already stated. Note that Christian mythology needs some cleanup. -Sean Curtin 02:44, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

JFW says:
Delete. Most "mythology" originates from Talmud, Midrash and Kabbalistic works, and should maximally belong to mysticism. Any knowledge of Golems and Dybbukim will reveal that the topics are tightly interwoven with mysticism, while Judaism lacks an easily delineable mythology. JFW T@lk 08:27, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Person says:
Keep, for reasons above. If someone does use it to suggest that Judaism is imaginary, then for shame, that's not what it's for, edit offending parts from article. It's just as valid as Christian Mythology. And if saying that the bible is myth is contentious, then what is it to say that the bible is "law"?

Quadell says:
Keep. Quadell (talk) 20:24, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Solution: There is really no way to solve this dilemma, thus a new sub-category has been created called Category:Jewish history where Category:Jewish mythology can live happily without worry as it is an ongoing subject of debate in Jewish history between the pro-mythology school of thought versus the pro-mysticism school of thought. And in turn, all can agree that the material for both is drawn from the main Category:Judaism one way or another. Is this Solomonic or what? :-) IZAK 07:20, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Related to the above issue is the discussion taking place at Category talk:Jewish mysticism: IZAK 03:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

JFW says:
"Someone with some knowledge of modern day Orthodox Judaism can confirm that mysticism has a much greater relevance to religious life than just being a subcategory of Jewish mythology. The two are wildly different from each other. Mysticism permeates many laws and customs, from the ritual handwashing upon awakening to the bedtime prayers (and everything in between). This has been raised by User:IZAK before, and I believe that he has considered requesting arbitration on this.
Please discuss any planned changes here before making them. An edit war on this issue would be too ridiculous for words. JFW T@lk 19:57, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
I concur with JFW T@lk completely in this case. Jewish mysticism is an inherent part of large parts of Sephardic Jews and of all Hasidic Judaism Jews as they follow the teachings of some of the greatest rabbis respected by ALL Jews. Thus, Sephardic Jews have incorporated readings from the main mystical text the Zohar into their prayers and rituals ( and they are NOT believers in "mythology"), and all Hasidic Judaism Jews study mystical texts because the Baal Shem Tov, the father of Hasidism was a MYSTIC, but he was NOT a "mythologist" being neither a teacher of "myths" nor attracting or encouraging "mythologists". Hence, MYSTICISM is most certainly part of Judaism whereas mythology is a perjorative term applied by CRITICS of Judaism to denigrate that faith's true teachings. Similarly, the famous Rabbi Joseph Karo the author of the Shulkhan Arukh which is the pillar of Jewish Law known as halakha was at the same time also a MYSTIC and sought out the teachings of the greatest mystic of his time Rabbi Isaac Luria. Neither of these great Jewish sages were in any way shape size or form devotees of "mythology", on the contrary, they were classical rabbis who knew that Judaism incorporates in it whole strata of mysticism such as in the Kabbalah, but none of this has anything to do with SECULAR or non-religious notions of "mythology" which is often times just a code-word for mocking religion's "na`iveties" or "primitive beliefs". Please note that Judaism actually FORBIDS belief in such things as Greek mythology, Roman mythology, and Norse mythology (the greatest and best known mythologies in the West) because of the MULTIPLE DEITIES and IMMORAL BEHAVIOR of so many of the so-called mythological gods who are very far removed from the God that Jews have always worshipped rooted in the Torah and the Monotheism at its core defined by the Ten Commandments which actually FORBIDS recognizing the mythological gods. The point should be clear, Judaism embraces mysticism, (even though it may have its own debates about it), whereas Judaism totally REJECTS mythology of any kind. Judaism and mythology do not belong together anywhere (even though certain writers may have myths they cherish and demons they love and a desire to foist them on the world, when they owe it to be more NPOV and not create a bad environment for classical Judaism as it has been practiced for over 3,000 years).IZAK 09:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)"

Uther says:
See my "Furthermore" above. Both categories should exist. See mythology and mysticism. - UtherSRG 12:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Badanedwa says:
keep. objection is based on a claim of unique and total validity of beliefs. monitor for standard misojudaic additions. Badanedwa 15:43, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Woggly says:
how about renaming it "Jewish Folklore". --Woggly 08:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Hi Woggly, this is not just a case of "a problem in search of a solution" and so "let's grab something from the Brothers Grimm". Judaism is not just an outgrowth of "folklore" as the subject of Jewish mysticism is interwoven with the classic texts of Jewish law and history. Besides, "folklore" sounds too much like "Old Wives Tales" and that is not what Jewish mysticism is all about. It would be silly to say that the Ten Commandments or the Jewish holidays are just extentions of "folk lore" as it would make absolutely NO logical, ethical or religious sense. It's like saying "space travel to the Moon was instituted to check out if its made of cheese, how it replenishes itself and to find the mice that eat it, and to prove it lets feed some cheese to mice on Earth to show you hwo it's done". No serious logical person would say such a thing at all. So please take pause. IZAK 09:16, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Woggly says:
No offense meant whatsoever, my apologies if I seemed flippant. But I wasn't just pulling that expression out of thin air. Folklore is a valid and serious field of academic study, by no means equal to the dismissive "old wives tales". Of course Ten Commandments and Jewish holidays don't fit under "Jewish folklore", any more than they fit under "Jewish mythology". But I would argue that terms that have been mentioned here, like Golem and Dybbuk (which I myself contributed...) are more appropriately classified as "folklore" than as "mythology" or even "mysticism". There is a very rich tradition of Jewish folklore, that made its way into the fiction of such authors as Isaac Bashevis Singer, Sholom Aleichem and S. Ansky. Obviously some Jewish legends have serious mystical religious implications, but many of them have an important cultural and/or literary component that isn't necessarily tied to belief or to history or to mysticism: the story of the Golem, among other things, is also simply a cracker-jack story. I don't see why using the word "folklore" in this context is offensive. "Jewish folklore", in my mind, should be a subcategory under "Judaism", possibly under "Jewish oral tradition" or "Jewish literature", and seperate categories should exist for "Jewish history", "Jewish religion", "Jewish law" and perhaps "Jewish philosophy" and "Jewish mysticism"; whereas "Jewish mythology", to my ears, is a very odd phrase, and something of an oxymoron. --Woggly 12:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Hi Woggly:Listen, you are behind the times. Take a look at Category:Jews and Judaism and you will find many of the categories you mentioned already there either as main categories or sub-categories. Even Category:Jewish mythology has been there all the time. There is Category:Judaism for "Jewish religion". There is Category:Jewish mysticism. There is very extensive Category:Jewish history. There is Category:Rabbis and many more for Category:Israel and Zionism. Also Category:Jewish law and rituals for "Jewish law and traditions". So don't worry about that. The Yiddish writers you mentioned such as Singer and Sholom Aleichem are all without exception SECULAR writers who were very hostile to Judaism, yet at the same time they drew on the Torah teachings of their youth and perverted and twisted and mocked them. They should be placed under "Category:Yiddish writers" where they rightly belong and NOT be taken as "authorities" on Jewish teachings of any sort.They are the LAST people you would want to consult if you wanted to know what Judaism actually is in the first place. For that you must look to the primary sources themselves such as the Torah, Tanakh, Midrash, Talmud, Shulkhan Arukh and more, and to the scholarly rabbis who have been studying and teaching them for thousands of years. Otherwise you are not studying Judaism seriously but you are playing "make believe" with Yiddish writers "ghosting" for Judaism (ah, the start of "folk-lore" I suppose). The story of the golem is most definitely NOT "cracker-jack". Not much is know about it factually, but it's a deeper story than most people realize and it's been studied by many people. Intrigueingly, it's amazing the fascination it holds for those least familiar with normative Judaism. Most educated Jews don't go around thinking of "golems" and "dybuks" and its not taught in any yeshivas or Jewish schools that I know of. It's a very esoteric subject! So cool your heels before you load the dices with all sorts of "folklore" hocus pocus that even you don't take seriously. The original point of this discussion here is that "mythology" should NOT be the main category for the main subjects of Judaism. The general category is Category:Jews and Judaism, including all subjects be they religious or secular as they pertain to Jews of all kinds and to Judaism covering all Jewish beliefs, laws and ideas. IZAK 14:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Woggly says:
My point just went completely over your head. I'm not studying Judaism seriously, nor did I ever claim to, nor do I think that a serious scholar of Judaism should start with Jewish folklore. In fact, I completely agree that Jewish folklore does not belong in Yeshiva studies. But nonetheless it is a legitimate, interesting and important subject for study; and Wikipedia is not a Yeshiva. Perhaps you are willing to toss out the Yiddish writers, I'm not - and they were most definitely Jewish, and could not have grown out of any other culture. I agree that "mythology" is an inappropriate word to use in conjunction with "Jewish": on everything else, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. --Woggly 16:11, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Okay Woggly, You just inspired me. I went ahead and created Category:Yiddish writers and put the three writers you mentioned into it. It's a sub-category of Category:Ashkenazi Jews (as Yiddish was the language of the Ashkenazi Jews only) which is a sub-category of Category:Jews which is a sub-category of Category:Jews and Judaism. See, things have been movin' along... Oh and by the way, maybe Category:Yiddish writers would be a great place to put in sub-categories about stuff like "mythology" and "folk lore" as they (the Yiddish writers) are the ones who created the whole interest in this area through their writings. No-one else cares much. IZAK 14:58, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Postdlf says:
My personal feeling is that either all religious categories involving stories about god or gods and other supernatural beings should be under the label of mythology, or none of them should, and so "Greek mythology" should then be renamed to "Ancient Greek religion." The only difference between ancient "mythologies" and modern "religions" is that the former are no longer practiced today. Both include stories about supernatural beings and events, and both involve rituals, worldviews, and moral systems. While I understand the popular connotation of "myth" as "false," academically speaking, there shouldn't be any separation or difference in truth value between long-abandoned and presently held religious beliefs. In response to the comment above about why shouldn't there be categories for "Atheist mythology" or "Scientific mythology" is that there simply are no such things. The relevant definition of "myth" is "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society." Atheistic worldviews and science simply have no such body of stories. They are the sole province of religion and folklore. Postdlf 17:21 19 June 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
What you are saying is VERY dangerous indeed. YOU are setting yourself up as the judge of ALL "religions" and you are saying here that the world's greatest and largest religions today: Christianity; Islam; Judaism; Hinduism; should be equated with the mythologies of the defunct Greeks and Romans. I wonder how many people would agree with this? And, makes one wonder how much you really know about today's religions in all their details, and whether you are an athiest or not as far as NPOV is concerned? Furtheremore, when people in science foist "beliefs" and claim that they are "facts" such as that life emerged from amoebas BILLIONS of years ago or that humans (aka "homosapiens") emerged from neanderthal APES MILLIONS of years ago, is that not BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION :"A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society." ??? IZAK 17:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Postdlf says:
No, you misunderstand entirely. By equating all religions, you have set yourself up as the judge of none of them. As an academic project, wikipedia should not give greater or lesser value to any religion, regardless of whether or not it is still followed by anyone living. That is the only way I see to be truly NPOV about it. I am curious to know what you think I am ignorant of regarding modern religions. Ancient, now-defunct religions had well-developed worldviews regarding morality, the afterlife, and the origin of the world and of humans, as well as complicated rituals and ways of relating to the gods and other supernatural forces. The relevant differences between those religions and modern ones is that the modern ones are still practiced, and so have had an ongoing history of development in which they have continued to adapt to/influence changes in culture, while the defunct ones became frozen in time and known mostly by their sensational stories rather than the way of life they once were for many people.
As for your comment about scientific "beliefs", a couple corrections: amoebas are not considered in any scientific theory to be the first forms of life, but in fact have rather complicated cellular structures and are not billions of years old. Also, neanderthals were neither "apes" nor millions of years old, nor the ancestors of humans. Perhaps you could read the wikipedia articles on both topics. But the main point on that topic is that you did not read the definition very closely (or at all?)—the scientific theories of abiotic genesis and evolution are hardly ancient (though modern evolution did admittedly have some precursor concepts among the ancient Greeks), nor are they stories, nor do they deal with "supernatural" anything, let alone ancestors or heroes. The only part of the definition that fits is "explaining aspects of the natural world." Nothing else applies to scientific theories. Furthermore, any article on a scientific theory, whether evolution or gravity, should be labelled as such, and the evidence/reasoning behind it explained. Postdlf 15:53 21 June 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
So could you please explain why Wikipedia has MAJOR Category:Religion at all ???!!! And what are your naughty "plans" for it? Throw all the live major world religions, especially the monotheistic ones with billions of followers and believers into the dustbin of history with all the dead mythologies that worshiped mutiple imaginary mythological gods? Do you think Wikipedia should reflect what billions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus believe, study and worship, or are you paternalistic about all religions and hold that people of faith have not reached the "age of wikification" yet? IZAK 06:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Postdlf says:
Like I said, the only way to be truly even-handed is to classify all religions the same, however that is done. Keep in mind that many supposedly dead, ancient "mythologies" still have modern practitioners, and many scholars believe that the monotheistic religions developed culturally out of polytheistic ones as well. My impression, however, is that you do not wish to be so even-handed, but would rather separate out monotheism as something special from the "imaginary" polytheisms (most forms of Hinduism worship multiple gods, btw). I'm wondering how, academically—from an objective position outside any particular faith, you can declare any gods imaginary and others not. I would think objectively you could only say who believes what about whom when it comes to religious figures. If you are not trying to be objective, then I'm afraid this discussion is at an end, for this is not the forum for arguing that any religion is better than others. Postdlf 12:45 22 June 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Yes I am aware that Hinduism worships multiple deities, however I was citing it as an example of a major world religion with about a billion followers, who are also deserving of some careful descriptions and explanations of their faith without it being mangled by second-hand half-wit interpretations on Wikipedia or anywhere else. As for Christianity (with about two billion followers) and Islam (with about one billion), that makes for a total of about four billion people out of Earth's six billion people, that's two thirds of the human race encompassed by those three faiths, which should translate into very substantial descriptions and explanations at Wikipedia about them for those inclined to do so accurately and with NPOV. As for Judaism, it has only 13 million adherents today but it is the key to both Christianity and Islam making it important out of proportion to its size. Judaism itself can withstand any manner of pure scientific analysis and reasoning as it is a religion based on both faith and reason. Contrary to what some may think, Judaism did not evolve out of the "mists" of the past a la the supposed evolution of the human race from orangutans. Judaism is a logical, rational, scientific system that is rooted in the here and now as much as it has spiritual roots. It is certainly not a result of a process akin to the origins of the "mythologies" of other belief systems. IZAK 05:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

AndyL says:
Keep but rename. How about "Jewish folklore"?AndyL 21:28, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

- posted by Izak @ 5:10 AM