is that enough?

November 26, 2007 By: Yhosephus Category: Good vs. Evil, comparative religion, shabbos

in a moment late this past shabbos, I asked a friend, who is still religious, and a swinging super-hipster:
Do you think Judaism is a bad religion?

And he said: "No worse than any other."

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

100 Responses to “ is that enough? ”

# 1 Y-Love Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
ע”ש
# 2 Yhosephus Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
They called him “crazy” too. But no– he DID think Judaism was worse than other religions. But maybe he was holding it to a high standard too?
# 3 Yhosephus Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I personally found Hipster-friend’s answer very touching. Not triumphalistic or nihilistic, not “we are the best” or “worst.” But is it true? I think it’s much better than some and I wonder if there are better ones. There are probably more righteous ones, but not many as promising to it’s adherents. This World and the next.
# 4 kovi Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I don’t think Judaism is a “bad Religion.” But its cradle to grave, 24/7 all encompassing approach is stifling. It intrinsically (maybe not the right word) creates a sub-class of people who are living a conflicting life.

With its wide net of halachot ranging from how to go to the bathroom (no touching your scrotum), how to have sex, etc. ends up creating an entire class of people who knowingly do something wrong each day of their life but choose to either
1) pooh-pooh it.
2) declare that certain precepts of the religion have no meaning to them
Or it creates a group of people who are constantly living with guilt or with the feeling that they are consistently sinning or doing something wrong.

This runs rampant within, for example, Modern Orthodoxy. Women wear pants, tank-tops, etc. etc. (Do not for a second think I have a problem with this. This is an observation, not a judgment) , but by giving tzniut, for example, a wink-wink, you create a group of women who are conflicted, especially since their teachers tacitly condone this behavior. (when the rebbetzin bumps into mrs. tank top in the supermarket and schmoozes with her, plans shul functions with her. etc. But at her SUnday night shiur in tzniut talks about how women who dress not tzniutly will suffer or even die during child birth.

In this case, it is the worst religion.
# 5 mohammed Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
what does bad mean?
# 6 Twishandy Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
BAD = Poor. Unfavorable. Spoiled. Decayed. Harmful. Defective. Faulty. Sorry. Regretful. Wrong. Not Valid. Hasid. Rebbe.
# 7 shachar x Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Hipster + Jadaism = Chossid
# 8 sarah Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
maybe the Jewish god is so demanding and vengeful because a lot of bad things happened to Jews…and they tried to find rules to make the Guy in the Sky happy.

the Christian god really doesn’t give a damn and caters to any Tom, Dick, or Dumbass who walks through the door.
# 9 Yhosephus Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Kovi– That’s interesting, and not so much what I think of when I feel frustrated by Judaism. I totally appreciate how much what much of our anti-nominan chevre is rebelling against is the repression, which I don’t identify as an integral part of the religion, the same way the ethnocentrism is. To be fair, the denominations I grew up in where not terribly repressive, and to the degree that they were, it was in such a way that responded to complaints.

I kinda dig the way every minute is sacramentalizeable; i used to think that was a sign that chazal DID know what they were talking about, giving me subtle ways of remembering G-d all the time. It was the activities that seemed less clearly sacralizeable that made me more aware of chazal’s limited ability to be helpful with where I am right now, alas. Fortunately, i have rebbes who can help me with even that, but none who have yet been able to convince the many pious Jewish grandmothers i know that gentiles have souls.
# 10 perek Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Rotso hakodosh boruch hu lezakois es yisroel lefichoch hirbu luhem toire umitsvois
# 11 itche newman Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
a bird can look at his wings in two ways, dead wait, or a means to fly.
mitzvos have two translations, commandment or connection.
choose yours.
# 12 Kovi Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Yhosephus,

Well then your hipster frummy friend is right. Judaism is no worse than any other.

Every religion is, by and large exclusionary. Jews were first allowed into the kingdom of heaven by catholics only after vatican II which was less than 40 years ago. Blacks and women did not receive souls within mormonism until the 1970s.

Judaism, by virtue of being both a religion and a “peoplehood” (or tribe) adds into the equation a greater measure of ethnocentrism that is not present in any other religion (to my knowledge).

Look up or ask our holy borthers and sisters on this site when Non-Jews lost their souls. I’d like to know. When love thy neighbor as yourself ceased being applied to non-Jews as well. (I believe Rabbi Akiva believed it applied to all humankind, including non-Jews.)

Jewish ethnocentrism (and the birth of the extra soul) was born out of repression. similar stuff can be found in other religions. Look at early mormon stuff as they were being repressed and driven out of state after state until they got to utah and you’ll find a lot of similarites.

Remember, relgion is man projecting his image upon God. people who are repressed need something to hold on to, something to believe in. giving themselves additional qualities ws just a natural response to this repression. It is no different than all the children’s stories about the orphan who dreams up a super hero or a best friend to save him from the orpahnage.
# 13 Twishandy Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Dead wait
Light wait
Over wait

Can’t weight
Why weight
Don’t weight
# 14 break all chains Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Sure it’s worse than any other religion.

Why? Because it’s MY religion, and the others can’t harm me.
# 15 break all chains Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Kovi writes:

“Look up or ask our holy borthers and sisters on this site when Non-Jews lost their souls. I’d like to know.”

================================

I too would like to know when this notion first enters Jewish thought. It likely anteceded the Tanya. But how far back does it go? Kovi’s suggestion that it may have been triggered by repression seems reasonable, but it can be tested by by referencing both its origins and when it enters popular thought.

For that matter, when does the notion of a “jewish soul” as ontologically different from a “gentile soul” first make its appearance?

Would like to see the sources cited.
# 16 apikoreslishmoh Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 3:58 am
Before even attempting to address the issue of determining by what parameters to compare it with others, I would ask this:

What is Judaism?
Does it exist as a separate fixed entity? As some ideal?
As something you can point to and say this it?

Perhaps it’s the way it is practiced?

Is it the way it’s practiced today in a specific community but not another?

By some within that community but not others?

Is it the way some people practiced it in medieval Worms or Barcelona? In ancient Babylon or Mesopotamia? In a particular 19th century Polish shtetl.

Is it some unchangeable universally agreed upon revelation independent of time and space?

Can we say that Judaism exits independent of, say, Christianity?
Haven’t they shaped and formed each other through centuries of co-evolution?

What would Judaism look like today if it hadn’t had Christianity to react to, defend against, or attack?

How much of what may be called Judaism is simply the practice of not-being Christian? And vice versa?

Perhaps comparing one religion with another is like trying to determine which is a better dough, the flour or the water.
# 17 apikoreslishmoh Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 4:00 am
Oh–and good enough for what?
# 18 itche newman Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 4:53 am
kovi,
Most other religions (especially eastern religions) speak of how we (people) are to view god.
In Judaism the bulk of our study text speaks of how god wants to view man. (i.e. following the law).
The mere fact that the torah speaks much of the world up to the giving of the torah is a point of concern for rashi to explain, shows us that in essence rashi views the torah as a book that is meant to tell us what gods wants of the us not as much a book which tells how to view god (which would give validity to the argument that religion is merely a projection of man on god).
With this; one may be able to shed light on apikoreslishmoh’s comment, Judaism can be defined as godly laws for the people he chooses appropriate to follow, which remained the same in all the areas you mentioned.
# 19 apikoreslishmoh Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Itche, do I get what your saying?

Are you saying that Judaism is godly law and therefore immutable?

And that you know this because the Jewish texts say so?
# 20 itche newman Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Regardless of who the author of the torah is, the torah still defines Judaism.
Therefore when discussing the definition of Judaism, yes look in the jewish texts, and their it claims that judaisim is defined by godly laws (whether true or faulse), not because god said so, but because so claims the Jewish doctrine.
# 21 itche newman Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Because of Judaism’s unique approach to religion (being one that focuses on mans obligation) yes it is ‘immutable’.
# 22 Yesod ben Yakov Leib Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:32 am
religion is the box men trap the god in,i say burn the frekin box,th at IT may be free,and freely known,,,,,,,love yesod
# 23 Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:53 am
yesod,

yasher koach!

abba
# 24 Kovi Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Yesod Ben Yakov Leib,

Hobbes writes in the second part of the Leviathan that: If there was no God, man would create him to justify our morality.

Point being is even if you were to burn that box, you would end up creating a different system with a different authority to justify your ethical/moral system, so why not leave God alone. WHen we leave the state of nature, we assume responsibilites, including some that we do not like. We thus need a punching bag and since my God isn’t a cuddly all loving God (I ain’t CHristian) I can call my God an asshole and still be a “Frum Jew.”

Break all Chains,

Give me a break. I know it is in vogue to bash chabad (sorry if I come across as too harsh), but the idea that Jews have a unique and different soul than non-Jews was alive and well in the times of the Shulchan Aruch, and it existed during the times of the talmud. I believe the gemorah has a whole “shakleh vetarieh” on whether you can desecrate the shabbat in order to save a non-Jew. In the end, it is pretty much decided that you can, with those who say a non-Jew has no soul agreeing, but only because if you don’t other Jews might be killed (Back to my original theory, remember the Talmud was written after the destruction of the first temple and during the oppression of the Romans leading up to and past the destruction of the second temple. SO the uniqueness of the Jewish soul is born out of oppression.)

Reb Itche Newman,

“Kedoshim Tihiyu Ki Kadosh Ani” pretty much spells out that we are supposed to imitate our creator, “imitatio dei”.
Yes, following the Torah is blue print on how to imitate our creator, but only because it is “khokhmas haboreh.”

There is a long debate whether or not there is an ethic independent of torah. i.e. whether “lifnim meshurat haDin” is torah, or independent of it. In my readings of the Lubavitcher rebbe, he seems to side with those that say there is an ethic beyond torah and therefore “midat chasidus” is where we choose on our own to emulate God. I think I am digressing.

My point is that we are supposed to look at GOd and imitate our creator. Since we are human (or rather perhaps because we created HIM) we tend to project our image onto God.

Apikores Lishmoh,

Why does it make a difference if Christianity inspired Judaism and vice versa.

And please do me a favor and keep quiet about this until after Chanukah. Because my wife already bought me my chanukah present. If she finds out that Chanukah gift-giving is a “goyishe minhag” and decides to return the present, I’m coming after you!!!!!
# 25 Kovi Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Oh and Reb Itche,

In the name of God, most modern day rabbis (and this is one thing Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstrctionist and Renewal all have in common) worship, or promote the worship of, themselves
# 26 Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 10:11 am
kovi,

i’ll let yesod speak for himself, but as an observer i suggest you missed his point in your rush to make yours.

that is, you assume he views god as the pedestrian straw man you set up — cuddly and all-loving — when, as i happen to know, exactly the opposite is true.

in other words, you presume to understand what he’s saying when actually you don’t, but are hearing it only through what you already believe.

yalhak
# 27 Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 10:13 am
p.s. and just because someone (even locke) says something doesn’t mean its TRUE for anyone else except himself.
# 28 Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 10:13 am
pardon me. I meant Hobbs, but it’s true for Locke too.
# 29 Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 10:15 am
and you and me, for that matter.
# 30 Kovi Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Yalhak,

OUCH!!!!!

If I misread Yesod, nu nu. thank you for pointing this out.

Yodeah Machshavot ho-shiah nah.

“I suggest you missed his point in your rush to make yours. that is, you assume he views god as the pedestrian straw man you set up — cuddly and all-loving — when, as i happen to know, exactly the opposite is true.”

Please don’t project upon me and really, after reading his post, do you think I’d assume that Yesod’s God paradigm would be a cuddly all loving God??? If it was, he wouldn’t be posting on the cow, he’d be posting on “yeshiva boy talk”

“in other words, you presume to understand what he’s saying when actually you don’t, but are hearing it only through what you already believe.”

What do I believe?? Can you be guilty of exactly what you accuse (too harsh a word) me of being? Assuming to know what I believe???

The problem with written communcations has always been that we miss inflections and I may have missed the point. When I next bump in to you or Yesod, we’ll hug it out.

“p.s. and just because someone (even locke) says something doesn’t mean its TRUE for anyone else except himself.”

But if it is true, for myself, am I not allowed to share it? If it is not applicable to you, then it won’t speak to you. Reb nachman says that he who says there is only one path to god, creates a small and narrow god. (a personal truth that helps me cope)

Yalhak: We are both eineklach of Aharon Hakohen. The zeideh Aaron used to be ohev shalom and a rodef shalom. if in some way this e-mail is misconstrued as being curt or divisive, it is not my intention.

Oh, and finally, a nice Jewish boy once said that none may come to father except through the son. It is good to know that with you and Yesod, it cuts both ways. (LOL)
# 31 Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 11:22 am
kovi,

gut gezokt. i like the way you think.

yalhak
# 32 Yesod ben Yakov Leib Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
“Point being is even if you were to burn that box, you would end up creating a different system with a different authority to justify your ethical/moral system, so why not leave God alone.”listen kovi,and i will teach you if i/me yesod burned the box god would be free,and there would be know need to create,for why create what is already,,god,sytems generaly sucks,,god does not,,generaly,and i do not need any moral ethical system besides what god has already placed in our hearts,,,and your last point,,why not leave god alone,,cause i refuse,,to never leave her alone,and will continue to bug the shit out of IT as long as i am able,or till one of us drives the other crazy,,,,,,,love yesod
# 33 itche newman Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Kovi,
True, the Jewish “divine law”, is to be kept because we are to ‘imitate’ the creator. However the word that needs to be stressed in the Posuk you mentioned is “you SHOULD BE holy because I am holy” and not (as would be in many other religions) “you ARE holy because I am holy”.
Any reference in the torah to god choosing the Jew is all so that they SHOULD BE holy. Starting from when god took the Jews out of Egypt it was in order “that they shall serve me…”
And btw its silly to bash a doctrine based on people who faille to follow it. Lets stay objective.
# 34 Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
yesod,

oy, gevalt! YASHER KOACH!

abba
# 35 Kovi Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Yesod (and Yalhak for that matter),

now that things have been clarified, we never had an argument in the first place, just a misunderstanding.
# 36 Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
kovi,

right on! that’s why i said “i like the way you think.” wasn’t yesod’s response magnificent?

yalhak
# 37 Kovi Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I wholeheartedly agree.

And to his last point, this is why I originally wrote that I believe that GOd can be an asshole and still consider myself a “ma’amin.”

Because not being bogged down by a god paradigm is what gives me (at least) the opportunity to wrestle with him/her or as yesod writes “to bug the shit out of her.”
# 38 Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
kovi,

you’re a man after our own heart. zai gezunt.

yalhak
# 39 Kovi Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Reb Itche,

Sorry Holy Brother, but you are a bit off.

Our mesorah teaches us that a jew is righteous the instant he/she comes out of his/her mother’s womb. (this will probably unnerve yhosephus)

“All of Israel has a share in the World To Come, as it is stated (Isaiah 60:21): ‘And Your people are righteous.’ They shall inherit the land forever. They are the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, in which I take pride.” (Sanhedrin 90a)

The gemorah doesn’t talk about a jew needing to do anything. By the mere occurence of his/her birth he/she is righteous.

Also, if a Jew is “chelek elohah mima’al” (quoted in the Tanya break all chains but sourced from the zohar), then he/she IS holy (not should be holy) because God is holy.

So what have I accomplished with the above? Nothing! if you want to argue about Torah, chazal, chasidus, we can do it “ad bo go-el tzedek.” But I see no point. “elu vo-eluh divrei elohim chayim” SO why don’t we call it a draw.

As for “bashing a doctrine based on people who fail to follow it.” that was an observation.” I wasn’t bashing.

As for being objective. There is no objectivity. we are all in the emerald city and we’re all wearing our green tinted glasses.

Besides, God doesn’t want objectivity.

“veshochanti besochom” Rashi says, within each and every one of us. Each according to his/her capabilities. THat is not objectivity.

The angels have objectivity. and “Torah lo nitna lemalachei hashareis.”
# 40 itche newman Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Being personal/subjective in your relationship with god (making of the dirah bitachtonim) should not interfere with being objective in conversation with me.

But (UbLshoinoi HaKadoish): “elu vo-eluh divrei elohim chayim” SO why don’t we call it a draw.
# 41 kisarita Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 2:09 am
btw the torah does not define mainstream modern judaism, the talmud does.
# 42 yakov sack Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 2:24 am
in an undetermined space, in the mind healing =direction and the torah is our burden ;to carry on forever.
# 43 guravitzer Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 2:32 am
“btw the torah does not define mainstream modern judaism, the talmud does.”

True, and yet the talmud is defined by torah, making modern life defined by torah as well. Arguably.
# 44 kisarita Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 8:35 am
actually the talmud is not defined by torah, rather it attempts to define it
# 45 guravitzer Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Consider that every concept produced in Talmud has to be based in some way on the Torah. If you wish to say they define each other, that might work as well.

If you wish to be even more truthful, modern day Judaism is not defined by Talmud either. It is defined by a multitude of factors: culture, tradition, leadership, technology, ineptitude. We attempt to define the Talmud (and Torah) for our day and age. That applies equally to 7fatcow as to chabad.org.
# 46 Yhosephus Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
That’s because you’re a very wounded person. You yell instead of thinking sometimes, and my advice to you is to actually take your own advice.

I wonder why what he said made you so angry? Could it be you can even begin to fathom how dissapointed you are with the empty, ultimatly unsatisfying torah that you’ve been forced to defend because you were told it was your identity? maybe?

Maybe YOU should listen and study intead of spewing all the shit for Torah you think YOU have, and then maybe talking to “academics”
(that is “scholars”) won’t be as infuriating. Because you won’t feel as unexpicably and unforgiveably inferior once you’re actually a little bit more learned.

R’ Nachman says, to avoid being crazy, take the advice of wise people. Because not trusting, not feeling safe being able to understand what someone is saying, is what madness comes from. and so.
# 47 Yhosephus Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“the Christian god really doesn’t give a damn and caters to any Tom, Dick, or Dumbass who walks through the door.”

Isn’t that a virtue?
# 48 atgate231 Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
itche n,

Granted that we have the torah to define Judaism it all still depends on the way we happen to interpret the torah. I used to think that since the torah was preserved by traditional (what we now call orthodox) Jews they have the most claim to authentic interpretation. But then I realized that a) so called traditional Judaism went through many phases and changes and that what we think of today as traditional Judaism began more or less with the Talmud and even after the Talmud it underwent changes in many ways. And b) who said that history/tradition is relevant in approaching the interpretation of the torah. That is, just because the orthodox interpretation goes back earlier than more recent views does not make it more “authentic” or truer in any way.

guravitzer,

Yes. The Talmud is based on the torah but the manner in which the Talmud bases itself on the torah accords with its own defined sort of logic (Yud gimle middos she-ha-torah nidreshes) – that is, Talmudic interpretation is not based on the torah but on its own type of logic which makes the torah comply with its own views.
# 49 sarah Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Some people can’t be trusted with G-d. Jesus was a slut now look what happened.
# 50 sarah Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Was Jesus circumcised? A barn bris? How did he get out of that one? “New covenant” my ass.
# 51 Kovi Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
“Was Jesus circumcised? A barn bris?”

Sarah,

I am sure you are aware that Moshe did not circumcise his son and on the way to egypt, chazal tell us that his wife also performed a “barn bris” on one of her sons to save moshe’s life.

Now, if a barn bris is good enough for Moshe’s kid, chances are it is good enough for our “Lord’s”.
# 52 Yhosephus Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
astrophysics?

What struck you as sophomoric bullshit?
# 53 Yhosephus Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
“Some people can’t be trusted with G-d.”

yeah, but they’ve got ‘im anyway, so they might as well learn how to use G-d responsibly. ha.

But really, would dumb christians be better off without christ? Or would they just be hostile vandals and visgoths or something? Religion = education. I don’t think Chabadniks would be better off without religious education, because what would the alternative be?

Remember that Zohar, about higher and lower Yirah? The Lower one, fear of punishment, is a detriment to gaining the higher one, but hey: It’s better than nothing.
# 54 atgate231 Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
It recently occurred to me that religion may have some value yet. There is this guy (with a Haitian accent I think) who walks around the city (he can often be seen on the subway) yelling at the top of his voice “Glooory! Gloory! Hallelujah! Jesus! Jesus! Glory! Hallelujah!” My first reaction was “what did they do to this poor guy. Have they got no limits?” but then I realized that this guy is obviously quite disturbed and he would probably be compelled to yell SOMETHING all day – I mean Glory Glory Hallelujah sounds a lot nicer (at least when you’re walking down the street) than motherfucker, bitch or something…In the case of Chabadniks though I’m not so sure…
# 55 atgate231 Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
It must be that chabadnik sounds too similar to nudnik…yeah. that’s it.
# 56 atgate231 Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
SO is it a good thing or a bad thing?
# 57 guravitzer Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
“Talmudic interpretation is not based on the torah but on its own type of logic which makes the torah comply with its own views.”
Or, its own logic which makes it comply with the Torah.
# 58 itche newman Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
atgate231,
“just because the orthodox interpretation goes back earlier than more recent views does not make it more “authentic” or truer in any way.”
if one learns the history of the writting of the mishnah and talmud, (a good start would the Rambam’s introduction to his “pirush hamishnayos”, or for more recent stuff read the “horeb” from Hirsch) you will find the belief (and in many areas even proof) that the interpretation of the Talmud isn’t just earlier than others it is gods interpretation given to moses at mount sini.
# 59 atgate231 Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
itche,

And if you read any decent contemporary scholarship on the subject you’ll see what i mean. The rambam and hirsh? Give me a break…(They are both within the tradition and have to defend it and are not objective in any way).
# 60 atgate231 Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
gur,

Where in the torah do you fine the principles of Talmudic interpretation?
# 61 itche newman Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
it is quite evident you haven’t read any of them.
(the horeb especially, discuses all the issues brought up by ‘contemporary scholarship’)

“(They are both within the tradition and have to defend it”

who else should? is that not the same with anything?

“and are not objective in any way)”

because they decided to practice what they understand and believe. whats subjective about that? i would call it truthful to ones self.
# 62 guravitzer Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:52 am
at, the question isn’t where in the Constitution you can find the Amendments. The question is where in the Amendments do you find adherence to the Constitution.

The similarity is that the Constitution allows for Amendments, and the Torah allows for Al Pi HaTorah Asher Yurucho.

Throughout the Talmud, you find no legal flights of fancy. Every concept has to be backed up either as Halachah LeMoshe MiSinai or attributed somehow to the Torah.

If you wish, the Torah itself is not true to itself. From the first logical paradox of the Flood’s rationale being that the nature of man is wicked to that being the same rationale for the rainbow and never bringing a flood again, from the change in tone of 5 books filled with laws and only two sections of rebuke, to the next 19 books filled with rebuke and only a few laws, the G-dly nature of this world is inconsistenta and is meant to change. Do we change it based on the old, or do we throw it all out and introduce completely new change in which we reinvent all the ancient errors?
# 63 atgate231 Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
itche,

I’ll venture to say you haven’t read contemporary scholarship (and reading what is brought down in Hirsh is not contemporary and is most probably prejudiced anyway). But that is not the issue - I shouldn’t have used the word scholarship – it is not so much about particular arguments but about understanding the way traditions works, how beliefs and opinions are transmitted and transformed over time etc etc. – but I don’t want to get caught up in a debate on that right now.

And my point about the rambam and hirsh not being objective is that they are going to believe what they do regardless of whether or not it can be proven by logic or criticism. They are working from an immutable premise and so they are not and cannot be intellectually honest. Period. And that is why I don’t want to get into a debate with you on this either…

guravitzer,

Your comparison of the Talmud to constitutional amendments is totally off. The issue here is whether the yud gimle middos have any basis in the torah or are they principles that interpret the torah according to their own definition of logical interpretation. That is, I’m saying that the Talmudic method of interpretation is wholly contrived and is not logical in the common definition of logic. Yes, every concept has to be backed up – but the Talmudic criteria for backed up is not very backed up at all. It follows ITS OWN definition of backed up, either through the yud gimle middos or halacha le-moshe misinai (come on, seriously – how solid a backing is halach le-moshe misinai!) etc etc. Common sense says that this is indeed “flights of fancy.” To put it very simply – you cannot prove the veracity of a tradition by using its own artificial system of logic. That is simply absurd.
# 64 Kovi Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Atgate231,

This isn’t to defend Itche, who I believe sees this blog as his kiruv project.

However, I think you should be weary of “contemporary scholarship” which, especially when it comes to Jewish studies, can be just as dubious and prejudiced as anything else. (Like the Ph.D. candidate who argued with me that Moses was Egyptian, because it is a “b’feirisheh Freud.”)

Perhaps the most critical scholarship, at least in my opinion, on Jewish scholarship comes from “amoligeh tzeiten” Conservative rabbis/Ph.D.s, from the Golden Age of JTS, the period right after WWII. These students of Jewish thought attempted to meld the best methods of the academy with the best methods of the beit midrash.

I bring this up because your critique of the rambam is a bit troubling. Even though his point of departure was that torah is “halocho l’moshe misinai,” the rambam was also a neo-Aristotelian who felt the need to prove god independently of Torah (and St. Thomas Aquinas often thought he did.) If the rambam was merely a “jesus loves me this I know ‘cause the bible tells me so” kind of guy, he would have never bothered to write the “Guide.”

So to level a charge that “they are not and cannot be intellectually honest” is troubling because can you only be “objective” about Jewish scholarship if you believe the torah is NOT the word of God???

As for your post to guravitzer,

“To put it very simply – you cannot prove the veracity of a tradition by using its own artificial system of logic. That is simply absurd.”

No it isn’t!

All systems need starting points and building blocks. The most basic building block of philosophy “If A, then B” is not apriori knowledge. It is something that needs to be assumed. Philosophical logic must assume “if A, the B” or else you could never attain any knowledge. (Hence si falor sum or cogito ergo sum).

The same can be applied to the 13 middos. The Talmud builds a system, the 13 middos, and then applies it. I have no problem with that as long as it does so consistently.

Now, as for halochoh le-moshe mi-sinai, how is this any different than both the “City of God” and “Meditations”’ appeal to a benevolent creator?

I can only speak for myself here. But I found it very liberating when I came to appreciate the importance of “systems.” These Systems allow me to appreciate a line of thought even though I may not agree with it/believe in it, as long as that system is consistent. On a personal note, it has also allowed me to once again appreciate Torah. Not just as an observer of an ancient civilization, but as a former yeshiva bochur as well.
# 65 atgate231 Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Kovi,

Your point about scholarship is precisely why I retracted my statement in the previous post.

About the rambam: he is THE prime example of what I was talking about – he starts off with an immutable premises and is beferesh NOT intellectually honest. For if he was then he would not have held and defended the belief in the resurrection. He only believes in it because it is tradition not because he is able to justify it within the framework of Greek philosophy. I don’t know what his writing of the Guide has to do with this…he is not satisfied with just the tradition but wants to back it up philosophically – but in the case where he cannot, he still falls back on tradition.

And I’m not saying that you are not intellectually honest unless you believe that the tradition is false – I’m only arguing that in order to be intellectually honest you MUST allow for the POSSIBILITY that it may be false. And both the Rambam and SR Hirsh do NOT allow for that possibility. Period.

About the yud gimle middos: I think you misunderstood what I’m trying to say. I don’t want to get involved in the issue of a priori knowledge because it is irrelevant to my point (and besides, “if A then B” does not necessarily have to be a priori – you can SHOW that “if A then B”). My point was that you cannot prove a system from within the system itself. Guravitzer was arguing that Talmud is logically based on the torah and I’m saying that it is based on the torah only by its own logic – so, you must first accept the authority of Talmudic logic before you can say that the laws derived in the Talmud are based on the torah. I have absolutely no issue with the Talmud using its logic consistently – but that does not in any way prove the truth of it or of the statement that the Talmud is logically based on the torah…Again, I’m not arguing against the Talmud’s use of the yud gimle middos but only against using them to prove that the Talmud is based on the torah.
# 66 guravitzer Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I didn’t say proved or logically. Kisarita’s point was that it isn’t defined by Torah. Considering that the 13 Middos (or other larger versions) are applied to Torah and not to the Bhagavad Gita, the Talmud is defined by the Torah.

All of our logic systems are artifical, but that it is neither here nor there.
# 67 atgate231 Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
“Considering that the 13 Middos (or other larger versions) are applied to Torah and not to the Bhagavad Gita, the Talmud is defined by the Torah.”

No. One can argue precisely the opposite. Since the Talmud defines its own parameters and then goes and uses the torah and makes it conform to those parameters IT defines the meaning and interpretation of the torah and not vice versa.

“All of our logic systems are artifical”

Nit azey poshut. 1+1=2 is not artificial. But again that is a whole sugya and it is (currently) irrelevant to this post…
# 68 Shaul Ben Yakov Leib Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
I don’t know, I’m just a dumb goy when it comes to what this one said or that one said about “torah”. And as a matter of fact I’m not to bright concerning the written Torah either. However, there is a Torah that is alive, that goes beyond the words that we debate. A Torah that participates in our inhalation/exhalation and circulates in our very fiber. I remember in one of Yalhaks classes him saying, “Torah is Tiferet”!

All we have to do is merge our mind with our “heart” and Live It. If there is any other place to where one can know/experience God please let me know.
# 69 Kovi Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Shaul,

Your are right, as the Torah tells us “Ta’mu u’reuh ki tov havayeh” Taste and see that GOd is good. (mind and heart) Ideally we are to merge our hearts and minds. that’s the pinnacle.

But until we reach that point, we debate. There is an old yiddishe vort that God is alive in the the words. THus the debate becomes the revelation of God HIMSELF.
# 70 Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Kovi,

Consider this: The debating actually PREVENTS one from “reaching that point.”

In my experience, both personally and as a teacher, one doesn’t “reach that point” by debating; one reaches it by shutting up and LISTENING — not to oneself or someone else, but to that OTHER in the secret place of the heart that we’re too busy “debating” to listen to or hear.

Debating is an ego game, a pissing contest and has nothing to do with knowing God who sits inside us waiting to be heard but can’t be over the babbling of our own voices.

“Be still, and know that I am God.”

yalhak
# 71 Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
p.s. apparently you didn’t have a chance to read an essay of mine that the cows put up a week or so ago at http://7fatcow.com/?p=2108.

It’s on the passage from Zohar, “The secret of the Secret is called the End of Thought,” and goes into all of this in a lot more detail.
# 72 Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
ppss. and i recommend it to you only for your consideration as another point of view, and NOT for us to debate about.
# 73 Reb Yakov Leib HaKohain Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
“What will you gain from the study and discussion of scripture? Scripture is sugar mixed with sand. Instead, go directly to the source of the Scriptures, dive directkly into the Self within.” — Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa
# 74 itche newman Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
atgate231,

“I’ll venture to say you haven’t read contemporary scholarship”

a) you’ve got to be more specific. b) I take that to mean that my assumption was correct.

“I’m only arguing that in order to be intellectually honest you MUST allow for the POSSIBILITY that it may be false. And both the Rambam and SR Hirsh do NOT allow for that possibility. Period.”

how do you know? cause they didn’t WRITE it? did Freud (or for that matter any writer) WRITE that he allows the possibility for his theory to be wrong?
anybody trying to portray a certain idea, presents it to be absolute, even if in their own mind they are open to argument.

and btw I’m still not sure who you expect to defend Judaism. in my opinion anyone who defends it and dose not live it is a hypocrite. (although it is true that do the objective thinker that should not make a diffrence)

kovi,

“who I believe sees this blog as his kiruv project.”

right on

and btw I’m a bit surprised you have not called it ‘draw’ yet.
# 75 Yhosephus Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 10:29 am
“did Freud (or for that matter any writer) WRITE that he allows the possibility for his theory to be wrong?”

Who ever said that Freud was objective? He was NOT open to other interpretations of history, that was much of Jung’s issue with him. Who cares what Rambam and Hirch might have considered possible in their heads? if they didn’t consider possibilities on paper, we have no reason to say that they tried to consider them b’chlal. It’s perfectly valid to say that neither Hirsh nor Freud are intellectually honest about the world beyond their systems. But at least Freud is innovating a perspective, rather than just perpetuating and justifying an old one at all costs.
# 76 guravitzer Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 11:19 am
“No. One can argue precisely the opposite. Since the Talmud defines its own parameters and then goes and uses the torah and makes it conform to those parameters IT defines the meaning and interpretation of the torah and not vice versa. ”
Since one can argue both ways, and there is truth in both ways, it is most rational to say both are true: The Talmud both defines Torah and is defined by it. As I think I agreed above.

“Nit azey poshut. 1+1=2 is not artificial. But again that is a whole sugya and it is (currently) irrelevant to this post…”
Ver zogt that the one apple wants to be grouped together with the other apple to satisfy our need to create an artifical concept of a group of 2?
It is certainly more natural than other concepts in logic, but not 100% natural. (insert joke about Tropicana here)
# 77 atgate231 Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
itche,

yhosephus wrote the reply. I’ll just add that with the rambam we know for a fact that he wasn’t intellectually honest because of, for example, his belief in resurrection as I’ve already mentioned. I think that is clear enough evidence.

guravitzer,

Ok. If you think that both have truth I won’t argue the point (though I disagree).

“Ver zogt that the one apple wants to be grouped together with the other apple to satisfy our need to create an artifical concept of a group of 2?”

You don’t HAVE to group two apples together – but if you do, it will always be 1+1=2. Always. You don’t HAVE to apply logic but if you do it will always take the same immutable form.
# 78 guravitzer Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Not quite. For example, 1+1=2 includes the bias to count only what is visible, and not count each atom as a separate being.

There is a catch either way. If you want to refer to the pure mathematical principle of 1+1=2 with no application whatsoever, refering to no actual physical object, that state of non existence is a human construct. If you want to apply it to objects, that necessitates the human consensus that we do not count the infinite (to our knowledge so far) matter present in each of these items.
# 79 guravitzer Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
btw, I would say similary about conservative Judaism that is defined by Talmud and Torah. The may not feel themselves bound by either, but they still define themselves through them.
# 80 Kovi Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Guravitzer,

Atgate deserves better than such a half-ass response.

I don’t remember where, but there is a whole “pilpul” on why we say in Kriat sh’ma “hashem echod,” i.e. one of possibly many vs. “hashem yachid” (if my grammer is off, forgive me) one alone. and it essentially shlugs upyour argument. because you can count God and Gods. and a yochid can be a composite, as opposed to an echod. god, as we no refers to no actual physical being. etc. etc. etc.

It’s been a long time since I learned it, but I am sure a smart yeshiva boy like you can look it up it you want verification.

SO go back to the drawing board and give my friend atgate a decent argument.

good shabbes.

Kovi
# 81 itche newman Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 7:34 am
“Who cares what Rambam and Hirch might have considered possible in their heads? if they didn’t consider possibilities on paper, we have no reason to say that they tried to consider them b’chlal”

i repeat:

ANYBODY trying to portray a certain idea, presents it to be absolute, even if in their own mind they are open to argument.

and btw, kovi said “the rambam was also a neo-Aristotelian who felt the need to prove god independently of Torah”

Hirsch was the same story with Kant/Haskoloh.
# 82 yakov sack Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
is it ever the same holy brother? underneath the old oak tree there i betrayed you and you betrayed me.why the need to prove god?i’m not only allowing for the possibility that i’m wrong but i’m sure of it ! come davening with me for the things youve given up on .fried out for god forced to defend the jewism you hate/rainbow.god bless the child who had it own. one long story of survival w/o meaning as shlomo said bless iran our peacemaker atomic freind on the way to auchwitz fight for animal alimo meir kahana giving arabs guns freed from danger homeless one gush katif no houses to rent shindorfy avi cohen nachlial is at war with himself people dropping like flies love of women family a mistake yoesf turned 40 artistic soul theres everything you want alot of jews from new york oder of vampires flu you sukkus 3 or 4 days the end of father looking for hashem whats your hashik? this is my portion of all my struggle my life /my key vessel willing to recieve more after this shitty life olom hazeh memories of sholmo adead thing no connction wiping out everyone around new month raised wife hates me ari hacohen has disapeared for a week now hanacha starts try toeat at chabad shava tov bye
# 83 Yhosephus Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
is it ever the same. sigh. Love you Yakov!

“ANYBODY trying to portray a certain idea, presents it to be absolute, even if in their own mind they are open to argument.”

Is that true? how many words are there in Hebrew/Aramaic/Yiddish for “maybe”? Don’t people say that sometimes, when they are willingto hazard opennessto other possibility?

“i’m not only allowing for the possibility that i’m wrong but i’m sure of it ! come davening with me for the things youve given up on “
# 84 guravitzer Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
kovi, nonsense. That has no bearing on our discussion. In the concept of Hashem Echod there is nothing else, so that 1+1 does not exist - only 1 exists. Everything else is composite.
# 85 atgate231 Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
guravitzer,

Of course the particulars that you count are not absolutes – but who ever said they were? It is always up to the one doing the counting to choose what units are to be counted. But that does not in any way undermine the validity of 1+1=2. It is quite irrelevant whether or not it is something that can be attributed to the human mind – it still holds true universally and absolutely (that is, it is not artificial in the sense of “decided on” – it is true everywhere and for everyone. And this is without getting into the definition of “truth”) And again I don’t see how this is relevant…

itche,

First of all, that is absolutely untrue. People who are not sure generally admit that they are - if they are intellectually honest – but you don’t seem to see the value of that yourself. But whether or not people do that is irrelevant to the rambam - and I don’t know why I have to repeat myself. The rambam was not intellectually honest as I made quite clear with the example of resurrection. Case closed. The rambam was first and foremost a believer – his philosophy is clearly of an apologetic nature - although he did have a strong believe in the truth of rationality and tried his best to reconcile faith with Greek philosophy. Ultimately he wasn’t able to reconcile all of the tradition with rationalism - and when he couldn’t he still believed in the tradition although it did not fit philosophically. In other words (as I’ve already said), he never allowed for the possibility that the tradition in wrong. For if he had, he would NOT have believed in the resurrection. It is very simple. The same applies to Hirsh and most other defenders of the faith. Spinoza allowed for the possibility that the tradition is false and whatever he did end up believing was something he arrived at through reason and as such he was intellectually honest about it.

Personally I don’t think religion can stand up in the face of reason nor do I think it has to. Religion is based on faith – not only does it not need any rational support but it can never get it. But this is just my opinion.
# 86 itche newman Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
yehosephus,

“how many words are there in Hebrew/Aramaic/Yiddish for “maybe”? Don’t people say that sometimes, when they are willingto hazard opennessto other possibility?”

if its the lack of those words that bother you, (which I believe are a humble way of saying “this is what i think to be true” which is what every writer says even without saying it, in any case) then, go find someone who does use those words and ask him to defend judaisim for you!

(although if i remember correctly, Hirsch uses those words many times)

atgate,

“Ultimately he wasn’t able to reconcile all of the tradition with rationalism - and when he couldn’t he still believed in the tradition although it did not fit philosophically. In other words (as I’ve already said), he never allowed for the possibility that the tradition in wrong. For if he had, he would NOT have believed in the resurrection. It is very simple.”

the key word here is ‘tradition’. if in the Rambam’s opinion Judaism was a tradition, you would be right about resurrection. but since the Rambam (as pointed out before) believed/in-his-opinion proved, that Judaism/ Torah is DIVINE, he dose not NEED to prove every individual belief. (or as you called it ‘tradition’). being that they are all a part of that divine doctrine.
never the less he did try to, and as you mentioned he did not succeed with everything, however because he felt (for what ever reson, ill suggest its logic.. you want to disagree,have it out with the Rambam.) that the Torah is divine he therefore believed in these ‘traditions’ non the less.

bottom line: a objective thinker is one who considers ANY idea, regardless of its origin.
hence, just as when hearing an idea from a hypocrite it should make no difference, such is with hearing an idea from a subjective person. (i think will all agree on that, no?)
# 87 sara maimon Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
it doesn’t matter whether or not rambam or hirsch were objective; if we confine ourselves only to their works and works within the tradition then we most certainly are not.
# 88 kisarita Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
the orthodox interpretation going back before other views???
not quite
you speak as if the talmud was always universally accepted, and that was never so.

(i would admit that for most of recorded jewish history the bible was universally accepted)
# 89 itche newman Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
sara maimon,

absolutely.

kisarita,

“you speak as if the talmud was always universally accepted, and that was never so.”

who cares?

like I’ve said before: a objective thinker is one who considers ANY idea. regardless of its origin, popularity or acceptances (or lack there of).
# 90 itche newman Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 pm
btw who is the “you” that you speak of anyway?
if it wasn’t me, sorry for mixing in.
# 91 Yhosephus Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 am
“if its the lack of those words that bother you, (which I believe are a humble way of saying “this is what i think to be true” which is what every writer says even without saying it, in any case) then, go find someone who does use those words and ask him to defend judaisim for you!”

No, I was saying that there is an excess of those words, implying that it’s easy for anyone in the mesorah to suggest possibility rather than certainty.

Dilmah, Ooolaigh, Yachol lihiyot, Oolam… I’m sure there are more. anyone know ‘em? How does one say “maybe” in Yiddish? Or Ladino?

p.s. It IS the claims of certainty that make us into liars when it comes to things we have not seen or experienced. And the more we are compelled to call things that we have not seen or experienced “Truths,” the less faith we are likely to have in anything, because of the Idols that we worship, C”VS.
# 92 itche newman Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:55 am
“No, I was saying that there is an excess of those words, implying that it’s easy for anyone in the mesorah to suggest possibility rather than certainty.”

Sorry, I meant “the lack OF USE of those words” (did you think I didn’t no those words excited?) now reread my comment.

“It IS the claims of certainty that make us into liars”

Are you suggesting that to say “I believe in complete faith…” is a lie?

“When it comes to things we have not seen or experienced. And the more we are compelled to call things that we have not seen or experienced “Truths,” the less faith we are likely to have in anything”

That is why the Rambam writes in hichois yesoidey hatoirah chapter 8 halochoh 1: ובמה האמינו בו במעמד הר סיני שעינינו ראו ולא זר ואזנינו שמעו ולא אחר

(Although he is speaking in reference to something else, never the less)

It is precisely the experience that makes us believe.

(if your going to ask “WE never experienced?” see the kuzari, and others.)

“because of the Idols that we worship, C”VS.”

huh?
# 93 guravitzer Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:51 am
at, I agree it is irrelevant.

On Judaism ultimately unable to stand up to reason, say rather that Judaism cannot stand up to skepticism. One can always respond, “ver zogt”? A rationale can always be provided.

This reminds me of the Rebbe’s response to why he thought Chasidus is so powerful. He responded that he has two reasons, one personal and one to share. The first is that it is truth. The second was the rational explanation based on the nature of Chasidus.

Reason can at times be at odds with reality. There are unexplained phenomena in nature and science that rationally should not be there.
# 94 Yhosephus Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 am
“Are you suggesting that to say “I believe in complete faith…” is a lie?”

Faith and lies are both the aspect of the moon. Her light is reflections of the Whole Light of the sun, but truth is only the songs of the animals, that see the moon and are protected by her darkness.
(Al pi Rabbeinu’s The story of the Exchanged Children)

That is to say, yeah, totally, a lie that allows the Sacred to be respected. The Truth is we would do it anyway, and only want to feel good perpetuating our Kadosh, no matter what. Because you remember the Har Sinai in Good Torah, you ttaste in a way truer than could ever be argued with.
It is precisely the experience that makes us believe.

I heard Josh say in the name of the Zohar, what’s the only crime of the “Rabbanim” that they convinced us that the Eitz Hadaas was the Etz Hachaim. It’s like the guy who was told that there was a Princess and went to find her, desperately trying to find the precious.

His parents tell him how wonderful she is, and that she exists, for sure, without any question at all, and that she is just so beautiful, smart, and likeable, and that to spend any time at all with her would just heal his soul so good. So he goes out, to find her, by talking about the princess everywhere, trying to find where she lived.

One friend tells him about a bunch of people over in a temple who claim to have her there. And he goes there, and there’s all these old scholars sitting in front of a painting on the wall. And he asks:
“Hey! where’s the princess?” And they laugh and say: if you come and learn with us for a while, we’ll tell you.

And he did, and they talked about stuff having to do with the princess for awhile, and eventually, after a while, he starting asking up again… “So, uh, where is She?”

And the head master laughed and said, “here. i’ll show you the secret.”

And he points to the painting of the princess, and says: Here she is. this is the princess. Isn’t she Beautiful?

And our hero has to admit, it sure is a pretty nice drawing, if you don’t look too close at it, and he joins the higher echolon of the cult, admiring the picture with all the other scholars at the table.

And he does this for many years, until one day, out of the corner of his eye, he spots the princess, walking out from behind a wall, just walking across the room, for just a second. And no one else sees her, and he says: There she is! And no one can even hear him, hello, She’s over here. And eventually, he starts to wonder if he ever saw her at all. But eventually, he realizes, duh, of course I saw her! Why am I wasteing time with this picture?

It’s a profound truth to say that the princess is in the picture, and it’s also bullshit, to distract from the true search for the princess, who’s name is peace. Because if it doesn’t matter for our lives, if there’s nothing we really know how to do, or believe it’s possible to do, then there’s no reason to ever go beyond the picture.

To affirm something, just for the sake of belonging with the other people, as true, is the first thing every club and movement depends on. That’s their language, and that’s how games work. And we have to admit when we are invested in the “truth” of something and how, if it sets us free. no?
# 95 Yhosephus Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
105, woo! we made it on to the most commented! Fuck you, “ich bin a goy”
# 96 atgate231 Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
itche,

Resurrection is not a small thing but regardless, he did start off with the belief that the tradition/religion is compatible with reason, that the truth of tradition can be proved by reason. That is a premise I don’t think he would ever have doubted. In other words, you are implying that the rambam, when he “proves” the existence of god and the truth of tradition he allowed for the consideration of the possibility that god does not exist etc. Unless you show me explicitly where he says that (and you are aware of course that such consideration is kefirah) I will have to insist he wasn’t intellectually honest.

“a objective thinker is one who considers ANY idea, regardless of its origin.”

Bullshit. I do not have to consider every idea in order to be objective. There are many ideas that are simply ridiculous and are not worthy of consideration. While I don’t believe any idea is absolutely true I do believe some ideas are “truer,” so to speak, then others. You are correct, though, that the origin of the idea should not be a reason enough for not considering it. But then I’m not saying you shouldn’t consider the views of the rambam only that you must realize when considering his ideas that he was not being intellectually honest…

guravitzer,

The rebbe’s response just makes my point – he starts off with the premise that Chasidis is truth and then cites the rational of Chasidis itself to prove it – but that doesn’t prove anything at all (except that the rebbe “believed” that Chasidis is true). That is, the second “reason” follows (and is entirely based on) the first but the first can never be (logically) shown to be true from the second…
# 97 itche newman Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Yhosephus,

“Because you remember the Har Sinai in Good Torah, you taste in a way truer than could ever be argued with.
It is precisely the experience that makes us believe.”

than i guess we agree.

atgate,

“I do not have to consider every idea in order to be objective. There are many ideas that are simply ridiculous and are not worthy of consideration”

I think it was you that i accused of not reading the rambam or hirsch….. scroll up and have a look….

“you must realize when considering his ideas that he was not being intellectually honest…”

why?
# 98 itche newman Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
oh-and yhosephus,
great story, and like the famous vort about a maggid: thats a great vort.
# 99 guravitzer Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
atgate, you misunderstand what happened in the story entirely - the exact opposite happened. The students wanted to know why Chasidus has been so succesful in bringing them closer to Yiddishkeit, the Rebbe first told them his personal opinion, that it is truth and therefore brought them closer. Then he told them the rational reason, although I’m not remembering all the details it’s along the lines of how, instead of simply telling you that every Mitzvah we do brings joy etc. to Hashem, it shows how every Mitzvah actually affects Hashem and our soul. He didn’t connect one to the other, or attempt to prove whether Chasidus was truth or not.

Consider this (in your opinion) similar to a psychiatrist who prescribes the right medication although giving the wrong diagnosis. The medication will still work, even though the doctor is working under a misapprehension.

Aside, you assume this was only a belief to the Rebbe, as is your right. A Chossid will believe that the Rebbe actually saw the truth of this on a G-dly plane.
# 100 Yesod ben Yakov Leib Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 10:26 am
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.(paul),,,,,,,love yesod

7fatcow.com

is that enough?

100 Responses to “ is that enough? ”

Leave a Reply

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Most Commented Posts

Categories

Blogroll

Are You a Cow?

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Oct				Dec »
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30