tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post113713314319290037..comments2024-03-18T03:40:39.185-04:00Comments on The Curious Jew: Off the DerechChanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17655144434904957767noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-6120831385409897772010-10-15T13:59:04.164-04:002010-10-15T13:59:04.164-04:00http://insuranceinstates.com/nebraska/Omaha/Kubler...http://insuranceinstates.com/nebraska/Omaha/Kubler%20Financial/68137/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-61083469123591623702010-10-01T09:29:25.466-04:002010-10-01T09:29:25.466-04:00United States Restaurant Guide - a guide to every ...United States Restaurant Guide - a guide to every restaurant, http://restaurants-us.com/ca/Los%20Angeles/La%20Parrilla%20Restaurant/90033/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-883981276494902892009-10-15T13:36:04.010-04:002009-10-15T13:36:04.010-04:00The delightfully fetishistic, legalistic, and endl...The delightfully fetishistic, legalistic, and endless Talmudic and rabbinic debate is EXACTLY what makes a Jew a Jew. I believe that the content of the debate is always irrelevant; it's the reality that intellectual and emotional debate is encouraged and that there is a meta-community of Jews, no matter what brand, what orthodoxy, what beliefs, and what upbringing that delights in the endless conversation. We may be snails, but we're very smart snails.Atheist Jewessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-58693923717770552212007-05-10T16:59:00.000-04:002007-05-10T16:59:00.000-04:00I know I'm coming to this party late - and I know ...I know I'm coming to this party late - and I know that Einstein was a pretty smart guy... but isn't a snail without its shell just a slug?Ralphiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12919862880229022319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137437619943245782006-01-16T13:53:00.000-05:002006-01-16T13:53:00.000-05:00We're good. :) Thanks for the lively discussion.We're good. :) Thanks for the lively discussion.Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137437007277641922006-01-16T13:43:00.000-05:002006-01-16T13:43:00.000-05:00That was the most beautiful touche ever, Jewish At...That was the most beautiful touche ever, Jewish Atheist.<BR/><BR/>And I agree wholeheartedly. :) <BR/><BR/>And I hope you understand that I don't mean it as in "their wasted lives," i.e., they have nothing to live for and whatnot, becasue that would be ridiculous and not my intent at all. But I figure you understand that from your response.<BR/><BR/>So now we are good? *smiles/ laughs*Chanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17655144434904957767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137435699904900552006-01-16T13:21:00.000-05:002006-01-16T13:21:00.000-05:00Chana,Thanks for explaining that. I was having tr...Chana,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for explaining that. I was having trouble picturing you as someone who believed in the more literal kind of punishment.<BR/><BR/>So, if I may reiterate what you're saying, you're really worried that at the end of their lives, those who go off the derech will see the error of their ways and be ashamed and regretful about their wasted lives. I guess that's fair, but I'm not sure I understand the degree of shame/regret that you're imagining.<BR/><BR/>If I die and, to my astonishment, come face to face with God, I will be shocked. Perhaps I'll even be embarrassed that I was convinced by (obviously) false arguments to disbelieve and to not worship. I might feel some shame over influencing others to leave religion. But, on the other hand, I'd realize that it was an honest mistake and that better men than I had made it. I imagine God and me having a laugh about it. I'd be all, "Come on man, you were trying to throw me off with evolution and the stoning gays and the Flood story!" and he'd be like, "Yeah, I know. I just think it's funny to trick you guys."<BR/><BR/>On a side note, and I know you know this but I wanted to make it explicit -- there are many ways to live a meaningful life, and many of them don't involve Orthodox Judaism. Suppose one grows up in an ultra-Orthodox enclave, decides Judaism isn't for him, and instead becomes a doctor that cures AIDS or a lawyer who fights for the underpriveledged. Even if he eats bacon every morning and sleeps with his gay life partner every night, I can't imagine he'd be too ashamed to stand at the end of his life before the Almighty, should He exist.Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137434720735183012006-01-16T13:05:00.000-05:002006-01-16T13:05:00.000-05:00Now I see the point of confusion, so I will clarif...Now I see the point of confusion, so I will clarify...<BR/><BR/>What worries me is not that God will take out his wrath upon people and blast them to bits, that he will damn them or hate them or express any such petty human emotion. <BR/><BR/><I> I do not want those I love to have to undergo a judgement or even a purificaton of souls that may be harsh. I want those I love to be protected...</I> (from my post)<BR/><BR/>The following scenario is wholly based on my belief, please don't take it as any kind of assault upon your ideas:<BR/><BR/>Imagine, if you will, a person who has mocked God all his life, railed against him, claimed that he does not exist, and disobeyed him. Imagine then that that person is brought for judgment before God. And realizes that his whole life's work was for nought.<BR/><BR/>Isn't that punishment enough? <BR/><BR/>It's not that I think that God will damn people to hell (Judaism doesn't even believe in that kind of hell, but in the purification process- just as one refines gold in a crucible, so the soul is refined~ and even this saddens me, because I would prefer that people <I>not</I> be subjected to the purification process but simply enter the World to Come), but that people will be ashamed before God. Wouldn't it be crushing to realize the meaning of one's life- that there was no God- was turned around, and in the end, there was indeed a God? Wouldn't that be a harsh blow? <BR/><BR/>I would be struck dumb, having nowhere to hide my eyes, to look away. <BR/><BR/>And I would have realized that so much of what I had lived for- my entire life- had been wrong. And that would be crushing. <BR/><BR/>It would be paralyzing. Paralyzed by fear, by shame, by embarassment, standing in front of the very one I had spent my time deriding or claiming could not be. <BR/><BR/><I>That</I> is what I fear. That meeting between the denier and the one he has denied. The shame. The inability to fight back. How could one then say "You don't exist?" <BR/><BR/>I especially fear this for those who were bright enough and brilliant enough to understand the flaws and questions in Judaism. Because if they had the ability to do this, did they not also (perhaps) have the ability to understand that the religion is correct? <BR/><BR/><I>That's</I> the harsh judgment I fear. I am judged based on what I could have been.<BR/><BR/>If my life was devoted to proving God did <I>not</I> exist, or that he was wicked and cruel, and then I realize He does when I pass on to the next world-<BR/><BR/>Then it is there that I will <I>also</I> see the brilliant person I <I>could</I> have been, the Talmudic scholar or clever worker, the one who could have, as it were, accomplished so much- and instead, I spent my life accomplishing just the opposite.<BR/><BR/>Isn't that a harsh punishment? Wouldn't that make you weep?<BR/><BR/>It would make me weep.<BR/><BR/>That's what I fear for those who 'step off the path.' That realization, later on, and the hopeless feeling that there was so much brilliance and potential within themselves, potential that went unused, or was devoted to the very antithesis of that cause.Chanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17655144434904957767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137430867288479402006-01-16T12:01:00.000-05:002006-01-16T12:01:00.000-05:00I know that this example has been over-used, but i...<I>I know that this example has been over-used, but if a child misbehaves, his parents put him in the corner if he's young, or ground him if he's older, or even put him into treatment if he won't listen to them- takes drugs, threatens his health, and so on. And when he behaves well, his parents praise him.</I><BR/><BR/>Chana, there are different kinds of punishment. When a good parent punishes, it's never out of anger or jealousy, but out of concern for the child's well-being. Punishment is most frequently used by the good parent as a deterrant. An abusive parent, on the other hand, punishes not to teach a lesson, but to vent his anger.<BR/><BR/>I can understand an interpretation of the Shema which says that behaving well "naturally" (i.e. according to God's system) causes good things to happen, and behaving badly "naturally" causes bad things to happen. And I can imagine a God who makes life difficult for the atheist in an attempt to bring him back.<BR/><BR/>But that's not really what we're talking about here, right? You aren't afraid that your friends who go "off the derech" are simply going to have a harder time? And we all know that good things happen to bad people and vice-versa.<BR/><BR/>I thought what you're worried about is Divine punishment either in the afterlife, or in this lifetime but without benefit to the punished. Neither of those can be compared to the loving punishment of an unruly child.<BR/><BR/>As for Sinai, that opens up a whole different can of worms. Personally, I don't remember agreeing to anything and so I don't think it's fair to hold me to that agreement. But also, just because two parties sign a contract doesn't mean that the contract is valid. I can sign a contract with my wife that purportedly gives me the right to kill her if she cheats on me, but that contract would be neither legal nor moral.Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137429448200253692006-01-16T11:37:00.000-05:002006-01-16T11:37:00.000-05:00I don't mean to interrupt..However these arguments...I don't mean to interrupt..<BR/>However these arguments will go on ad infinitum because there's a fundamental catch 22 at work here..<BR/><BR/>If one truly accepts God..then he's forced to acknowledge that there's a divine element at work here...and as such how can he hope to match his mortal limited scope of understanding to a divine counterpart? We would be forced to submit our morals..and ideas of what's "good" and "right" to the divine ideas of what's good and just.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand if religion is nothing but a lifestlye..a smorgasbord of possible Gods..then you're removing the element of Truth and Divinity..from the picture and the religion collapses on itself...David_on_the_Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16755322374991538262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137429408994915262006-01-16T11:36:00.000-05:002006-01-16T11:36:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.David_on_the_Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16755322374991538262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137428915657233512006-01-16T11:28:00.000-05:002006-01-16T11:28:00.000-05:00I guess I think of God more as a father. I know th...I guess I think of God more as a father. <BR/><BR/>I know that this example has been over-used, but if a child misbehaves, his parents put him in the corner if he's young, or ground him if he's older, or even put him into treatment if he won't listen to them- takes drugs, threatens his health, and so on. And when he behaves well, his parents praise him.<BR/><BR/>So I don't exactly see the abusive husband metaphor...<BR/><BR/>I think that maybe one of the key differences between our approaches is that I believe we have accepted the covenant upon ourselves (by Mt. Sinai) and are therefore sworn to it, whereas you do not seem to think we have accepted it in the first place. <BR/><BR/>That's why, maybe, you would think God is abusive- because he's punishing someone for something that it is not his right to punish them for. Just angry, lashing out in hatred, or something of the kind. In other words, a God who punishes without cause. Random acts of brutality. <BR/><BR/>I see God as having proper cause for all punishment and/or reward, because we agreed to follow the rules, similar to the way one's parents would punish a child because we must abide by their rules.<BR/><BR/>Hence the difference. <BR/><BR/>Is this right?Chanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17655144434904957767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137428035204956542006-01-16T11:13:00.000-05:002006-01-16T11:13:00.000-05:00I think I'm getting closer to what you mean.The qu...<I>I think I'm getting closer to what you mean.<BR/><BR/>The question you have, I believe, is that God does not sound particularly loving and generous.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I think that's it. I think that's where we disagree. To me, the God you describe sounds like an abusive husband. As long as I do what he wants, everything's great, but if I look at another man or disobey some rule which doesn't make any sense (i.e. a hok), then I'll be severely punished. But then I disagree with many of God's actions in Tanakh. The Flood, commanding genocide, etc.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I simply can't see that God's actions are moral because I'm an imperfect human being. Maybe my yetzer hara is tricking me. But all I can do is go with is what I believe, and I believe that the God of Tanakh, read literally, is all-powerful, but not worthy of our worship. Since I cannot conceive of a God that powerful who is jealous and wrathful, I cannot believe in that God. (I don't believe in any other god, either, but that's a different story.)Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137425873925681722006-01-16T10:37:00.000-05:002006-01-16T10:37:00.000-05:00My GodMy GodDavid_on_the_Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16755322374991538262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137389334286795832006-01-16T00:28:00.000-05:002006-01-16T00:28:00.000-05:00He's not particularly loving or generous. If we do...<I>He's not particularly loving or generous. If we do what He says, He'll reward us, and if we don't, He'll punish us.<BR/><BR/>Is that the God you believe in?</I><BR/><BR/>I think I'm getting closer to what you mean.<BR/><BR/>The question you have, I believe, is that God does not sound particularly loving and generous.<BR/><BR/>And I say- that depends on what you mean by loving and generous.<BR/><BR/>If you mean a God who excuses my faults, who pretends not to see my misdeeds, who takes pity upon me and does not hold me to the highest standard- if that is a God who is loving and generous- then no, God is not loving, nor generous.<BR/><BR/>The God I believe in is a God who practices mercy tempered with justice. He is not a God who excuses me of my responsibilities, who takes pity on me, who tries to erase my actions in an act of false compassion. <BR/><BR/>The God I believe in is a God of truth. Every action has its consequence; I take responsibility for each choice I make. Laws are laid out very clearly, my people made a covenant with God, if I choose to disobey, that is my exercise of my free will- but it is also my choice to accept the consequence. <BR/><BR/>Jews in ancient times accepted their consequences. There is a famous story of Yeravam. God told him to repent, and he would walk alongside David in the next world. Yeravam wished to know who would walk first- the answer was David. In that case, Yeravam chose not to repent, knowing full well what would happen.<BR/><BR/>Or take Acher. He, too, when he died, stated that he would remain in a state of limbo- he would not be judged and would not ascend or go below. R' Meir, his student, vowed to achieve atonement for Acher, and did so eventually. <BR/><BR/>Or look, if you would to <A HREF="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0607.htm" REL="nofollow">Achan</A> in the time of Joshua. He had stolen, plundered where he ought not to have done so, confessed his sin, and was stoned (the Midrash explains this as atonement for his sin, something he accepted voluntarily.) <BR/><BR/>God is a wrathful God, a jealous God, a God of anger, fiery and furious. He is also described as Israel's beloved, and we a straying nation, continously choosing others to be our lovers, defying our husband, as it were. The relationship between God and his people is passionate; there are times when we draw close to one another and others when, "stiff-necked" people that we are, we merge farther apart...<BR/><BR/>The way in which God <I>is</I> loving and generous is in that he sends warnings; He does not desire to destroy people without cause. He sends Yonah to Ninveh to tell the people there to repent (even though Yonah does everything he can to outwit God, becase he does not want the Jews (who do not repent) to be compared to the inhabitants of Ninveh, who do. God forces Yonah to go, for peope must be given a proper chance.<BR/><BR/>This is the same way in which there are the laws of witnesses, where witnesses must be present and specifically warn the perpetrator that his action will be punished by certain consequences. A person cannot be killed by Beis Din unless these conditions are met. <BR/><BR/>Or there is the famous story of King Ahab (Achav) and his companion, the man who rebuilt the city of Jericho even after Yehoshua had cursed he who would do so. The man buried each of his children, as the curse specified. When Elijah the prophet came to comfort the mourner, he found Ahab and his friend sitting next to each other. They laughed at Elijah- "Yehoshua's curse with regard to the rebuilding of Jericho comes true, but Moses' curse that the rain will not come if we worship idols does <I>not</I> come true!" At this juncture, Elijah caused a famine. <BR/><BR/>But why had God refrained from allowing a famine before then? Because he had wanted Ahab to repent on his own, not when he was forced to do so...<BR/><BR/>This is similar to the Sforno's approach to Pharoah in Egypt. Many people take umbrage at the idea that God "hardened" Pharoah's heart. What God was really doing was restoring Pharoah's strength, so that he would <I>not</I> make a decision to let the Jews go free because of his fear/ being pestered by advisors/ weakness, but only because it was truly his own choice to do so. <BR/><BR/>I want to offer a quote from 'The Fountainhead:'<BR/><BR/>"Howard...I brought something I wanted to show you."<BR/>He walked back into the room and put hte briefcase on the table.<BR/>"I haven't shown it to anyone." His fingers fumbled, opening the straps. "Not to mother or Ellsworth Toohey...I just want you to tell me if there's any..."<BR/>He handed Roark six of his canvases.<BR/>Roark looked at them, one after another. He took a longer time than he needed. When he could trust himself to lift his eyes, he shook his head in silent answer to the word Keating had not pronounced.<BR/>"It's too late, Peter," he said gently.<BR/>Keating nodded. "Guess I...knew that."<BR/>When Keating had gone, Roark leaned against the door, closing his eyes. He was sick with pity. <BR/>He had never felt this before- not when Henry Cameron collapsed in the office at his feet, not when he saw Steven Mallory sobbing on a bed before him. Those moments had been clean. But this was pity- this complete awareness of a man without worth or hope, this sense of finality, fo the not to be redeemed. Tehre was shame in this feeling- his own shame that he should have to pronounce such judgment upon a man, that he should know an emotion which ontained no shred of respect.<BR/>This is pity, he thought, and then he lifted hsi head in wonder. He thought that there must be something terribly wrong with a world in which this monstrous feeling is called a virtue." <BR/><BR/>(Page 609)<BR/><BR/>I am not quite sure if you see what I am after with the quote, so I will try to explain.<BR/><BR/>God made human beings upright, strong, able to hold up their heads and conquer the world. We are creatures of free will, people with the ability to make choices, to accept responsibility, to do what we will. <BR/><BR/>If God were to excuse me from my responsibility in an effort to be "loving or kind" He would really be doing neither. He would simply entrench me in my habits, allowing me to do wrong and never to be called on it, to understand that it was wrong. I would learn nothing. <BR/><BR/>I would become a creature unable to hold up my head because I could not attain the standards that were set before me, someone who was not punished, who could only be pitied- and spared because of that pity. Someone ashamed before God. <BR/><BR/>I do not want that kind of pity, that mercy, that kind of loving. I want to take responsibility for myself and for what I do.<BR/><BR/>I believe God is a loving God and a merciful God, but a just God. And that is why I believe in reward and punishment, in right and wrong, in good and evil.<BR/><BR/>This is where the emotional questions come in- it does not seem wrong, emotionally or logically, to eat a cheeseburger. But if it is the law, according to the covenant I agree to honor, then I must know that I will suffer the consequence for breaking the law. <BR/><BR/>So long as this happens, we are on equal footing, me and God. I can stand tall, proud- I have nothing to be ashamed of.<BR/><BR/>But when someone pardons you when you do not deserve that pardon- when someone does not punish when you deserve punishment- you are in their debt, and that debt runs very deep. You are ashamed.<BR/><BR/>To give you a modern example- in the <I>Harry Potter</I> books, specifically <I>Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban</I>, Harry saves Wormtail's life. He turns to Sirius and Lupin and says he reckons that his parents wouldn't have wanted them to become murderers for Wormtail's sake.<BR/><BR/>Wormtail rejoins his master, Voldemort, that night. Harry is horrified by what he has done.<BR/><BR/>But it is then that Dumbledore explains that Harry has sent back a servant to Voldemort- but a servant who is in Harry's debt. This is going to work against Voldemort in the end, because Wormtail's life/ freedom belongs to Harry. <BR/><BR/>So long as I am served in accordance to my actions, I can hold up my head proudly, a servant of God. The first time God withholds punishment is when I am sworn to him, body and soul, not through choice but through a debt that (figuratively) cripples me. I am ashamed. <BR/><BR/>There is actually an idea/ question as to why we were placed in the world- one possible answer is that we initially were in Olam Ha'Ba, but we ate the 'bread of shame.' We had been placed in this high sphere for no reason, we did not deserve it, we did not earn it. We were indebted to God.<BR/><BR/>God then allowed us to descend to the world so that we could earn our way, as it were.<BR/><BR/>That is, of course, more of a mystical notion. But I hope you understand my meaning.<BR/><BR/>My God <I>is</I> a God of love and kindness- but this very kindness is expressed by the fact that he holds me accountable for my actions. That he does not pity me when I don't want to accept responsibility. That he allows me to create myself, as either one who is good or one who is wicked. That I have free will. <BR/><BR/>That I receive what I have earned- no more, and no less. <BR/><BR/>This is my God.Chanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17655144434904957767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137382879736501662006-01-15T22:41:00.000-05:002006-01-15T22:41:00.000-05:00(BTW, that last comment took me forever to compose...(BTW, that last comment took me forever to compose -- I'm having trouble getting to the meat of what I'm getting at.)Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137382798093721262006-01-15T22:39:00.000-05:002006-01-15T22:39:00.000-05:00Chana,Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'm not...Chana,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the thoughtful response. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure it quite addresses the point of our disagreement, though. I'm not arguing that we have a right to change halakha to suit our beliefs; I'm arguing about whether God will punish those who transgress.<BR/><BR/>In the shema, God says:<BR/><BR/><I>And it shall come to pass if you surely listen to the commandments that I command you today, to love the Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart and all your soul, That I will give rain to your land, the early and the late rains,<BR/>that you may gather in your grain, your wine and your oil.<BR/><BR/>And I will give grass in your fields for your cattle and you will eat and you will be satisfied.<BR/><BR/>Beware, lest your heart be deceived,<BR/>and you turn and serve other gods, and worship them.<BR/><BR/>And anger of the Lord will blaze against you, and he will close the heavens and there will not be rain,<BR/>and the earth will not give you its fullness, and you will perish quickly from the good land that the Lord gives you.</I><BR/><BR/>According to this passage, it seems that God will indeed punish those who go "off the derech." And if you believe that this passage is literally true, then I understand why you worry about them.<BR/><BR/>But the passage reads as if God is just some powerful Being with whom we've made a deal. He's not particularly loving or generous. If we do what He says, He'll reward us, and if we don't, He'll punish us.<BR/><BR/>Is that the God you believe in?Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137382485088744162006-01-15T22:34:00.000-05:002006-01-15T22:34:00.000-05:00Chana..Your breadth of knowledge..leaves me breath...Chana..<BR/>Your breadth of knowledge..leaves me breathless..<BR/><BR/>I have much to say. However let me just touch upon one point. Your utilizing Albert Einsteins quote to undermine a parents panicky response to a childs leaving is not really relevant. I think..although it is true that your child will always remain a Jew...in reality, usually all it takes is a generation or two for them to be lost to the Jewish people. I think this is a worthy cause of anxiety even with Einsteins reasoning.<BR/><BR/><BR/>DDavid_on_the_Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16755322374991538262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137372247932389212006-01-15T19:44:00.000-05:002006-01-15T19:44:00.000-05:00Jewish Atheist,Your objections to the definition t...Jewish Atheist,<BR/><BR/>Your objections to the definition that morality as defined as God's law are good in that they are logical- why does this happen? Why can't a man and his lover lie together? Why can't I eat a cheeseburger? Why does God care?<BR/><BR/>I think, however, that these objections are defined in terms of emotion. Emotionally, it is difficult to understand why God would separate man and his fellow male lover, or command us to war against Amalek. Logically, it makes little sense that we cannot eat cheeseburgers. Since the objections are of this nature, I offer you the following:<BR/><BR/>In Abraham R. Besdin's <A HREF="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0881254320/202-5161398-4606252" REL="nofollow">Reflections of the Rav</A>, in which he compiles thoughts "adapted from lectures of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik," there is a section that addresses this idea.<BR/><BR/>It is Chapter XIII, titled 'The "Common-Sense" Rebellion Against Torah Authority,' and it discusses the rebellion of Korah. Korach was a brilliant man, learned and well-versed in the Torah. He is famous for making certain arguments about halakhos and mitzvot in the Torah. For example, he argued about the tekheles. "Does a garment that is entirely blue require tzitzit or is it exempt?" Moshe responded that it still required tzitzit. Korach answered "A robe of any other color fulfills the tzitzit requirement merely by having one of its threads blue. Surely a garment which is entirely blue should not require an additional blue thread!" (Rashi, Num 16:1)The Midrash adds another argument. He asked, "Does a house which is filled with Torah scrolls still require a mezuzah on the doorpost?" Moses answered yes. Korach said, "If one brief section of the Torah placed inside the mezuzah satisfies the mitzvah requirement, most certainly a multitude of scrolls which contain many portions should!"<BR/><BR/>Now I come to Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik's analysis-<BR/><BR/>"Korah's appeal to common sense in Judaism was basically a claim that only <I>da'at</I>, and not <I>hokhmah</I>, is involved in the application of <I>Halakhah.</I> He conceded that the legal aspect in the practice of <I>Halakha</I> require expertise, techincal and academic. But he mantained that there is also a pschological and emotional aspect in the practice of Halakha and the observence of mitzvot. In judging the utility, relevance, and beneficial effects of the mitzvot, all intelligent people are qualified to render judgment on the basis of close and informed observation. For this aspect, he argued, common sense, human experience, and basic judgment are the criteria. And on this basis he challenged the authority of Moses.<BR/><BR/>Korah was committed to the doctrine of religious subjectivism, which regards on'e spersonal feelings as primary in the religious experience. God requires the heart, <I>Rahmana liba ba'i</I> (Sanh. 106b), and it is in the mysterious recesses of his personality that man meets his Maker. The <I>mitzvot</I>, by contrast, are physical acts which reflect the inner quest, the hidden feelings of religous emotion. The <I>mitzvah</I> is an external form of a spiritual experience; each inner experience has its external correlate in the form of particular mitzvah performances.<BR/><BR/>On the basis of Korah's theory, the mitzvah would have to correspond to the mood that prompts it. The value of the mitzvah is to be found not in its performance, but in its subjective impact upon the person, its ability to arouse a devotional state of mind. Tefillin would be justified, according to Korah's theory, only for their elevating and inspirational quality.....If these mitzvot ceased having this impact upon people, their observance would be open to question and new rituals, more responsive to changing sensitivities, should perhaps be enacted. What follows from his reasoning is that hte mitzvah may be modified according to changing times or even according to the individual temperaments of different people. That is, to him, no inherent redemptive power in the mitzvah beyond its therapeutic effects, it capacity to evoke a subjective experience."<BR/><BR/>In Halakha, the Rav goes on to say, "we do not regard the qualitative and subjective experience as primary. RAther, the objective act of performing the mitzvah is our starting point. The mitzvah does not depend on the emotion, rather, it induces the emotion."<BR/><BR/>He then asks, "Why does the Halakha refuse to give primacy to the emotions, to the inner feelings? Why.....<BR/><BR/><I>First</I>, the religious emotion is volatile, ever-changing, and unstable, even within one individual. To correlate the outward act to the inner emotion would require regular adjustments. The mitzvah would continually have to be modified and, at times, nullified in favor of new symbolic acts that would correspond to the person's emotional state. The format and identity of the mitzvah would be destroyed and no continuity of identifiable performance would be possible." <BR/><BR/>(Pages 139-144)<BR/><BR/>Now, you may say, why is this a bad thing? Does it matter if mitzvot changed with the times? Why is this problematic?<BR/><BR/>I would then point to 'Surrendering our Minds to God,' also by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik.<BR/><BR/>"The religious Jew accepts the entire Torah as a <I>hok</I>, both in regard to its immutability and also its unintellegibility....To be a loyal Jew is to be heroic, and heroes commit themselves without intellectual reservations. Only one who lacks the courage of commitment will belabor the "why"....<BR/><BR/><I>Why the Divine Imperative for Mishpatim?</I> We have spoken heretofore primarily of the hok, the inexplicable precept. In fact, we perform all mishpatim (mostly social laws) in the same manner as the hukkim. The Torah does not assign separate sections to the hukkim and mishpatim respectively; they are interspersed throughout Scripture. We make no distinctions between the two as regards the quality and totality of our commitment. Why, we may ask, is it not enough for the mishaptim to be intellectually motivated? Why the need to add a hok, a non- <I>logos</I> dimension, to social laws which conscience itself dictates?<BR/><BR/>Apparently, reason is not a reliable guide even with respect ot mishpatim. There are borderline situations which confuse the mind, and consequently it finds itself helpless in applying its moral norms. Since our intellect must wiegh pros and cons and is slow and eliberate in deciding, society starts to nibble away at the edges of marginal, borderline problems. Life must be lived; before our logic can formulate an opinion, society will already have weakened all restraints. Permissiveness will have replaced orderliness and the amoral in man will have emerged triumphant.<BR/><BR/>For example, the mind certainly condemns murder. This is particularly true of the killing of a young working mother who leaves behind orphaned children. But does this abhorrence of murder also apply when the victim is an old, cruel, miserly woman who in the eyes of society was a parisitic wretch, as in Dostoyevsky's <I>Crime and Punishment</I>? May we murder her in order to save a young girl from the clutches of degradation? May euthanasia be practiced to relieve the elderly or terminally ill of further suffering? Here the <I>logos</I> hesitates, is uncertain, and imparts no decisive guidance. We can easily rationalize in either direction and no external norm is compelling. As a mishpat, a social norm, murder may at times be tolerated; as a hok, the prohibition against murder is clear and absolute.....<BR/><BR/>We have assumed that mishpatim are prompted by reason. Yet, in our modern world, there is hardly a mishpat which has not been repudiated. Stealing and corruption are the accepted norms in many spheres of life; adultery and general promiscuity find support in respectable circles; and even murder, medical and germ experiments have been conducted with governmental complicity. The <I>logos</I> has shown itself in our time to be incapable of supporting the most basic of moral inhibitions. <BR/><BR/>The Torah, therefore, insists that a mishpat be accepted as a hok; our commitment must be unshakable, universally applicable, and upheld even when our <I>logos</I> is confused. Without hok, every social and moral law can be rationalized away, leaving hte world a sophisticated jungle of instincts and impulses...."<BR/><BR/>(Pages 103-105)<BR/><BR/>Hence my belief in an absolute law. I do not see how relative morality can exist in this world, the debates we have over euthanasia, abortion and the like clearly exhibit this. There must then be an absolute morality, something beyond all bounds, beyond all feeling or compassion, and that is indeed "what God commands." Is this morality good? If God is considered good, He must also be considered evil; he is made up of opposites and the source of everything. God is black and white, the source of good and the source of evil, kind and judgmental, for all contradictions and qualities are embodied by him...<BR/><BR/>As for God and the atheist- for that, I can only answer with a quote from Rav Kook found in <A HREF="http://www.orot.com/orotnew.html" REL="nofollow">Orot</A>.<BR/><BR/>It is titled 'Atheism and the Higher Belief:' Souls imprinted with a higher vision cannot be satisifed with mediocre religiosity and end up in disbelief. The cure is to prepare "vessels" for the higher "lights."<BR/>Chapter XLVII, page 197<BR/><BR/>"Because the picture of the greatness of the divine light is so immense inside the souls of the last generation of "the footsteps of Messiah," to the extent that they do not yet have the capability of structuring real life according to this lofty greatness, there results the disbeliefs and spiritual impoverishment resembling destruction, which we witness in our generation. But the way of healing is to generate vessels, explications, and plans, which will pave paths to actual implementation based ont he loftiest illuminations. For this reason, there is such a demand for freedom of spirit and strength of body, for only a storng spirit and healthy body can contain without shattering the highest illuminations and withstand active life full of vigorous creativity, and derive thereform ways of life. all these preparations are necessary for the complete Return (teshuvah) that stands beyond our wall."<BR/><BR/>I will not tell you that I understand this wholly, but I do believe the concept is beautiful- the idea that there are certain people who cannot make their ideas into "real life" and hence desire "freedom of spirit and strength of body"- but in truth, it is these people, who are thinking and fighting, who will eventually become vessels of light for others.Chanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17655144434904957767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137354861527757712006-01-15T14:54:00.000-05:002006-01-15T14:54:00.000-05:00Out of all the things you talk about on this post ...Out of all the things you talk about on this post the one thing I can say is... how wonderful for you to have such supportive parents who love you so unconditionally and give you that freedom of expression that you have in such a healthy way! You truly are a product of good upbringing and I admire them.FrumGirlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06938604279533529932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137351428537365592006-01-15T13:57:00.000-05:002006-01-15T13:57:00.000-05:00Chana,However, if I do believe in God- and I belie...Chana,<BR/><BR/><I>However, if I do believe in God- and I believe that He created me, and you, then you are indeed accountable to him. It was He who formed you (when I say you, I use it loosely- to encompass everyone), who created you, and who gave you a purpose. Therefore He has the power to judge you, but I do not.</I><BR/><BR/>I understand what you are saying about God having the power and you not, but I'm still having trouble imagining a God who would punish his Creation simply for not believing in him or for (e.g.) eating a bacon cheeseburger. Am I deserving of punishment? Is a man who falls in love with, joins his life with, and has sex with another man deserving of punishment?<BR/><BR/>I guess what I am getting at is the source of morality. If morality is simply "whatever God commands," than I don't see how we can call God good, except tautologically, and if there is a morality external to God's command, than I don't understand how any of the ben-adam-l'makom transgressions are immoral. And if they're not immoral, I can't understand why God would punish one who transgressed, particularly if they transgress through an honest disbelief in God or halakha.Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137339831915581502006-01-15T10:43:00.000-05:002006-01-15T10:43:00.000-05:00This may be the single best post I've ever seen on...This may be the single best post I've ever seen on a Jewish blog. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137337671184382642006-01-15T10:07:00.000-05:002006-01-15T10:07:00.000-05:00Chana,We all know that if one looks hard enough on...Chana,<BR/><BR/>We all know that if one looks hard enough one can always find a Halachic basis for one's views. There are homosexual Orthodox who believe that they have found theirs. There are women who want to participate in T'fillah who believe that they have as well. I am not denying that that may be the case. What I said was - <B>"it is not in the spirit of the Jewish Rabbinic tradition."</B> It would be wonderful if we could change that tradition, but frankly, as in many of the other things I mentioned above, I don't believe this is possible.<BR/>It is my opinion that at least for the forseeable future Orthodox Judaism will continue to move to the right as a response to perceived threats from more progressive movements.e-kvetcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11235994048517019317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137307586202662762006-01-15T01:46:00.000-05:002006-01-15T01:46:00.000-05:00Interestingly, e-kvetcher, I believe there is Hala...Interestingly, e-kvetcher, I believe there <I>is</I> Halakhic basis for my viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>First, I wish to address the specific situation you mention- Zimri and Kosbi. I believe this is different, for Zimri was doing more than simply breaking a law. He was mocking the leader of the Jewish people, deliberately attempting to undermine his authority. "You married a gentile," he says snidely, "why do you care what I do with Kosbi?"<BR/><BR/>In this case, Zimri would indeed be accountable to Moshe. As leader of the Jews, Moshe deserves and must receive respect. Look at the very phrasing of the verse:<BR/><BR/>ו וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא, וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל-אֶחָיו אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית, לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה, וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים, פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. <BR/>6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman <B>in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel,</B> while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting. <BR/><BR/>If Zimri simply wished to cohabit with the woman due to his love/ lust for her, would he not do so in a seemly fashion, inside his own tent? But this was a political move, destined to embarass and undermine Moshe's position. Even were it not for the sake of God's honor, Pinchas would have been justified in killing Zimri for the concept of rebellion against a king/ leader, 'mored b'malchus.'<BR/><BR/>If you do not find this possible answer satisfactory, then I would still point out the difference between times when God's presence was obvious- due to the fact that He rained manna down from the sky every day, gave the Torah amidst flames and smoke, and so on- and nowadays. Then, a transgressor who denied God might as well deny his own existence- it was so clear and so obvious- and so his sin in the face of God, almost like a slap to His face-might be treated differently.<BR/><BR/>I do not, I think, have to mention the fact that the laws in the Torah are stringent enough that there could be no reasonable doubt, most situations need witnesses who must warn the transgressor, there need to be at least two, the Ben Sorer uMoreh case may not even have ever happened because there are so many specific laws surrounding it, the Sanhedrin is termed a murderous court if they execute once in seven- or seventy years, etc. <BR/><BR/>Now, beyond the specific situation- <BR/>You may be interested in works like <A HREF="http://www.urimpublications.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=UP&Product_Code=Eyes&Category_Code=bfbaaa" REL="nofollow">Eyes to See: Recovering Ethical Torah Principles Lost in the Holocaust</A> by Rabbi Yom-Tov Schwarz and <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0876684797/002-7258156-8194445?n=283155" REL="nofollow">Jewish Tradition and the Non-traditional Jew</A> edited by Jacob J. Schacter, from which I base my view/ attitude. You may also like to read Chapter 32 in the Tanya...<BR/><BR/>In Chapter 21 of Rabbi Yom-Tov Schwarz's book, titled 'One who Condemns the Non-Observant Jews of Our Time Brings Indictment Against Himself' there is a wonderful quote by the <I>Tzemach Tzedek</I> from <I>Derech Mitzvosechah</I>:<BR/><BR/>"Certain people draw their principal life force by executing harsh judgment against others. We can see this in a very tangible way: when people of this ilk encounter individuals who are transgressors, they immediately become very heated. They are filled with wrath and driven by anger to punish them and beat them with cruel and murderous blows; they even insist on doing so with their own hands. They will not rest or calm down until they have consummated their wicked deeds against them, because their own inner nature is essentially evil! Therefore, the vil that they perpetrate against others infuses their lives iwth vitalitya nd endurance; without it, they would have no life at all. For them, an opportunity to commit murderous acts revitalize their soul, for this is their vital force. And though they disgusie their true motivation in a cloak of righteous indignation- for the object of their wrath had committed a sin- there is no truth to this whatsoever. For in reality, G-d is full of compassion and kindness...Their behavior stems from the evil temperament of their own souls, which bears the mark of harsh judgments, seeking only to harm and punish others." <BR/><BR/>I think that firmly supports my position- indeed, it even turns back this judgmental attitude on those who judge! <BR/><BR/>I hope that explains my view...Chanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17655144434904957767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1137304746303598062006-01-15T00:59:00.000-05:002006-01-15T00:59:00.000-05:00hmm. curious. i think i'll have to read that one 3...hmm. curious. i think i'll have to read that one 3 or 4 more times to have a definite response. especially with all those big words.<BR/>email me again, i suffer from the inability to respond syndrome. any homopathic remedies are welcome.<BR/>post-sabbatical salutations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com