No. In fact, it’s almost the opposite. There are a number of places in Jewish thought and Jewish law where complete consensus is a sign of something having gone wrong with the process. (For example, if all of the judges agree in a case where the death penalty would be imposed, then the accused automatically goes free and the case is dismissed–because something clearly went wrong if you can get all of the judges to agree!)
It’s because Judaism and Christianity have very different viewpoints on God, sinning, forgiveness, and punishment.
In Judaism, there are several classifications for “sin” that are very different than Christian views; there are sins where one person transgresses against another person, and sins where one person transgresses against God. The former category is viewed as more significant–indeed, two types of sin from one person to another are classified as unforgivable: Murder and gossip. Murder because the victim is not around to give forgiveness, and gossip because it is impossible to take one’s words back once they are loosed in the community.
And then there are the classifications of sin; in Judaism, it is believed that everyone has the internalized capacity for failure and straying. That’s what sin is conceptualized as–a deviation from a correct path. The most common word for sin, hata, essentially means “to go astray/to miss one’s mark”.
So we conceptualize everyone as having free will, and the ability to stay on the correct path of moral righteousness (which is a concept itself tied to justice and charity) through their own choices, or to deviate from that course. And for when we miss that mark, we ask the people we’ve wronged for their forgiveness directly, or ask God for forgiveness on the appropriate occasion (Yom Kippur) for when we’ve gone astray against God.
So for us, we have moral and ethical guidelines on what to do from God, but the implementation and interpretation of them is up to us. So we argue and debate if this particular action or other acts to fulfill that. Is it good enough? Well, let’s build a little fence around the concept so we don’t accidentally transgress. Well, where do we put the fence? And there’s debate on that. And debate on whether we need the fence, or if a “keep off” sign is sufficient? Is the fence still applicable in the modern age? How do we interpret these strictures in the light of changing times? Etc.
And since we didn’t have a central authority to mediate and rule on these things for the last two thousand years, you get practice by consensus… to a point.
Contrast that with Christian views on Sin, and how sin can only redeemed through Jesus–and in Catholicism, Jesus is only accessible through the priests of the Church, which, for the last thousand years, has been aggressively centralizing and defending its authority, on pain of sin for those that go against that authority. And engaging in sin imperils your immortal soul to Hell (another concept that doesn’t exist in Judaism).
So there is a coercive element there that doesn’t exist in Judaism, along with a centralized authority who can and will punish deviation–not just in behavior, but in thought. Because Christianity has thought-crimes, being an Ortho-dox (Correct Doctrine/Thought) religion, while Judaism is an Ortho-prax (Correct Action/Practice) religion.
As a result, in Judaism, debating on what actions to take is not only acceptable, but encouraged, but in Christianity, debate and dissenting viewpoints are forbidden, as independent thought has the risk of breaking someone from the doctrines, and is best left to the priests for the safety of one’s Christian soul.
Note I’m simplifying significantly, but that’s the major difference. And to simplify even more: TL;DR: Judaism focuses on action, Christianity focuses on belief, and questioning actions to make sure they’re correct is applauded in Judaism, but questioning belief in Christianity is a dangerous sign of heresy and stamped out with extreme prejudice.
