Reddit reviews Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised (Littman Library of Jewish Civilization)

The Limits of Orthodox Theology by Marc Shapiro

He goes into this and discusses using source material which person/people disagreed, one ikkar at a time.

I want to respond to you directly but this is also in reference to what /u/Casual_Observer0 said as a response to your piece. There have been several discussions across halachic Jewish literature and even here on on /r/Judaism about whether or not Judaism requires a positive statement of belief or merely as long as one doesn't explicitly mention a negative statement contradicting the beliefs one is assumed to be a member in good standing.

Nearly everyone is familiar with the Rambam's 13 principles of belief. Fewer are familiar with Chasdai Crescas 6 principles or R' Yosef Albo's 3 principles. While you may not personally believe them, there are many poskim who say that we can assume any Jew is kosher as long as they don't explicitly disclaim them.

Finally I have also seen at least one scholar, R' Marc Shapiro who has questioned why these dogmatic statements exist at all. I wouldn't recommend the book to everyone but I think you might be interested in reading one of his works, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised. In a similar vein, Menachem Kellner also addresses the question about dogma and the Rambam in Must a Jew Believe Anything?. It's been a while since I read them but if I remember correctly, both say that there have been among our earliest scholars (rishonim) who disagreed or contradicted with each of the Rambam's principles and therefore those principles cannot be a bright line for who is in and out of the religious Jewish world.

I would also recommend this book on the thirteen principles: http://www.amazon.com/The-Limits-Orthodox-Theology-Civilization/dp/1906764239
But perhaps this argument is better suited to /r/judaism :-)

I might be a dyed in the wool mina and apikorsa, but man, even I have arguments about that with a good friend of mine who is an orthodox rabbi.

The reason

Dr. Marc Shapiro's 'The Limits of Orthodox Theology"

https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Orthodox-Theology-Reappraised-Civilization/dp/1906764239

It is pretty much impossible to prove someone is a heretic, which are positions you are posting about.

It is so difficult to do anything about heresy, that if it weren't for the fact that I am already female, the reason I can't be a witness for contractual matters like a wedding isn't my heresey: it's because I publicly break the sabbath. That one is provable after the fact, whereas hersey is basically impossible to get a straight definition of in orthodox theological thought.

So even though there is a mitzvah to remember the exodus in your daily prayers which is fulfilled by reciting all the paragraphs of the shma, there is no comittee forcing you to believe those paragraphs.

As Dr. Yeshayahu Leibovitz accurately pointed out Judaism is a Doing -> Believing religion, unlike Christianity which is Beleiving -> Doing religion.

So plenty of rigorous orthodox scholars think the Kuzari is pablum, and don't care very much about lack of or presence of archeological evidence. Everyday orthodox society doesn't even focus on this as an issue. It doesn't matter.

I admit this is weird, but that's how it works