Blogger Israeli Mom made the following comment on the post about the Yeshiva University gay symposium.
“The gay issue is one of those things that prove to me just how outdated and irrelevant the torah is as a text to live my life by. It has good things in it, but it’s mixed up with so much primitive and sometimes barbaric instructions. It reflects a social ethos that was relevant to the primitive tribes that lived here thousands of years ago. Not really relevant to the 21st century. No offense.
Stoning for gay sex is just one aspect of it. Easy enough for me to solve as a secular Jew.”
The comment represents what I think are the opnions of a large part of the Jewish population at large, and some individuals in the orthodox community too. I myself have wondered about the relevancy of the Torah and although I lead a religious and observant lifestyle, ever since I left high school I have been questioning the whole thing we call Torah Judaism.
Was the Torah merely written from a periodical perspective, or was it written to be as they say, a living Torah? I am almost positive that if the torah were written now it would be drastically different, but we can’t just rewrite the torah, we can reinterpret like we have been doing for thousands of years – but rewriting seems out of the question – besides – didn’t God write the torah? These is no way we are on a high enough madreiga to ask him to rewrite the whole thing.
The more I try to explain the torah and it’s whacked out things, the more I find myself busting out taykoo’s and halacha moshe misinai, but I can’t just say we will find out when moshiach come’s for everything (sometimes I just think the moshiach thing was invented so we think we’ll get see our relatives again) and so that the Lubbies have something to scream about at fabrengins.
Even as a Torah Jew I struggle with the fact that much of the torah is irrelevant, but what are we supposed to do about this? Maybe it will come to something like the Constitutionalists or the revisionists?
Going to Israel? Get 2 for 1 cell phone rental deals
-->
{ 192 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t know if Torah is irrelevant as much as many laws are not applicable today. I also think that much of our thinking has become distorted; we view life through a warped lens, and so it does seem unfair, unbalanced. I get upset by quite a few things in the Torah (practicing Orthodox Jewish mom). How can this be? How can that be!!! My poor dh gets the “unfair to women” rants.
I think things will clear up when the Moshiach arrives. Till then, maybe we just aren’t completely happy. Does that make sense?
Wow, I’m flattered to be mentioned in your post – thank you!
Do you actually believe the Torah was literally written by a deity? I always thought even religious people, modern ones, would realize it doesn’t make sense for a god to be writing down texts on a scroll? I mean, if you believe in that, literally, then there’s not a lot of room for argument, I guess.
To me, it’s fairly obvious it was written by a man (woman?), probably more than one, sanctified later by religious leadership. Hence why it’s clear to me it represents values and morals of the tribes/people who lives here (Israel) thousands of years ago.
Here’s the thing, I can easily see how a person would have faith. In fact, to some extent, I sometimes thing faith is even more natural for some people. Psychologically, the thought that there’s “someone” that somehow looks after things is very comforting. I can totally relate to that and I won’t ever put anyone down for it. My issue is with thinking some formal set of rules, which to me was obviously formed around the codes of an ancient (not to say primitive) society is somehow the “true word” of that “someone”. Methinks, if you believe in a higher force, attributing any “book” to him is, ummm, not sure how to put it… belittling? disrespectful even?
I think Pascal once said something like: the rational thing is to believe in a god, because if you’re right, you go to heaven for it. If you’re wrong, no harm done.
To me, if there were a god, and if there was any form of judgement in some afterlife, and if He/She chose to judge people by how much they adhered to some out of date book of laws, then you know what, I’d rather rebel and go to hell
The thing is I don’t think it rational to believe in God – and neither does Dov Bear – he had a very thoughtful post titled “Is it rational to believe in God?”
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2009/12/is-it-rational-to-believe-that-god.html
very true,believing is an emotional thing,it helps you when you feel lost,and when you feel good it justifies your happiness,i mean releigous people from all types of religions feel that their religion is true and they feel great when they stick to it,but they cant all be true,so maybe none are….
Hmm… for me that psychological side effect isn’t the point. I don’t think the main emphasis should be on “believing” either. If I try to stick to Torah and mitsvot it’s because I think that’s the best way for me to live my life (sometimes it’s more rational, other times it’s more like a gut feeling).
Perhaps all religions can be partially true (see great book by R. Brad Hirschfield, “You don’t need to be wrong for me to be right”). I don’t think the truth of Torah makes every aspect of all other religions wrong.
Heshy, she means rational in a different sense. I think the philosopher was Descartes, but it may have been Pascal who posited that believing was the rational choice given the possibilities – not that the belief itself is rational (i.e. Dov Bear is absolutely right)
There are 4 possibilities:
1) G-d exists – and you believed. Ultimate reward
2) G-d exists – and you did not believe. Hell
3) G-d does not exist – but you believed. No consequence, endured ridicule in life for no reason
4) G-d does not exist – and you did not believe. No consequence
The “rationalism” here is that if you choose to believe (1 or 3) then either outcome works out well for you, but if you choose not to believe (2 or 4) then one outcome turns out bad – i.e. if it turns out you were wrong and end up in hell.
Obviously, this reasoning doesn’t take everything into account, and I don’t buy it – but its just one man’s opinion anyway.
5) God exists – but the faith he is looking for is not the kind that can be summoned up in response to a cheap wager. Hell, endured ridicule (and worse) in life for no reason. Would have gone to hell anyway.
God exists – doesn’t care what you do. Hell.
6) God exists – and you believed because of Pascal’s argument. God hates it when people subscribe to hucksterism. Hell, endured ridicule in life for no reason. Would have gone to heaven!
7) God exists – doesn’t care what you do. Heaven.
9) God exists – the world is a test to see who can live rationally and ignore ridiculous competing iron age philosophies. Hell, endured ridicule (and worse) in life for no reason. Would have gone to heaven!
http://www.xkcd.com/246/
Pascal’s Wager was always a sucker bet. And you don’t do it as well as Pascal. You might want to consider two additional possibilities which blow your threadbare “reasoning” out of the water.
1) G-d isn’t as easily fooled as you’d like Him to be.
2) Your idea of what G-d is might have absolutely nothing to do with the reality. Suppose it’s really Mumbo-Jumbo God of the Congo, Baron Samedi, Astarte, Odin, Mahabrahma, Osiris, Tiellhard de Chardin’s conception, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ahur Mazda, Sedna or Maluk Taus. Do right by one of them and the you’re in real trouble if one of the others is in charge. If it’s Cthulhu you’re screwed anyhow. All you can hope is to be eaten first.
Infected Mushroom
Naomi Mahili
Yahoda Golan
Yaron Yamini
“Do you actually believe”
From Orthodox Judaism, that’s most of the point, that G-d effectively gave Moses the text for the Torah, which was written in the desert before the Jews crossed into Eretz Yisrael. Why is it “illogical” to suggest that G-d had anything written down for people to read?
“To me, it’s fairly obvious…”
To be fairly honest, it really isn’t obvious at all, no matter what you hold. As you don’t believe in G-d, then it’s only “obvious” by extension of that denial. From the scholarly perspective, it’s not obvious at all what happened if you hold that it didn’t have a singular author (even if that’s not G-d), and a lot of effort is made in an attempt to make multiple scholarship plausable. Regardless, the Religous standpoint would definitely be that it was given within a certain culutral context, but still made applicable to all times by said G-d.
“Here’s the thing, I can easily see how a person would have faith…”
I can tell you personally that belief in G-d is far less comforting than secular people like to think that it is. It is not at all comforting to imagine there’s a G-d directing the world, because your reaction from anything that happens is still a “Why did G-d make it this way?” as opposed to “Why did this have to happen?” It doesn’t make you feel better at all, because it’s not designed to. If it makes someone feel better to say “G-d decided…” It’s no better than someone saying “That’s just fate” or “that’s how nature/life/disease works”.
“My issue is with thinking some formal set of rules…”,
The issue is your personal limitations on the understanding of what G-d could be doing. Orthodox Judaism, unlike Christianity, believes in a totally omnipotent G-d who is totally omnicient. It is not easy to imagine that G-d can pay full and complete utter attention and care to both a single quark, while doing the same thing with every last thing in the universe at the same time. However, it’s not easy for me to even grasp the size of the universe either. There are many things beyond our grasp that would proabbly blow our minds. But at least in the Orthodox conception, it makes as much sense to say “G-d gave us our rules to tell us how to live best” as it does to say that he created physics and chemistry to allow oxogyn to bond properly.
“…if He/She chose to judge people by how much they adhered to some out of date book of laws, then you know what, I’d rather rebel and go to hell”
That’s exactly the sort of poisonous understanding of G-d that’s been popularized by christianity and hollywood that has little to nothing to do with the Jewish conception that makes it so hard for people to grasp Judaism. What you said isn’t from the Jewish conception, so I’d agree with you if we were talking about the same religion here.
Haha please ignore the random Artists posted above, they were just in the same notepad window and I just did a Copy/Paste all by accident.
SF2K1
I just wanted you to know that not all professing “Christians” share that POV.
Basic Christianity believes in a totally omnipotent G-d who is totally omnicient but unfortunately, they don’t have the Jewish conception, perspective or understanding that fundamentally, Christianity is a Jewish religion and therein lies the problem.
Well even theologically, Christianity has a Devil power problem. It’s an inherent dualism problem. Individual Christians believe all sorts of things that may or may not actualize monotheism, dualism, or whatever their own agenda may be depending on their brand of Christianity.
Either way, there’s a message loud and clear in popular culture of a rather castrated conception of G-d and what he can do, and this is what doesn’t remotely reflect Jewish beliefs that many Jews still get caught up in.
I remember a debate a while back where the Christian theologian Norman Geisler argued for an omnipotent and omniscient God while Rabbi Harold Kushner argued for an impotent God.
Harold Kushner is representing the Conservative movement so that’s it’s own analysis. After all, Mordechai Kaplan, the founder of the Reconstructionist movement who believed that G-d was not only impotent but had completely abandoned the world to whatever happens, was also originally a branch off from Conservative Judaism.
Not really representative of Torah Judaism either way.
Maybe not, but it’s very close to some popular strains of Judaism about 2000 years ago. The forerunners of the Gnostics believed in a demiurge and an absent or ineffectual Deity.
> I can tell you personally that belief in G-d is far less comforting than secular people like to think that it is.
The comfort is the sense of purpose belief in God lends to people’s lives. Faith is a bulwark against nihilism, and the existence of a Divine Plan means that everything happens for a reason, even if we don’t know what that reason is.
> “…if He/She chose to judge people by how much they adhered to some out of date book of laws, then you know what, I’d rather rebel and go to hell”
> That’s exactly the sort of poisonous understanding of G-d that’s been popularized by christianity and hollywood that has little to nothing to do with the Jewish conception
Seriously? Judaism is, if anything, more ritualistic than Christianity. In many Protestant sects God judges you based solely on how much faith you have. In Judaism you’re judged by your adherence to halacha.
“The comfort is…”
That’s not the comfort most seculars are referring to exactly. They are generally addressing the idea that religion is a crutch for dealing with life/death and the assertion that if you believe in G-d, you only really do it because it makes you feel good to know that when good/bad things happen it’s not random chance. Believing G-d made it happen isn’t that much better, and sometimes could make it worse than attributing it to random chance. I.e. The Babylon 5 quote where it says how the guy is much more comfortable believing the universe is random because that way it divulges the individual of any worry of responsibility for their actions.
“Seriously? Judaism is…”
I never said Judaism wasn’t ritualistic, that’s not what my response is rejecting. In particular, the rejection is focused on the “Do what we say or go to hell to burn forever” assertion. Punishment isn’t the focus of Judaism at the end of the day where it’s the neverending threat of Christianity. The rituals of Judaism serve an entirely different purpose, which you can discuss in a secular fashion (health, discipline, etc) or a religious one (Check out the ideas in the Tanya or Nefesh HaChaim for example, which focus on the spiritual effects)
On the first point, I think either belief system could go either way. There are some who will be comforted knowing that everything has a purpose, while others will agonize over what they did to deserve their misfortune. There are those who will take comfort in knowing that random misfortune is no one’s fault, while others will be bothered by the pointlessness of it all.
The truth is that we shouldn’t be deciding what’s real based on what we would like to be true.
On the second point, I see I misinterpreted your statement. You were answering the last bit about “I’d rather rebel and go to hell” while I thought you were responding to “judge people by how much they adhered to some out of date book of laws.”
> To me, it’s fairly obvious it was written by a man (woman?),
Definitely a man. The ANE was strongly patriarchical. And halacha relegates women to a lower class than men. They are in the control of their fathers and husbands, are not allowed to hold community office, are not valid witnesses, are considered to be “kalos rosh” (flighty), are not allowed to wear tefillin because they can’t keep their bodies clean (and the implication is that this gemara is not talking about menstruation)… and so on.
> I think Pascal once said something like: the rational thing is to believe in a god, because if you’re right, you go to heaven for it. If you’re wrong, no harm done.
Please, please, don’t cite Pascal’s Wager. It just so wrong. For one thing, it was formulated as an argument for Catholicism. It creates a false dichotomy between the Christian god and atheism. (Replacing the Christian version of God with the Jewish one doesn’t fix the problem.) It assumes that being religious has no costs. And so on.
Alas, I have met quite a few Jews who are believers because they fear retribution in the afterlife. It may be a Christian concept, but it’s not unique to Christians. Anyway, not a big fan of the wager, so perfectly ok with keeping it out of the equation
As for the view of women by Halacha, what can I say? One more reason why I stay away from religion.
Good point! You could use Pascal’s argument to justify anything: “the rational thing is to believe in Jesus/Mohammed/Joseph Smith/Elvis because if you’re right you go to heaven for it. If you’re wrong, no harm done”. I’m not convinced.
Yet not all stances can be justified by Pascal’s wager. Naturalism does not promise infinite gain for those who believe it.
Pascal’s wager is invalid because:
1) belief is not cost free. Ma’aser kesofim? Hilchos niddah? Yeharag v’al ya’avor? No oral sex?!
2) it is possible that professed belief leads to a *worse* outcome in a hereafter. For example, you may choose the wrong religion, or God could arbitrarily hate idiots who buy into Pascal’s wager.
Pascal’s wager weighs the infinite gain or loss of an eternal destination against the finite gain or loss of this life.
#2 looks like the multiple gods objection. If you believe an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise being would arbitrarily give a worse outcome in the hereafter to believers, I’d like to hear an argument for that.
Pascal’s wager was not on its own an argument for the existence of God, but a motivator for those on the fence.
For a positive case for the existence of a transcendant creator, I’m privy to the Kalam Cosmological argument: http://is.gd/5I4Fc
Possible reasons might include multiple gods disliking monotheism more than atheism, as well as a single God not having all three of those attributes, as well as such a God disliking:
1) Belief in the wrong religion more than belief in no religion
2) Belief based on a wager because it demeans faith
3) Belief based on a wager because it demeans reason (considering the cost of belief and unlikeliness of God’s existence)
4) Pascal’s wager for reasons incomprehensible to us but not to Him
“Belief” as such may be unaffected by the Wager by definition (I think this is true). In this case, actions are being judged, such as the action of saying one believes or the action of performing mitzvot of various kinds. It should be obvious how actions not in accordance with Divine will may be disfavored, even if sincerely believed to be the logical thing to do. It should be equally obvious that sincere actions taken by an Atheist may well be superior in the eyes of a god than those of a wager believing person.
Ultimately you can’t assume such a particular God anyway, as part of the wager you have to consider all possibilities, such as a cruel and vengeful god or multiple gods. For no actions in this world is it true that the worst possible affect in the afterlife is zilch and the best is reward.
This argument assumes that the probability of all gods is approximately equal, but this is demonstrably false. Ancient pagan religions believed in gods who had visible, physical bodies. If I said I believed in a 500 foot tall tree god whose body is made of wood and who wanders the forests of Scotland, you would be well within your rights to say that the existence of such a god has been disproven.
Next, I think the God of Abraham has a leg up on other gods. Consider that in the ancient world, Judaism stood alone in its belief that the physical world began to exist. All the polytheistic religions, as well as the Epicurean philosophers believed that the physical world was eternal in the past. Modern science has shown that the expansion of the universe and the second law of thermodynamics point strongly to an absolute beginning of all of physical reality.
I think we can both agree that if the God of the Torah exists, belief is better than unbelief, but what of the God of the Torah does not exist? Then you’re still not better off with unbelief, for consider if some completely different god (or gods) exists who prefers theists to atheists. In other words, there’s no counterbalance to the consequences of the first possibility, that the God of the Torah exists. If you want to balance out the equation, you’ve got to show that it is more likely that if God does not exist, unbelief is better than belief.
But is an evil creator just as likely as a good creator? I think not! For consider the moral argument http://is.gd/5IPMT
This is silly. Let’s take the three Abrahamic religions. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, while sort of beleivingin the same God, each hold that members of the other two relgions will be punished in the afterlife. What’s more, within each religion are sects that beleive that members of the other sects of their religion will punished in the afterlife. Now, using Pascal’s Wager, how do you determine which sepcific sect of the three Abrahamic religions you should adhere to in order to get into Heaven? Remember, if you choose wrong you don’t get into Heaven and may even spend eternity in Hell.
You two do realize you are talking through different paradigms and therefore different lens of viewing life: You don’t have a common language to even discuss the issue.
*giggles*
Well out of the 3, I would just pick the “original”, i.e. the earliest one.
Good question. An even better one is “which version of the three main Abrahamic religions will you follow?”
Judaism and Christianity have changed radically in the past couple thousand years no matter how much their adherents would like to believe otherwise. There used to be much more variation in both of them. But by the Iron Rule of Theology – We Will Kill Everyone Who Believes Differently – they have been reduced down to a few flavors each.
At least Islam isn’t as richly supplied with “Yeah, right” moments as Rabbinic Judaism and Trinitarian Christianity. But that’s only because it hasn’t been around as long. The mullahs and ayatollahs are doing their best to catch up.
I don’t think you want to go there. It makes pantheism, animism and several forms of polythiesm much more attractive and credible. You’ve also fallen into one of the classic misinterpretations of thermodynamics and seem to be a little light on cosmology. Not that that’s rare. Cosmology gets a major revision every fifteen years or so. And it doesn’t deny the possibility that there is more than one powerful being outside the bounds of our understanding.
Remember, too, that historically Jews probably didn’t start off as monotheists. There’s good archeological evidence that they thought of our G-d was simply OUR G-d, the biggest, best and greatest of all the deities.
And that’s leaving aside one of the strongest contenders, Buddhism. Its radical reformulation of the big problems of philosophy and religion is hard to argue against. And the fact that it assumes little and works without an all-powerful Thumb on the scales makes it a serious challenge to most theology.
This post made me sad
Makes me sad too because I kind of wish I could have unwavering faith in what I do – but, I don’t – I think questioning and figuring things out for oneself makes the faith stronger.
I was talking to someone recently- that may be the point of faith ipso facto.
I don’t think mature faith is possible without doubt.
The Will of the Divine isn’t outdated and irrelevant.
The tyranny and slavery we Jews have embraced, arrogating to mere men the infallibility and authority of the Master of the Universe is. It is deadly poison to the mind and soul.
true,the question is what IS the will of the divine?
> The tyranny and slavery we Jews have embraced, arrogating to mere men the infallibility and authority of the Master of the Universe
Who has claimed “infallibility and authority” for any men? (Aside from the Pope and certain rabbinical figures?) Or is this supposed to be a variation on the old “you have to be a slave to either God or your desires.” How about a third option, responsibly deciding things for yourself, with the full knowledge that neither you nor anyone else is omniscient or infallible?
Well G-d decided to hand the authority over to men. But the authority they have is not completely infallible, this is true especially for the more more contemporary ‘mere’ men. But even the older rules can be felled by a bigger and better Bet Din.
that is 100% incorrect,god never handed authority to man,why would he,he only uses to fulfill his wishes.
Torah lo B’Shammiem. Religious authority was handed to man.
Are you saying Heshy, that you don’t believe in G-D?
He said it’s irrational to believe, not that he doesn’t believe.
I believe wholeheartedly in God – I am just always questioning the details – I think God controls everything – but of course that makes me wonder about free will and doing anything with gusto because everything was prior decreed – the classic bechira argument doesn’t work wonders for me.
Also, even though I believe in God 100% – I don’t necessarily have a grasp on what we are supposed to be doing in this world. We could all get up there and realize that religion was all one big joke to give meaning into our lives – or maybe – to make it so we didn’t go around killing each other (although now we just do it in the name of God instead of for food)
My debates and beliefs and skepticism is just as complex as anyone else who has ever thought about things. My friends tell me I should have thought about this in high school and gone off the derech like anyone does – but I like being religious and I like the laws and traditions even though many of them don’t make sense – it’s not only my way of life and religion it’s mu culture – but I don’t only want the culture aspect – I want a guide to life too and that’s what the Torah is.
But, like many people, I have trouble coming to terms with keeping the torah as this living thing if so much of it does not and will never apply again – like slavery, my old man would say that everything in the torah is moral – but I didn’t grow up in 1938 Boro Park – and have wavering views.
I take it you don’t live in Israel?
I’m asking because I’m an atheist and very very much Jewish. I celebrate the holidays, my kids don’t go to school on Shabbat and I’ve had my share of torah, talmud and torah she’be al pe lessons at school. All of this is pretty normal for a secular Jew living in Israel. You can keep all the traditions, be part of the people, be very well connected to the Jewish tradition while being totally secular and even an atheist.
What’s more, we speak the Hebrew language daily. We have a vibrant Hebrew culture, with plays, songs and movies, all in Hebrew and well planted within the Jewish history and culture. Has nothing to do with a belief in God.
In the USA, you generally have to observe your religion, at least to some extent, to remain “Jewish”, and to ensure that your children will remain Jewish. In Israel, you can observe nothing, and even be atheist, yet still be Jewish, and be reasonably assured that your children will remain Jewish. Yet another advantage of living in Israel.
How would you know if you were off the derech?
>Torah…has good things in it
Really? Like what?
Easy to respond to that one. As I said, the Torah basically reflects the values and morals of these early people (including the changes they made specifically to differentiate their tribes from other tribes around them).
Alongside practices which today are considered barbaric (stoning men for having homosexual sex for example, or women for committing adultery, or the eye for an eye thing), they have what we too would consider as moral practices today. They also have stuff that is totally irrelevant, like how to treat your slaves. And stuff that is totally meaningless and was created to differentiate one tribe/people from the others around them (kashrut).
Hence, not everything is bad and the Torah happens to include many things which we would consider to be moral and “good” today. Same goes for Krishna’s words or the New Testament. The Kuran too btw. Not sure how you guys are so 100% certain that this version – the Torah – is the true word of God. So many contenders out there
The laws in the Pentateuch are a pretty good set of survival rules for a pastoral or farming society in the desert.
You thought Chumash was bad? Wait til you see Gemara!
lol yeah imagine sitting thru gemara for 8 years!!! in school we started in 4th grade all the way thru 12th. god was it hell.
Ha, I did three more years FULL TIME post high school. Don’t remind me:)
As someone that would be seen as orthodox, I now can hopefully say, that I will not lose faith in the Torah it is timeless as are its oral laws, however the fact that the main problems in the frum world today yeshiva tuition , shidduch crisis, focusing on chitzonios and elitist problems which have been a plague, continue to not be fixed after meaningless symposium and meaningless symposium, bother me very much as do a host of other issues in the religious and secular sphere. However, these issues are not a reflection on the Torah nor are our many difficulties not understanding certain concepts or laws, also not a poor reflection on the Torah.
All issues whether it be an illness loss of a job etc.. these can cause someone to unfortunately have their faith waver in the Torah and its Halachic authorities. Tests happen to all of us and they are not always easy(There is a book about this called Life is a test by Esther Jungreis)
However, isn’t it amazing, just how messed up we are and that we as a people have not been united enough to attack these problems. I’ll focus on issues which bother me. There is enough Jewish money out there to have subsidized Yeshiva tuition, there are enough people with brains to help with the shidduch crisis. There are enough people who should help stress the importance of some sort of secular trade and/or education for boys that arent fit for chinuch so they can work if they need to before we bankrupt ourselves. The problem is we are to elitist and unwilling to help and agree, in common areas. It boggles the mind, that we can solve Bugs in water right away as everyone was afraid that ingesting the bugs could ruin their neshama, however not being able to have the majority of jewish children in this world not attend some type of Yeshiva and jewish people not able to marry easily over societal shtus in many cases, is even worse for are Neshamas.
The bugs in water were viewed originally by many as a sofek and yet the problem attacked right away. The aforementioned problems are a certainty. Imagine how much more content we would be if we would actually combat these issues instead of just making speech after speech. If only we would unite
Ps. another problem is that we are not in Eretz Yisrael. Guilty as well. This is the first time in our history that we can freely go en mass and we are not. Imagine how different the situation would be if Jews went after 1967, or even if we started going today, whether you are tzioni or anti the whole concept of the medina everyone in their heart knows Eretz Yisroel is where we belong. If we all went en mass we would have better yeshiva tuition, less issues with shiduchim amd the whole place would be calmer. Imagine telling our Bubbies and Zaydies from europe that we could live in Eretz Yisroel freely and we arent! They would cry.
In Summation the problem is not the Torah, Rabbonim or Hashem Chas vishalom. The problem is us. Even if dealing with a loss of a job or a sickness imagine how true achdus could help alleviate the situation. BTW I am guilty also regarding my aforementioned issues (tuition Shidduch etc..)if I just sit here posting and ranting arent I as guilty as ones that hold meaningless syposiums. Im ain ani Li Mi Li Im Lo Achshav Amatai?
If only we put our heads and hearts together to solve our problems, I guarantee that even discussing the topic such as relevancy of the Torah would not ever have to be talked about.
Boruch Hashem we are ruled with compassion and Hashem takes pity on us despite our human shortcomings, calls us Amech Kulam Tzadikim and allows us to repent and pray, and everyone is judged on their level. Lets please pay Hashem back a little for the good that we have in this life because we do really have plenty of it. The fact that we could get up every morning, or have friends and families are kindnesses that we experience every day.
For those that say there is no G-d or the Torah was not transmitted from Hashem, or is outdated aside from pure heresy, you are cheating yourselves out of a wonderful heritage. While not easy many issues can while seemingly impossible can be remedied if we so choose, leading a lifestyle devoid of G-d has no remedy except faith in G-d. It is not always easy to believe, but you must it is a principle of our faith. It is illogical to think that without G-ds constant protection and doing our upmost to safeguard the Torah that the Jewish people would still be here or in Eretz Yisroel today given are small numbers and the history of hatred toward us.
I had my own rough patches I found the right Rav to help me get through, it was not easy and it is a constant work in progress. A while back I realized that even the biggest Tzaddik works on themselves just as much as us little guys we just have all our different levels and nisyonos and are judged accordingly. May we all Have Mazel Bracha Hatzlacha
> In Summation the problem is not the Torah, Rabbonim or Hashem Chas vishalom. The problem is us.
Which can justify anything. You don’t understand how rabbonim can be involved in money laundering or prostitution? They are on a higher madreiga than you, and you just can’t understand their holy cheshbonos.
> For those that say there is no G-d or the Torah was not transmitted from Hashem, or is outdated aside from pure heresy, you are cheating yourselves out of a wonderful heritage.
Appeal to consequences. I disagree with the implication that belief in God and Torah is necessary to appreciate our Jewish heritage, but even if that were true that doesn’t mean that God exists and gave the Torah.
> leading a lifestyle devoid of G-d has no remedy except faith in G-d
Why does a “lifestyle devoid of God” need a remedy?
> It is illogical to think that without G-ds constant protection and doing our upmost to safeguard the Torah that the Jewish people would still be here or in Eretz Yisroel today given are small numbers and the history of hatred toward us.
Your incredulousness and ignorance of the historical and sociological mechanisms that have led to the survival of the Jewish people and the establishment of the modern state of Israel is not an argument for the existence of God.
It boils down to basic belief. If you believe God authored the Torah (written by Moshe Rabbeinu), and that God is beyond time and space, then the Torah can NOT be outdated, ever.
You’re not the first and won’t be the last to question it. Dasan, Aviram, Korach and his crew all had similar ideas, as did many millions throughout the centuries.
Bottom line is that Torah is the only thing that makes us and keeps us Jews, not our long noses, big ears or shrewd business minds. History has proven that once a Jew rejects Torah, they end up as lost Jews within a couple generations. To those that care, Torah is the only guarantee of Jewish continuity.
My Great Grandfather was one of those who rejected. I never met him so I cant say anything but I’m glad I could claim it back. I gotta admit I’m confounded when I meed Jews who care nothing for what we are so fortunate to have.
“It boils down to basic belief. If you believe God authored the Torah (written by Moshe Rabbeinu), and that God is beyond time and space, then the Torah can NOT be outdated, ever.”
I’m not Orthodox, but that’s basically what I believe. I’d only add one detail: Torah speaks in human language (see Abraham J. Heschel’s “Torah min ha Shamaim”). Even if you believe that God himself wrote the whole Torah, it’s clear that it was written to be understood by Bronze Age people, so sometimes it reflects Bronze Age institutions and ways of thinking. The Torah cannot be outdated, but the “wrapping” can.
I’m not sure if the rabbis of the Talmud were more qualified than today’s rabbis to interpret and re-interpret and extract Torah from its wrapping; it seems to me that they often were as human and flawed as we are – and to me that makes them more likeable.
Frumsatire fan,
I believe the rabbis of the Talmud had more sense in their toenail than all rabbis of this day and age combined.
Even further on, we had geniuses like Rashi. Can you imagine anyone compiling the work he did without a computer or even abookstore or local library? Still, he managed to comment on the entire Tanach and talmud, often referencing grammatical and midrashic comparisons from one to another.
Which each generation, we move further away from the true knowledge of Torah, and our leaders diminish in stature. Just read the stories of the last couple generations of Tzadikkim, i.e. the various rebbes, the Rogitchover, Chasam Sofer, Chofetz Chaim to name a few.
Do you even know one person alive today that comes close to comparing to any of the above?
Now, multiply that by 50 or 100 generations and you’ll begin to see where I’m coming from.
We can’t tell, we need historical distance. In 200 years’ time people will probably quote 20th century rabbis that aren’t all that famous now, and will have forgotten some of today’s big names.
Of course there are towering figures like Rashi, but nobody exhausted all the meaning of Torah; Rashi can be best at one thing and Ramban at another, and they complement each other. Then there may be developments on other fields that have effects on the rabbis’ understanding of Torah – f. ex. the understanding of Arabic grammar by rabbis in medieval Spain was necessary for the development of Pshat readings. So who knows what discoveries (in science or other fields) lay ahead of us which may open up completely new and important ways of engaging with Torah. I don’t think we’ve always gone downhill, from the time of the Talmud/Rashi till now.
> Just read the stories of the last couple generations of Tzadikkim, i.e. the various rebbes, the Rogitchover, Chasam Sofer, Chofetz Chaim to name a few.
Do you even know one person alive today that comes close to comparing to any of the above?
Is it any wonder that no one today can compare to the whitewashed hagiographies that are passed off as accurate description of past rabbonim?
G*3,
I invite you to read the works of some of the tzadikkim I mentioned, they will stand as proof of their greatness despite what you may think are “whitewashed hagiographies”.
Try the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah gives you a faint idea of the genius that he was. It starts off with deep philosophy, and book by book you can see the depth of his understanding of every topic no matter how mundane, such as in zeraim where he goes into agricultural details even though he wasn’t a farmer, or hilchot kiddush hachodesh where he delves in major astronomical calculations using complex trigonometric style equations.
Try disecting the Rogitchover’s work on the talmud, where every page that he wrote takes today’s halachic geniuses weeks to put the pieces of the puzzle together.
I can go on and on the list is endless. Bottom line is that these people were giants when compared to what we have today. If you don’t believe the stories about them, read their works to see for yourself.
I invite you to read the works of some of the tzadikkim I mentioned, they will stand as proof of their greatness despite what you may think are “whitewashed hagiographies”.
Fair enough. But you said we should “Just read the stories of the last couple generations of Tzadikkim.” To see how they were greater than anyone alive today.
dasan and aviram were just to typical crooks,not major questioners of god…
Marty,
Dasan and Aviram were the first to rebel at the red sea saying “let’s go back”. They also participated in trying to prove God wrong by spreading the Manna on Shabbat and ended up as part of Korach’s gang.
None of the above had anything at all to do with theft, so I can’t imagine why you think they were “typical crook’s”. We don’t have any record of them stealing anything.
> You’re not the first and won’t be the last to question it. Dasan, Aviram, Korach and his crew all had similar ideas, as did many millions throughout the centuries.
Korach did not question the existence of God, only Moshe’s prominence. But it’s great that you came up with an emotionally neutral list of people to lump non-believers with.
> Bottom line is that Torah is the only thing that makes us and keeps us Jews, … Torah is the only guarantee of Jewish continuity.
Aren’t most Israelis secular? Be that as it may, is Torah is the only way to ensure Jewish continuity, the questions are, 1) Does it matter if in a thousand years there’s a group of people identified as Jews? Why should it matter? 2) If it does matter, does it matter enough to make it worth the costs of being religious? 3) If someone genuinely doesn’t believe in God, should he pretend to and foist that belief on his children to maintain the existence of religio-cultural group?
G*3,
If we all had abandoned the Torah when the Beit Hamikdash was destroyed, Israel wouldn’t exist today and we wouln’td be having any discussions on “frum” satire, as Jews wouldn’t exist.
It matters enough to those that care, to remain religious despite all the hardships, despite being persecuted, and despite all the additional costs such as expensive kosher food and outrageous yeshiva tuition.
All that is true. Again, the real question is why it matters if there is a group of people in the future who identify themselves as Jews.
G*3,
OK, let’s take your question one step further:
Why bother worrying about the planet and it’s resources at all?
Who cares if the human race doesn’t survive, when cokroaches and spiders will outlive us?
Why bother busting out chops to make less of a carbon footprint, wasting everyone’s time, effort and money on recycling programs and Kyoto protocols?
Why bother protecting endangered species of frogs and bats, when they’ll always be plenty of beef and chicken on our dinner tables?
Who cares about whether or not polar bears are dying or ice is melting in the Arctic?
Simple answer:
We Jews want to survive as a nation. We are an endangered species under constant physical, emotional and spiritual attack. Our only answer in the face of all our troubles and tribulations over the milleniums has been the Torah.
> Who cares if the human race doesn’t survive,
I agree. Who cares? The only reason we care is because were programmed with an instinct for self-preservation. It’s not rational.
In the real world, I’d probably do whatever it takes to protect my own life and the lives of others. But that I respond to my instincts doesn’t make that response rational. Humanity will die out eventually. Does it matter when?
> Simple answer: We Jews want to survive as a nation.
All right then. That’s a good answer. But that some people want something doesn’t mean that everyone must, or that it is worth the cost to everyone.
G*3,
No one forced you to do anything. You were given freedom of choice for that very reason. You can choose the “rightgeous” path and observe or you can choose to ignore and shut yourself out.
Even when we had our own land and law, people that didn’t wish to abide by it always had the option for leaving if they didn’t agree, just as we do here today.
> You can choose the “rightgeous” path and observe or you can choose to ignore and shut yourself out.
Again, love the neutral language.
To answer in kind, you can choose the rational path and realize God is probably a myth, or you can choose to ignore reality and shut it out.
Judaism wants to survive as a virus in human minds. It is an endangered species because it can’t reproduce or survive outside of people. It convinces its hosts they are special and should have many progeny and infect them with the idea in their vulnerable youth. Unfortunately competing mind viruses have different methods of survival, like killing off the uninfected, Judaism’s genes preserve this strategy from its past, but a mutation deactivated it…for now.
Judaism’s hosts try in vain to develop an antidote for other mind viruses that won’t work for the close cousin Judaism, but fail repeatedly. Judaism endangers its hosts by preventing them from developing strategies that would work against mind viruses in general, such as those animating the people who try to kill all not infected with their particular virus.
The virus needs an attachment to the Torah to survive. True, irrelevant. Why should I care about the survival of things parasitic to me, that do not care for my own survival, only their survival?
> The virus needs an attachment to the Torah to survive. True, irrelevant. Why should I care about the survival of things parasitic to me, that do not care for my own survival, only their survival?
Well said. Though I would dial back the anthropomorphism. This is a meme, with less independant life than even a virus. It doesn’t have wants or cares.
Explaining that is stage two. I need anthropomorphism, I’m talking to people who believe in creationism and/or non-overlapping magisteria, for crying out loud. If one guy can talk about a yad khazakah v’z'roah netuyah in his only book without needing to explain, I think I can get away with that on a comment to a comment to a comment…etc. on a blog. Apparently not. Well, we hold each other to higher standards than we do the cantankerous racist depicted in the Torah all the time, so good for us and I agree with you.
Brian, you came up with that one by yourself or maybe you enjoy a bit of William S Burroughs or some of the post-modernists?
Hmmmm….
Did you actually *mean* to compare less observant Jews to “cockroaches and spiders” Phil, or was this simply a poorly chosen analogy? Because it’s one thing to argue that less-than-strict Torah observance is necessary for the survival of the Jewish people; but it’s quite another to create a paradigm of Orthodox Jews is to Humanity as Non-Orthodox Jews is to Insects.
I didn’t compare anyone to cockroaches and spiders…
Accurate. Those who don’t want to believe will find reasons not to, and those who do will find reasons to do so.
Since many Jews (even Orthodox?) believe “they” (themselves, society, liberalism, etc.) know better, they have their excuse. We have no idea what our actions do on a wide “cosmic” scale, as well as no ability to know.
I would also (due to personal preference and accuracy) add Spinoza to the list.
“Bottom line is that Torah is the only thing that makes us and keeps us Jews, not our long noses, big ears or shrewd business minds. History has proven that once a Jew rejects Torah, they end up as lost Jews within a couple generations. To those that care, Torah is the only guarantee of Jewish continuity.”
I beg to differ. I am four generation atheist, and me and my children are very much Jewish. Very easy to do when you live in Israel. I’m as connected to our people’s history and culture as any of you people. In fact, I argue that when it comes to the most important achievements of the Jewish people in the 20th century (and I know many here disagree with the definition) – the return of the people to their homeland, the establishment of a sovereign Hebrew state, the revival of the Hebrew language and a living language – I have a far greater part in those than your average Orthodox Jew living in Brooklyn.
Obviously, just my personal views – and I mean no offense to any of you. I still consider the Orthodox Jews of Brooklyn (and elsewhere!) my beloved brothers and sisters.
Torah is an everlasting covenant until the end of all things. It says that.
I don’t believe it’s impractical for any age or culture. I also believe that the level and amount of reinterpretation throughout the ages has caused most of the issues regarding it’s relevancy.
Isn’t Torah enough? The apparent answer would be no. Obviously God had no clue what He was doing and He required/requires our reinterpretation… like an authors publishers editing team.
No, Torah is enough… the issue has always been and will always be, us… man. We don’t like what it says so we alter it and try to explain it away. “Surely He didn’t really mean that…”
Torah is only irrelevant because we, just like the original recipients, have no desire in our hearts to simply obey Him. It’s not in our nature, remember?
His thoughts are not our thoughts – His ways are not our ways.
All His thoughts towards us are good thoughts.
He’s a gracious and loving Abba.
That’s the position we should be taking regarding any and all of His everlasting covenants.
IMHO, a messianic believer
of course the torah says its everlasting,so does the new testament , and the quran,does it mean its true? who knows…
the bottom lie is,religion is pure belief no proof nothing to really stand behind it,just belief.
It’s clear that there are plenty of people He hates on this world. Even of His own people. Apparently, some of them hate Him back, too. This has nothing to with Truth vs. Fiction. It is the Christians who like to say that Je*us loves you, why do you bring that over here?
Drop the cr*p about “loving”,
In all fairness and respect, I didn’t. You did.
I kept my post simply and clearly regarding Torah and my opinion on the subject of this post as all the other comments have.
> Torah is an everlasting covenant until the end of all things. It says that.
I am all-powerful and my words are an everlasting guide to how to live your life. Do you believe me? Why not? My comment says so.
> Torah is only irrelevant because we, just like the original recipients, have no desire in our hearts to simply obey Him. It’s not in our nature, remember?
Who created our nature according to the Torah? What happened? Did God mess up? Or did he sadistically create us so that we wouldn’t want to listen to Him so that He could then punish us when we didn’t?
> He’s a gracious and loving Abba.
More like a draconian and abusive Abba.
G*3
>> Who created our nature according to the Torah? What happened? Did God mess up? Or did he sadistically create us so that we wouldn’t want to listen to Him so that He could then punish us when we didn’t?
You have a very skewed perspective on God. Sadistic and in need of punishing us so he screws with us? Sounds more human then anything else…
I believe what was written; that man fell from his state, his first nature, because of his disobedience/sin. That fallen nature is what I was referring to in my post, but you knew that.
> He’s a gracious and loving Abba.
>>More like a draconian and abusive Abba.
I’m sorry you feel that way.
> Sounds more human then anything else…
You don’t say.
The chumash is full of antrhopomorphic descriptions of God. Why not add sadistic to vengeful, wrathful, great warrior, etc.?
> fell from his state, his first nature, because of his disobedience/sin. That fallen nature is what I was referring to in my post
Sounds more like Christian than Jewish theology, but okay. Let’s regress a step. Who created Adam and Chava with the predisposition and naivete that caused them to eat from the etz hadass?
G*3
>Sounds more like Christian than Jewish theology
It’s in the Second Reading of Bereishit:
2:16 Vayetsav Adonay Elohim al-ha’adam lemor mikol ets-hagan achol tochel.
2:17 Ume’ets hada’at tov vara lo tochal mimenu ki beyom acholcha mimenu mot tamut.
How is that “Christian” and not Jewish?
The characterization of the incident as a fall from grace is Christian theology. The idea of original sin, that Adam and Chava eating from the etz hadas tainted their descendants, is Christian. The Jewish interpretation of the incident is more teleological. It serves as an explanation for why we don’t speak with God regularly, why we have to work for food, why women go through pregnancy and labor, why we have a sense of shame, and why we die.
In fact, the traditional explanation for why we die even though it was Adam that sinned is because we ourselves have committed sins, showing that had we been in Gan Eden we too would have eaten from the etz hadas. Had Adam’s sin changed human nature this argument would be invalid, as the reason we sin would then be because his sin caused us to have a sinful nature. It’s only if we share the same nature as Adam Harishon that we can be held accountable for our sins in the same way he was held accountable for his, and therefore share in his punishment.
I guess I’ll respond here, as a student of comparative religion.
The position you’re stating on original sin, that Adam’s fall changed man’s nature and makes him incapable of doing good, belongs to a group of Christian determinists known as Calvinists. Calvinism denies that humanity can freely choose to obey God. It affirms that sin is a born condition, and acts of sin are symptoms of that condition. I have no idea how this view can hold us accountable for our sins, but somehow it claims to do so.
Roman Catholicism holds to original sin yet affirms free will. I’m also not sure how this works.
The Arminian view, also known as the semi-Pelagian view, affirms that sin is not something with which you are born, but something you do. This view of the fall of humanity sates that our ability to do good has been injured by the fall, but not lost. Interestingly enough, I asked some of the rabbis at my local Haredi kollel, and they hold a view that is nearly identical to this one, albeit using slightly different vocabulary. So if some of you frummies dialogued with a Methodist minister regarding the fall of Adam, you might be surprised the similarity between your views.
At the end of the spectrum is the Eastern Orthodox view, or the Pelagian view, which states that human nature is unaffected by Adam’s fall, although the Eastern Orthodox would say that death was introduced into humanity during the fall, which, like having a terrorist enter your house, can drive you to behave in odd ways.
well didnt god make man in his image? maybe so,by making people sex hungry sadistic savages,
I promise you that your father is waiting for you with love despite your name calling.
This topic piqued my interest and was thought provoking. As an Orthodox Jew, I’ve learned to embrace that mainstream lifestyle. I think certain aspects to the Torah have some relevance to this day in age. Yes I think giving karbanos are outdated since we are no longer required to do that. I don’t understand the entire premise of Judiasm. Like most people, I have a lot of unanswered questions. I believe the fact that we were educated not to question the Torah sort of elicit our doubts. That perspective may stem from that. Unfortunately, most right wing yeshivahs are to blame for that. They view every question about Judaism as heresy. One girl was lambasted for being an apostate for asking a certain question about the Torah. The teacher later on apologized. Most teachers are not equipped to answer such philosophical questions. It may be due to the lack of knowledge on their part or discomfort over the question itself. I am not legitimizing their approach. In their frame of minds, we should accept Judaism the way it is. The more insular we are, the less questions we will have. Any opposing thought is seen as an offense and a threat to their own intelligence. Judaism centers around questions. If the gedolim had questions and they did, then why can’t we? I however think spirituality should play an integral part of our lives. Some rituals are vital to conserve. They are part of our identity more than our Yiddish sounding last names. If you think o otherwise then you might as well concur that religion is no longer necessary. There are self proclaimed atheists who claim that one does not need to believe in G-d in order to be a good moral person. I’m not saying that all atheists are deviants and perverts. There are those religious zealots to commit a sin in the name of G-d as well. What I was trying to allude to is if we have questions then we should try to seek for answers rather than turning them into doubts.
Yes, but seek answers from who?
Find a rabbi who actually has the knowledge to answer the real questions. That’s a challenge in and of itself. But then when you do, I can guarantee you that he will not have the time for you.
True but there are some worldly knowledgeable Rabbis out there as well as clueless ones who are out of touch with reality. You just need to find someone you can trust and rely on. I agree with you that it can be difficult to find someone who will answer your questions to your satisfaction. There are a lot of skeptics in every circle for that reason. As an opponent of blind faith, I think community leaders, Rabbis, and teachers need to be educated on how to answer real questions rather than tell their disciples to pledge to something without any knowledge and awareness of their motivations. They have to be prepared for questions that may seem contentious and controversial. My point being is that we as students are not the only ones who need to be educated on the facts of reality.
Could not have said it better myself. You rock Phil.
As for IsraliMom:
Stoning is not outdated (Did the world run out of 2 story buildings and rocks?). Of course you need two eidim to see the act and to warn the participants. If you are stupid enough to go through with it after that then you evolutionarily deserve to be stoned.
It appears you are taking the Torah too literally (as a reference to the eye for an eye statement). Many of the things that are considered outdated are just things people can’t stomach in a modern society. But you know what? It appears G-d thought about this before you did and the stoning only takes place if the participants are stupid enough to be publicly defiant.
But, of course, if you don’t even believe in the existence of G-d, the Torah is not just outdated but completely useless. People don’t need rules given by a G-d to tell them what is morally right, they can figure that out themselves and make laws to back it up to counter those who have no or a broken moral compass. Does saying the laws come from a G-d give it any more power than saying, ‘if yo do this I’ll kick your ass because you are breaking moral law’? I don’t think so…most people will say, ‘G-d? what G-d? I see no G-d. I’ll do whatever the hell I want.’
This is a fun post!
Parts of the Torah are outdated and irrelevant and have been for millennia. The gemara changed a lot of things to fit into the ethos and reality of the time of the amoraim. Subsequent generations reinterpreted Tanach and the gemara as they saw fit. As time went on and more and more was codified, there was less and less wiggle room in which to reinterpret. Which brings us to today and the calcifying, ever-more-stringent Orthodoxy we were brought up in.
Trying to argue rationally for the existence of God is a losing battle. It’s been tried for thousands of years, and so far no one has come up with an argument that holds water. The only honest approach is the one Hesh takes, to acknowledge that the belief is unfounded and irrational, but you are choosing to hold it anyway. Such as approach has the added advantage of keeping believers from becoming dangerous fundamentalists. Once it’s acknowledged that the belief is held for reasons other than its unassailable truth, blowing people up for disagreeing with you doesn’t look so appealing.
Thanks for the compliment – but the Muslims aren’t the only one’s who kill or do despicable things in the name of God.
Jews and Christians are just as guilty – I mean killing all of Shechem was hardly justifiable, as was the Inquisition and countless other events through history.
Absoloutly. I didn’t mean to imply that only Muslims of guilty of violent extremeism.
And this isn’t just limited to the religious realm. The first emperor of China Chin Shih Huang committed numerous atrocities in the name of nationalism. He sold on his followers the idea of a utopian future, one in which the peoples of the Far East would no longer be at war with one another, that there would be peace and prosperity. All it required was the conquest of all the other Chinese states and the execution of all suspected of resistance, and of all historians (to keep people from remembering their tribal roots).
This utopian vision drove many of the otherwise well-meaning individuals of the Chin province to commit unspeakable atrocities, reassuring themselves that it is all for the long-term benefit of society. No religion necessary.
“Once it’s acknowledged that the belief is held for reasons other than its unassailable truth…”
Isn’t that near the definition of moral cowardice? Believing something for reasons other than the probability that it is true? I’m not trying to be insulting.
Is you is, or is you aint, my baby?
I’m sure the ancient Greeks thought that the Torah was outdated too because they enjoyed sleeping with men.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the Torah. I think there’s something wrong with modern culture.
The issue is how we reconcile things in these modern times, not how we scrap ideas we simply don’t like because we’re products of a corrupt system.
Any book which makes reference to slavery, polygamy, child-brides, quasi-incest, genocide, and heliocentricity, to name a few, is probably both irrelevant and outdated.
And the list goes on
It can still have a meaning, within the context of its historical significant, but to live your life by it? too weird.
Modern everyday Halacha is developed from these sources which seem so irrelevant. Every Modern culture does have its foundings on Bible Law. I am not intending to be mean however I am curious what basis of actual knowledge of Torah its laws and developments you base your comments on. You certainly would never dream of becoming a lawyer by giving a cursory glance at a few textbooks, yet you seem to be doing that with your arguments vis-a vis judaism. You are not being fair to yourself by denying your religion.
The “modern Halacha” you refer to often makes absolutely no sense, and its sourcing only confirms that. I based my previous comment on indisputable evidence that would hold up in any court of law — the text itself. As for my textual knowledge, I was raised in an ultra-orthodox community and brainwashed with a steady diet of irrelevant and outdated Jewish education from birth. If that’s not a qualifier, I don’t know what is.
I am sorry for your unfortunate experience Why not seek out answers that you need by Rabbis who could help like from Aish Hineni ohr Samayach or YU. Or possibly there is a sweet intellectual frum person that could direct you. Obviously during your upbringing the answers you were seeking were not told to you in a calm rational manner if at all, and those questions still have to be answered please let go of the bitterness of your bad experience and try to move on (yes easier said then done) BTW in my reply I was talking to Israeli Mom however my answer applies just as well. As unfortunatly your questions were repressed, you are still like someone that just got the textbooks and not the full education please seek your answers Hatzlacha Rabba
I’ve found the answers, Just Curious. Islam has all the right answers! They’re perfect!!!!!!!!!!!
If you don’t agree, you’ve OBVIOUSLY not looked hard enough. I mean, how can you write off a religion that gives meaning to over a billion people without properly investigating it? IMBECILE!!
Thank you for your good wishes. I’m not sure why I should go to a Rabbi and what my questions are supposed to be? I’m perfectly happy being secular and an atheist. You won’t find me seeking answers in an ashram in India, or with any rabbi/guru whatever. Sorry!
Heh. So you’re one of those that just likes asking questions for the heck of it. You definitely are jewish. If you do not seek an answer, you are like a school child – you know practically nothing about the Torah and its many intricacies yet you profer an opinion that It is irrelevant. Questions show that you want to understand but if you are not seeking an answer then you are an ignoramus.
Woops, I meant geocentricity.
to G3 Sorry you feel angry
I promise you that your father is waiting for you with love despite your name calling.
This is really funny. I think this is the first time someone has accused me of not believing in God because I’m angry.
I’m not angry. I’m actually a very easy-going person. I assume by “name calling” you mean what I said about God being draconian and abusive. Let’s be clear. God has never spoken to me. I know about Him the same way you do, through the book he’s supposed to have written. And based only on that book, it’s pretty clear that He tends to throw violent tantrums when His will isn’t followed to the letter. Draconian and abusive. QED
And while my father may be waiting for me with love, he’s a nice middle-aged man who lives in New York, not an invisible man in the sky.
You have stated that G-d is the same one that we know from the chumash. However if you look at the world around you it is impossible not to realize that he is there as well. You say that your father is a nice man living in manhattan whom I assume you love and he loves you as well. Next time you look at him I am sure you will find and image of G-d staring back at you with a kind smile.
“…impossible not to realize that he is there as well…”
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
which word?
“Impossible”
Better? LOL
> However if you look at the world around you it is impossible not to realize that he is there as well.
Just so we’re clear, is this an argument from, “Wow, look at the pretty trees – God!” or an argument from, “The world is big and complicated and I don’t understand how it all works – God!”
> Next time you look at him I am sure you will find and image of G-d staring back at you
What exactly does “an image of God” look like? I mean, I think my father’s a pretty smart guy, but he’s not omniscient and he’s certainly not omnipotent. Though if my father is God, does that make me Jesus?
Seriously, what does this mean in practical terms? Are you trying to suggest that the emotions I feel for my parents is evidence of God? Because if you like we can discuss the brain chemistry that gives rise to the feelings of affection we have for others.
I agree that it is hard to talk about something that is based on faith in a purely rational manner. However that being said I truly do feel that if you look at the world around you one cannot not realize that there is a G-d watching over us. And don’t get me wrong I am not saying we always recognize that he is there (although ideally we should) it is hard. But I was being serious about your dad, you cannot simply say that his special love for you over some other kid is just based on chemical reactions. Love is a gift from G-d. We all depend on plant life for oxygen, there has to be a reason why the majority of fauna is pretty. I dont feel like it was simply an evolutionary thing. I feel G-d made the photosynthesis process for our enjoyment. Like I said it is difficult at times to have faith if you are using only logic especially if at the same time you also try to understand why and how G-d works. On one thing you will agree , we are still human and not supreme beings (okay maybe you, with you being a child of G-d
our perception of the world around us is limited no matter how much we think we know we dont know anything. I think this world was created by G-d and yes if you think for a moment he is found in your fathers smile.
> I agree that it is hard to talk about something that is based on faith in a purely rational manner.
Only if you insist that faith is a valid indicator of what’s real.
> However that being said I truly do feel that if you look at the world around you one cannot not realize that there is a G-d watching over us.
Funny, because I feel exactly opposite. I don’t see how, once you learn about how the world works, you can believe in a literal God without recognizing that belief has no rational basis.
> But I was being serious about your dad, you cannot simply say that his special love for you over some other kid is just based on chemical reactions.
The “special love” of a parent for their child occurs through a process called bonding. What we call love is caused by the firing of specific neurons in the brain and the neurotransmitters oxytocin and serotonin. Love is chemicals in our brains, just like everything else we experience.
> has to be a reason why the majority of fauna is pretty
Plants are not objectively “pretty.” We perceive them as pretty. Why is good question. That we don’t yet have an answer is does not equal God did it.
> On one thing you will agree , we are still human and not supreme beings
Again, argument from ignorance. That we don’t know everything doesn’t mean that God did it. That we are limited in what we can perceive and understand does not mean that there is some Being out there who knows everything. It just means that we currently don’t understand everything and may never understand everything. Also, saying that we don’t know everything is not the same as saying that all theories about reality have equal standing. Some theories are based in an understanding of the world arrived at through repeated testing of their validity. Other theories are conjecture based on tradition and emotion.
Also, even if it were true that ” is impossible not to realize” that God is in the world around us (and we’re straying dangerously close to pantheism here) that in no way contradicts the way He is portrayed in the Chumash.
A portrayal is viewed in the eyes of the one seeing. In the Chumash one person can focus on the parts where Hashem will punish us if we do not listen, while another person can focus on how kind and benevolent he is. It is hard in the crazy world that we live in to see the good. I for a while was perplexed by verses of punishment, especially regarding the need to perform certain Mitzvos. However, if you want to be part of G-ds world you have to take good (blessings, the world come,etc..) along with the hard to understand (smoting and golus part.) I can say based on my own shortcomings that I have definitely tested G-d yet I was not killed at the stake, and that is due to G-ds benevolence and Kindness toward me. One person might say where is G-d when there was a a terror attack in Eretz Yisrael, while another might say its a miracle with so many enemies that we dont have more terror attacks.
If a person truly believes that G-d grants them everything in this world and everything is his (not always easy to do), then the hardship parts are coming from a sad father who cant understand why his children rebelled, and like I said above in our human perception we can’t always understand why the punishments (if we should call it that) should be so harsh just like we cant understand why we always deserve so much good. As a side, We portray G-d through how we see him and we do not always understand his reasons, or give him (to put it colloquially) benefit of the doubt (i.e. this to is for the good). G-d though always judges all of us on our own levels with love and benefit of the doubt realizing each of our imperfections.
“I agree that it is hard to talk about something that is based on faith in a purely rational manner. ”
Yet somehow G*3 is managing it.
“In the Chumash one person can focus on the parts where Hashem will punish us if we do not listen, while another person can focus on how kind and benevolent he is.”
A third person can focus on how the book as a whole makes no coherent sense and requires millions of pages of apologetics to get it to even partly seem to agree with itself, never mind external scientific observation.
“I was not killed at the stake, and that is due to G-ds benevolence and Kindness toward me. ”
…also, props to Western society, for not taking God’s word seriously and stoning me to death, and I’d like to give a shout out to the Big Man himself, for not actually existing to smite me. Am I missing anybody? Oh yeah, Islam, for being too fundamentalist and hateful to actualize its dreams of world conquest and death to the infidels. Keep your chins up, buddies, we’ll mainstream the idea of total submission to G-d’s will one day!
“If a person truly believes that G-d grants them everything in this world and everything is his…”
L’moshol: As Abraham Lincoln once said, if you call the tail a leg, how many legs does my dog have? Five. Four legs and one massive penis k’ilu a leg. But calling the tail a leg doesn’t give him a sixth leg, it’s simply not a leg at all.
Something like that, anyway.
The belief that one god gave something doesn’t make it true, nor does the belief that two gods gave part make that true, nor does the belief that one gave more stuff and another took some away make that true.
“A third person can focus on how the book as a whole makes no coherent sense….”
Dear Brian leave that to the scholars who can help you. To an uniformed collector a picasso is no different then scribble scrabble of a street person. You must first fully be informed to appreciate.
“Oh yeah, Islam, for being too fundamentalist and hateful to actualize its dreams of world conquest and death to the infidels. …. one day!”
Judaisim is the only religion that does not actively seek out converts yet still believes all have a chance at the world to come if they follow Noahide law which are actually very moralistic.
“The belief that one god gave something doesn’t make it true….away make that true”
G-d does not need a person to make something true. However I am curious if you do believe in pure evolution. In other words if No G-d we came from apes. If that is so I can turn around your words and use the same position. We have no actual proof that we came directly from monkeys (despite the existence of people like Osama) based on the fact that we have similar genes is all athiests have to go on, as none of us were there at the time of creation. Is it not out of the realm of possibility that G0d designed us similarly?
In the history of mankind, there has never been a society that survived without a belief in G-d.
> Judaisim is the only religion that does not actively seek out converts
Judaism doesn’t seek out converts because the Roman government forbade them to do so and the Rabbonim of the time basically said, “Yeah, well, we didn’t want to anyway.”
> yet still believes all have a chance at the world to come if they follow Noahide law which are actually very moralistic.
Well, five out of seven are. The laws against having idols and blaspheming God’s name have nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a jealous Being worried about His honor.
> In other words if No G-d we came from apes.… We have no actual proof that we came directly from monkeys… the fact that we have similar genes is all athiests have to go on…
Where do I start? You have no idea what the theory of evolution has to say about the emergence of humans in particular or biodiversity in general. You have no understanding of the evidence for evolution provided by paleontology, taxonomy, and biology. You can’t even separate evolution and atheism, two things which have no real link. Suffice it to say there are many religious people, including frum Jews, who understand evolution and find it to be the most plausible explanation we currently have for biodiversity. If you’re interested in learning what proponent of evolution really have to say instead of tearing down silly strawman representations of it, there are some excellent web sites out there.
> In the history of mankind, there has never been a society that survived without a belief in G-d.
That would be more accurate if it said, “In the history of mankind, there has never been a society that survived.” No society lasts forever, whether they believe in God (or gods, as most did) or not.
> In the Chumash one person can focus on the parts where Hashem will punish us if we do not listen, while another person can focus on how kind and benevolent he is.
Even when He’s being kind and benevolent to us, He’s being horrible to other people. He took us out of Mitzrayim by destroying the country. He gave us Eretz Yisroel by commanding us to commit genocide. The only completely benevolent act that comes to mind is the maan in the midbar, and even then He threw a fit when the Bnei Yisroel asked for some variety in their diet.
> I can say based on my own shortcomings that I have definitely tested G-d yet I was not killed at the stake, and that is due to G-ds benevolence and Kindness toward me.
No, that’s due to His not existing. This what’s called negative results – you have a hypothesis that if X is real, then when you do Y, Z should happen. If you do Y and Z does not happen, it means that either X does not exist or that your understanding of the relationship between X, Y, and Z is flawed.
> One person might say where is G-d when there was a a terror attack in Eretz Yisrael, while another might say its a miracle with so many enemies that we dont have more terror attacks.
Notice how the first person bases his argument on a known – a terrorist attack that has actually happened – while the second person bases his argument on an unknown – the number of terrorist attacks that might happen. How do you know that Israel isn’t currently suffering the maximum number of possible terror attacks? (Possible here being defined as of attacks that terrorist groups can finance and carry out without attracting the attention of anti-terrorist agencies.)
> If a person truly believes that G-d grants them everything in this world and everything is his (not always easy to do), then the hardship parts are coming from a sad father who cant understand why his children rebelled
Firstly, God is omnipotent, so He would understand exactly why people do what they do. Secondly, this line of thinking inevitably leads to the conclusion that bad things only happen to those who deserve them. Have you never known of a good, kind person who suffered a tragedy?
Reminds me of a car sticker we have in Israel. Started with the religious sticker saying:
We have nobody to protect us other than our father in heaven.
To which the secular reply sticker was:
We have nobody to protect us other than our father who’s currently doing reserve duties in the IDF.
Sounds better in Hebrew
I always loved those bumper stickers! But did you see the response to the response? It said in essence “We need both”
Israeli mom By definition you are not a hardcore athiest as I wrote before Modern everyday Halacha is developed from these sources which seem so irrelevant. Every Modern culture does have its foundings on Bible Law. I am not intending to be mean buit you do not have a strong foundation and basis of actual knowledge of Torah its laws and developments to base your comments on. You certainly would never dream of becoming a lawyer by giving a cursory glance at a few textbooks, yet you seem to be doing that with your arguments vis-a vis judaism. You might speak hebrew and celebrate a bit (which is more then many) but you are just touching the surface of Judaism. You are not being fair to yourself by denying your religion. BTW I want to tell you Kol Hakavod that you live in Eretz Yisrael it is where we all belong.
“Every Modern culture does have its foundings on Bible Law. ”
Just Curious, where did you get that idea? The cultures representing the majority of humanity alive today do not have their foundations in Bible law. Their cultures are based on Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Shinto, Taoism, animism, and so forth. Christianity, in the form of Saul of Tarsus, specifically rejected Bible Law (to use your term) during its foundational period. So exactly what are the every Modern cultures you have in mind?
I was talking about a book of law or belief set that there is a higher power whether it be Chumash koran animism etc..
Heshy, your post sounds like how I feel. I dont think anyone can be certain and a lot of Torah, especially rabbinic laws, seem bizzare and unnecesary. But i think doubting and wondering is ok and I hope that god sees that I am trying to keep the mitzvos as best as i can (sometimes not always as best) with the limited understanding i have of him and his torah.
There is no God. Just thought I’d let you know.
I thought he was dead
its Nietzsche who is dead
destroying shchem had nothing to do with religion it was because their sister was raped and sodomized. even an athiest would do the same thing in this situation . (if he could get away with it)
can someone explain to me, assuming god doesn’t exist, what morals are and why it is the ultimate authority that it is justified to hate an immoral person in today’s “accepting of everything” society.
Huh??? destroying Shkhem was a pre-meditative action. Not a rage of the moment thing. It’s got nothing to do with religion or atheism – it does reflect the code of behavior and morals of ancient primitive tribes there.
And no, for the record, women get raped all the time, and I don’t recall people this day and age who go and take revenge by killing an entire town’s population. Hello??
What morals are is a deep philosophical question. I think that if you need an external source for them, it’s sad. As advanced apes, we have shared basic codes of behaviors that are engineered into us, mostly, so that we can live in a large group and benefit. Hence, we have a code of behavior not to kill each other, not to steal, etc etc. We have evolved further than that, and with the invention of writing were able to reach more delicate codes of behavior, changing them across history and time to best fit certain societies.
I can tell you this though – if you think a person that a person that eats pork is less moral than a person who eats beef, or that a person who has gay sex is immoral, that, to me, is a very weird interpretation of morality…
> destroying shchem had nothing to do with religion it was because their sister was raped and sodomized. even an athiest would do the same thing in this situation . (if he could get away with it)
I wouldn’t. I’d want to kill those responsible, sure, but I wouldn’t wipe out an entire city just because the rapists happened to live there. But maybe I’m just not manly enough, and should let myself be swept away by rage.
yeshiva guy, have you ever used google? that should help with finding som emore information about morality and how it evolves (i know you hate that word) through time based on reason, rationality and common sense.
also, regarding shechem, if a woman is raped, god gives permission to wipe out an entire city? children and other innocents included? lovely
bankman and yeshiva guy have either of you read up on the miforshim Re: shechem. Also regardless of a bit of ignorance on how he worded yeshiva guy and bankman have one true idea morality in many cases does change an evolve sometimes for better and sometimes for the worse. There are many cases of unwed mothers having kids but not marrying society does not frown upon them so much anymore, one can say isn’t it great how accepting we have become. Or from a Torah standpoint one can say isn’t it sad that general society has become so accepting of not having to have a family unit. In the extreme the Swiss felt it was a moral duty to send back all people to the germans that had a J stamped on their passport, while the Danes risked their lives to save the Jews
a dif yeshiva guy,
so you would rather have a morality system that in many cases is not moral (by accepted standards) but at least its written down on a parchment.
do you think putting someone to death becasue they carry sticks on saturday is moral? do you think putting someone to death becasue they dont believe in G-d is moral? I could go on and on….
sorry if you misunderstood I was merely pointing out what people consider moral is heavily influenced by social pressure and other factors and may not necessarily be moral at all.
da deh da, dont care anymore, anyway men arnet allowed into the highest heavens, especially hetereo men!!
I would have to say that this thread was a very interesting discussion to which I would lik to add my secular Jewish American opinion. I believe that we can be secular in America. My children know who they are. They know their history, their religion, and basically who they are. They have hebrew names and we do celebrate the holidays in our own way. I can honestly say that they are in the mode of the traditonal secular Zionists. As far as the anachronistic reality found in religion…I have never bought into the thought that God himself wrote the Torah. For the time it was concieved the Torah was a wonderful forward thinking document, and its application over time was terrific for the formation of the concept of morals, right and wrongs and the definition of how we live our lives. But to not acknowledge the fact that society can and does evolve past the musings of anciet man is to deny the concept that all humanity can grow, develop and progress. If you believe that mankind is incapable of thinking for itself, then I would say there is no hope for mankind and that we should therefore, just acept the inevitability of war, disease and the abundance of evil. On the other hand, I believe that we can take the historical musings of our ancestors and build on them to create a better and more udnerstanding world. No I am not an Aericna leftist nieve in my view of the world. I am a modern Jewish American mother and wife who welcomes her chldren into a wider world, teaching them who they are, where they come from and that nothing and noone has right to stand in their way, including someone else’s musings about God.
Whether you are observant or not there is no reason not to believe that G-d wrote the Torah. It is the oldest written proof as to why even a secular jew has a right to live in Israel. If it was just written by people and its laws expounded upon by people without divine inspiration, then you are relegating the Torah and its laws to just some interesting moralistic code and while more complex it would be no better then a childrens fairy tale that has good lessons to teach us. Obviously I know this is not how you feel about the Jewish religion, but once you start leaving Hashem out of the equation based simply on logic the argument does not hold up, you cannot base a belief system on something that you do not fully believe in . All Halacha till today, has proofs rooted one way or another in the Torah. The Torah gave rise to all that we have halachically today, whether it is concerning how to keep Shabbos or how to kasher a microwave in a hotel room. If you have any questions, there is a good book to read whether you are religious or not called The committed life by Esther Jungreis (can be gotten on Amazon or BN) which shows how G-d is with us through everything
> Whether you are observant or not there is no reason not to believe that G-d wrote the Torah. It is the oldest written proof as to why even a secular jew has a right to live in Israel. If it was just written by people and its laws expounded upon by people without divine inspiration, then you are relegating the Torah and its laws to just some interesting moralistic code and while more complex it would be no better then a childrens fairy tale that has good lessons to teach us.
Appeal to consequences, anyone?
There are many reasons to doubt that God wrote the Chumash. That removing Him as author delegitimizes an argument for the Jewish people to live in Israel and reduces the Chumash to “fairy tales” is not an argument in favor of Him actually being the author. It’s merely the reasons that you want Him to be the author. And as we should all know, what we may want has very little to do with how things really are.
114 comments and counting! Isn’t it revealing, the fact that so many people are interested enough to comment. So many of us struggling with the same ideas.
FS fan,
And the rest of us are trying to explain our views to them.
Phil and others who are trying to explain their views to the “struggling ones” are just as invested in validating their own beliefs as the ones with doubts are interested in reconciling theirs. This is one conversation that will never die except from exhaustion.
I want to expand on some of the arguments presented by several different posters. First- what someone called Descarte’s rule. If you believe in G-d and He turns out not to exist, nothing happens. Second- If G-d does not exist, and this world is in fact a beautiful accident, nothing we do ultimately matters. Nothing is ultimately good or bad; only the desire to function as a society causes certain things to be labeled as wrong. In other words it would only be survival instinct that makes them wrong; however as human life is ultimately an accident and not intrinsically valuable, ultimately wrong things do not matter
So why do people, who refuse to believe in G-d on logical grounds, get so emotionally involved in trying to convince believers’ not to believe, and insist that religion causes all the evils in the world?
Please understand that this is not meant to be an argument for you to believe in G-d, although I clearly do. I am simply questioning why it should bother athiests so much that I choose to believe in G-d. And please do not ask me why it bothers me that athiests don’t, because naturally by definition if I believe in G-d I believe that it does make a difference whether you do or don’t.
Sorry, but your reasoning seems flawed. It is not ok for atheists to try to get others to not believe in God but its ok for you to get others to believe in God. I thought it was God who told Abrahan to not judge the pagan visitor to his tent. That if God left the man to his life and since the insult was to God, who was Abraham to judge. Under that philosophy who are the religious to judge anyone else and their beliefs? Who are they to try to convince the atheists of their mistake? If God, who says the insult is to him, allows non-believers to live their lives who are you to judge and decide that you have that right to change anyone’s mind?
Regarding how I can try to convince people to believe in G-d when He clearly allows people to live against His instructions, now you are getting into my theological beliefs and as I previously stated, I have no intention of getting into a theolical debate here. I only wanted to point out that attacking religion on the basis of logic is in fact, illogical.
First, the argument that you might as well believe in God because if you’re wrong “nothing happens” and if you’re right you get rewarded is Pascal’s Wager, which as I said in an earlier comment to this post is really flawed. Secondly, I have no real desire to convince religious people God doesn’t exist. I have an interest in answering their arguments when they try to convince me that He does. And I enjoy a good debate.
In a broader sense, what religious people believe makes a difference to atheists because religious people are the overwhelming majority in most countries, and non-belief is stigmatized and in some places legislated against. Atheists are bombarded by religious imagery, and some find it offensive. Think about how we were all recently inundated with Christmas imagery. Now imagine that instead of a mostly secular Santa Claus, all the ads and Christmas special were about how Jesus had come to cleanse the world of its sins, and anyone who didn’t accept Jesus as their Savior is an evil person. Now imagine that this doesn’t happen just around Christmas, but the whole year.
Someone suggested the reading of the book: The committed life by Esther Jungreis, that is an excellent book to see that G-d is with us in our everyday life
I would try to explain myself but sitting outside in the freezing cold on my pocket pc trying to pick up a neighbors wifi, I don’t really have the patience. I’ll leave off with this. If we assume god doesn’t exist take something that you believe is morally wrong and think what makes it morally wrong. lets say because it’s X. Than think why X is morally wrong. Keep working back and you’ll start to see my point.
And if we assume God gives morality we go back to God at the end of the chain. Good becomes just another word for “whatever the powerful force decides”. Talk about subjective morality!
Hmmm, do you have your neighbor’s permission to piggyback on his WiFi? If not, you are a thief. Have a nice day thinking and pontificating about morality.
> If we assume god doesn’t exist take something that you believe is morally wrong and think what makes it morally wrong.
There is no objective morality. Deal with it.
No, if you are post structuralist, you would say there is an objective-subjective. There are objective facts- and you can develop a range of moralities from it and agree to one via consensus. That seems sort of fair.
That’s a practical way to develop a moral guidline for behavior, but it isn’t at all objective in the way yeshiva guy was trying to say. I think my statement stands.
I does work on some sense of objective facts or axioms
Such as:
Axiom: Killing too many people will damage society.
ect ect ect We then have some sense of how to talk about murder
I see what you mean, but i still don’t think that’s what most people mean when they talk about morality. Its too practical. Its like saying its moral to empty your trash cans every couple of days becuase if you don’t your house will fill up with garbage. Eminently practical, but not a moral point.
Most people think of morality as an esoteric set of rules for proper behavior that are true in all cincumstances. It is true right now that killing too many people is bad for society, and it’s probably been true in all societies, but I could come up with situations where killing most of the people might be a good thing. Say, during a famine. Do we kill most of the people so that those left will have enough food to survive? Or do we all starve?
An objective morality that forbids killing dictates that you do not kill anyone. A subjective morality based on what is practical has more grey areas. In practice, I think all morality is ultimately subjective, even for those who claim an objective God-given morality.
This is what makes morality and logic interesting. Liminal cases. And we hope our axioms hold, otherwise back to the drawing board. It’s like math…
its interesting you would say that because the gemara talks about if two people are stuck in a dessert with only enough water for one to survive, he cant share it with his friend. So in that case it was “moral” to let him die.
i just checked amazon a word to the wise a christian minister has a book of with a similar name make sure to get by Rebbitzen Esther Jungreis
After reading the post I just wanted to put a link that has 10 misconceptions about homosexuality and judaism. It is written by R. Chaim Navon. It is in hebrew but I think it is worth the read.
http://havruta.org.il/archives/3994
FRUM SATIRE:
PLEASE CASTRATE YOURSELF…ORALLY…NOW!
the torah is not outdated. just because there are somethings pple dont uunderstand, or dont like doesnt mean it is outdated
Hesh, you’re starting up a dangerous road here. If you do believe that Hashem gave the Torah to Moshe at Har Sinai, then your questions are irrelevant. The Torah is inherently of everlasting complete relevancy and not subject to change or update. If you don’t believe that Hashem gave the Torah to Moshe at Har Sinai, then the whole religion is a joke. You really can’t be in the middle on this one. Pascal’s wager is absurd. If you don’t really believe in Judaism, to pretend you to to hedge your bet makes no sense. I will say this, though: If you’re thinking of coming down on the “no” side, ask yourself this: How would a group of people all of a sudden one day convince hundreds of thousands or millions of people that an event occurred with millions of eyewitness unless that event actually occurred?
> How would a group of people all of a sudden one day convince hundreds of thousands or millions of people that an event occurred with millions of eyewitness unless that event actually occurred?
Ah, the Kuzari Proof. This is a strawman argument. In an nutshell: . 1) No one claims that it happened “all of a sudden one day.” Religions evolve over time, from stories to myth to reveled truth. 2) You’d be amazed at how gullible people can be. Do you think Joseph Smith was really handed golden tablets by an angel? Why did his followers believe him? (Yes, I know no one else witnessed the event, so its not like matan torah… not the point.) 3) We actually have recorded in nach the story of how the Torah was “rediscovered” in the Bais HaMikdash.
I have read your posts throughout the blog and I am curious while I am 100% sure there is a Hashem are you 100% confident that there is not? and if you say not what are your proofs, as you seem to assail everything that everyone throws at you Re: existence of G-D
I am 100% confident that every bit of Judaism and biology in this world is better explained by the absence of the supernatural than its presence, particularly the absence of a unitary god with irreconcilably contradictory attributes. There is not a scrap of evidence to support the idea that a mind can exist without a body. Every apologist is reduced to pitifully lying about the content of their religion, or science, or both over and over again as he or she pretends that there is no contradiction in their representations of reality.
Everyone, even religious fools, agree that the best explanation for the majority of mankind’s religious belief is its dumb credulity and wishful thinking. Some people are honest enough to critically examine their own ancestors’ beliefs as well as others’, and I count myself among them. I’m not arrogant or stupid enough to claim my ancestors were special and inherited a tradition of divine revelation that 99% of humanity was denied, or that my tradition’s prophets were true while all others were false.
Though I am not the Platonic form of humility, I don’t pretend to know a god’s will or speak for him, nor do I think my bare assertions suggesting the existence of something should be treated as true unless conclusively disproved.
The burden of proof is on the one asserting the existence of God. It doesn’t matter how confident people are in their beliefs; you are simply proving yourself to be the font of chutzpah by clinging to your baseless beliefs and claiming your certitude as a proof.
In short answer you are not 100% confident there is no G-d. As this is ridiculous to go back and forth on the web like this,please find someone to talk to. You seem like an extremely smart person, I am sure there is a Rabbi out there at Aish or Ohr Samayach that could speak with you. I truly do believe that you are smart and should speak to someone more up to your speed and intellect. (I am not saying you are smarter then me
however if you are so be it. However, there are people that have answers that I simply might not have the answers to. Secondly which I am sure you will understand most comments posted are based on emotion and not as thought out as yours. As someone that is G-d fearing I do not want my words misconstrued or my what you might call unsupported proofs to be used against me by someone trying to show there is no G-D. Please speak to the right people in the appropriate Private Forum.
p.s. Hatzlacha in all that you undertake
It is exactly this kind of response to legitimate inquiry and criticism of Judaism that I hate about the kiruv movement. You use kind words and praise of students’ inquisitive temperament to cajole people into pursuing studying Judaism but you do it in a very irrational fashion. You suck people into an immersion program, promising an engaging experience, and you do not allow proper discourse because you do not present the secular side adequately. The right people to speak to are not just rabbis but also scientists and people who criticize your Gottliebs and Kelemans, who by the way do nothing more really than rehash the 12th century philosophical joke known as the Kuzari principle. Aish and the various evangelical kiruv movements are evil. They destroy families and peoples’ livelihoods by convincing people in a false hope and belief in a proposition that has a horrible evidentiary basis.
> In short answer you are not 100% confident there is no G-d.… You seem like an extremely smart person, I am sure there is a Rabbi out there at Aish or Ohr Samayach that could speak with you.
Are you 100% confident that Jesus isn’t the son of God. Before you answer, think really hard. 100%? There’s no possibility at all that events played out as recorded in the New Testament? Not even a teeny, tiny possibility?
If you acknowledge the truism that we can’t ever know anything with absolute certainty, then you must acknowledge that there is a chance, no matter how miniscule, that Jesus really was who the Christians say he is. If that is so, why don’t you find a nice knowledgeable priest to help you get over your doubts and accept Jesus into your heart?
> I am 100% sure there is a Hashem are you 100% confident that there is not? and if you say not what are your proofs, as you seem to assail everything that everyone throws at you Re: existence of G-D
I’m not 100% sure that God doesn’t exist. I’m also not 100% sure that fairies don’t exist, or unicorns, flying horses, Olympian gods, elves, the wizarding society of the Harry Potter books, or a monster that lives under my bed. But until I have a good reason to say otherwise, I will assume that all of the above are myths and fantasy. I regret that you see my responses as an assault, but all I am doing is responding to each argument put forth by proponents of the existence of God and showing why the argument is not valid.
i never said you could not seek clarification for your honest inquiry
Heshy-
i am truelly sad for you, but i honestly think your doubts are completly self imposed. you dabble in the sitra achra and it will take hold of you. just like if you daven with no chavanah, and you will not have faith. you get out of this thing what you put in. putting a yarmulke and tzitit on , and eating at kosher restaurants doesnt make you pious. this religion will be a nothing more than something you wear or something you eat. an empty shell.
this religion is the Shma, it is loving Hashem the One and Only more than you love the things in the goyisher world. if you waiver faith, its because the Sitra Achra has taken hold somewhere in your life, if you dont fill your mind with Torah and the wise saying of chazel, what else can you expect? wonder if moshiach is real??? thats mishugiee… read the Torah man, read the Navaim. Stop thinking that this rabbi is boring or this one is funny. stop falling asleep during their devar torah and dreaming about kiddish..go back to yeshiva if you need to. LISTEN! fill your mind with Hashem get lost in Hashem, have a relationship with the G-d you serve. or else you will go around in this cycle over and over. commit to something my man, commit. why are you so bad at commitment?
why be so independent?? that is a goyisher way of life. the goyim need so called Cliche’ “independence” we are bound and interdependent on G-d and eachother. that is the jewish way.
not settling into a real job, not getting married, not having kinderlocke because you want to feel free to jump in your subaru and go camping by yourself for a week at anytime you want— is not jewish. its just not.
Israeli mom- goyisher morality is relelevent to the beholder, in sparta it was considered aceptable to steal and to kill, becasue their society was based on a moral survival of the fittest, type idea. so if you were stronger, take this or kill that. killing is only wrong in western ideology because of the Torah, as brought to goyim by christianity. look at every pagan religion, every pagan society, murder plundering etc, was always justified. Torah changed that.
All of you that think judaism can continue with out Torah you are crazy, Judaism is not watching seinfeld and eating a bagel, and look at the reformers to proove it, each reform family i look at is 3 generations from being goyim. unless one becomes baal teshuvah ( praise G-d). you teach your children no chavanh and they will marry goyim and POOF WHAMO!!! no more jew.
Thanks G-d for creating the heart of the cheredim and chossidim! thanks G-d that they are having 6-12 kinderloche! thanks to G-d that in 5 or 6 generations the only Jew left standing will be the frumme yid holding a Torah! we avg. 6 kids the reformers avg 1.3 kids, who will survive over time?
Torah will survive! none observant jews are going to breed theirself out of this they will intermarry , they will convert, they will be secular humanists. they will be goyim! they will not survive without Torah, they might have many numbers now, but it will not last,Lubavitchers Baruch Hashem are Growing, The Skver baruch hashem are growing, The Bobov Baruch Hashem are Growing, the Satmars baruch Hashem are growing, the , the Breslovers Baruch Hashem are Growing, Even the Misnaged Frumkeit Baruch Hashem are Growing!!!! the Reformers are Shrinking, the Conservitives are Shrinking, the reconstructionists are shrinking. who will survive??? Nu..
Phil-
man good no great posts and good points brought up, the more I read you the more i like your stuff.
FrumGer,
Couple bones to pick here:
1) “every pagan religion, every pagan society, murder plundering etc, was always justified”. If you’d said “many” instead of “every” then there would be no issue, but what you say just is not a fact. Many sub Saharan animist groups, Hindus, Buddhists and several Polynesian cultures, this is not the case.
2) “each reform family i look at is 3 generations from being goyim” Sorry but you are in your early 20s and to the best of my knowledge not gifted with prophecy so you cant state this as a fact but at best as a guess. It does us no good to smack down other Jews minhagim be they Reform (not “reformers”), Conservative, Orthodox or any sub flavor theirof. How about a little ahavat yisrael please? Even us non orthodox Jews are waiting for Moshiach too ya know.
There are plenty of logical inconsistencies in FrumGer’s comment, but to pick on just one:
> each reform family i look at is 3 generations from being goyim
This is logically impossible. Even assuming you can predict the future (and if you can, maybe you can help me out with some stock tips?), Reform families cannot perpetually be three generations from assimilation. Assuming different points at which families became Reform, and assuming a fixed number of generations from becoming Reform to complete assimilation, there must be families at different points along the path to assimilation. So some would be at three generations to assimilation, some at two, some at one – and maybe some at four or five.
Yes, I know, this is nitpicking, but if you’re going to engage in inflammatory rhetoric, at least try to be logically coherent.
what an ignorant sacrilegious piece of garbage u are! pretty arrogant to believe your way of thinking is superior. you haven’t even begun to understand what life is about. at least you admit that your a flaming faggot.
I think that your question or issue with some of the forms of punishment which used to be used is actually an enormous and fascinating question. Truth be told, without a clear understanding of this issue, we can challenge some of the most fundamental concepts in Judaism, such as G-d’s unbounded love for each and every person; fairness and equality; justice and purpose. So essentially you are not just bothered by one issue, but you are bothered all the way deep down to the core of Judaism, which seems to manifest itself in this issue that you raised.
you asked as follows: “i guess i just dont buy that god would tell us to put homos to death and to kill a woman who cheats on their husband – by pouring molten lava down her throat or throwing her off a cliff and then stoning her.” I respect you and your question and I actually feel that it shows a sensitive and highly understanding and sympathetic side of you. Please speak your mind if something doesn’t sit well with you. Also, I highly recommend you breath in between paragraphs. You can read this is little by little, day by day, but please read and even if you heard already or don’t like any idea, just read it through until the end.
This much is essential for us to understand before we even begin to try and understand the subject: Its hard to completely understand G-d and his ways, without understanding the spiritual fundamentals of this world. To the human eye and mind, our perception is SUPER limited. People always raise the question of “can G-d create a rock too big for himself to lift.” They don’t understand the difference between our minds limitations and “G-d’s so called capacity.” They think that we can truly and fully understand with our human minds, something completely infinite. And to be honest we actually have a very special gift and tool to help us expand our mind and thinking, (and it’s not drugs). This key to proper perception is the Torah and it’s infinate everlasting wisdom, which helps us to integrate our soul and spiritual sight into our physical so that we can see clearly. However, just use this is an introduction and not an answer to your question. And we begin.
First off, we must understand the spiritual differences of our time compared to the time of the Sanhedrin, Jewish court system, which is when these seemingly harsh consequences were carried out. The Sanhedrin stood until the a few years before the destruction of the second temple. This time of sanctity and spiritual awareness was immensely different to the levels of today. Practically incomparable. The Jewish people then had a spiritual connection through the Beis Hamikdash, Holy Temple, and the presence of Hashem. Whether the concept of a spiritual connection, or a connection through the presence of Hashem (through this powerful channel offered by the holy temple) seems too abstract or not, it existed in a very real way; in a super concrete, day to day way. People felt close to G-d and people were spiritually aware. That said, the expectations of behavior were obviously higher. Let’s say I bring two kids to a basketball court. One is in a wheelchair with lower body paralyzation, while the other is the top player on his basketball team. Who would you expect more from? I venture to say guy number two. If guy number two shot 1 for 10, threw away 8 turnovers, and let his opponent shot 35 points on him, you would expect his coach to rebuke him and possibly make him run extra laps in practice. However if this happened to guy number one, that could have possibly been his best game. My point being is that the level of a Jew was much high because of this spiritual connection and awareness. They had more abilities and tools. They were therefore expected to act on a higher moral level. (they obviously were able to reap the benefits of this as well-that being the spiritual awareness itself, the reward for the good deeds they did because of this awareness and of course the positive worldly emotions it brings as well.)
So yes, it does seem extremely harsh on one hand to see how the historical punishments in Judaism were completed in this form, but it would be unfair according to the rules of logic and reason to compare our days with their days, given what I wrote in the above paragraph. So in my head, and probably in yours as well, its tough to keep thinking of a girl getting stoned for cheating on her husband, or a homosexual male getting scolding led down his through for acts of immorality (or vice versa. Note, these punishments for these acts are probably not the exact ones used historically, I just teamed them up in the previous sentence for show.) However the spiritual awareness was at a level where if someone would do something, they were doing it with full awareness of the consequences. Why so harsh? why not a slap on the hand or a minute in timeout? we will explore that later.
So perhaps you understand what I am writing but you personally think that homosexuality is not bad, and adultery is fine. This is a famous and fascinating point. This brings up a whole new level in understanding “right and wrong.” Where it came from and who says it’s true. Perhaps right and wrong is what each person feels, and there is no absolute “right and wrong” I will resort to using extreme cases in the following paragraph just to be able to show clearer ideas. If we don’t believe in an absolute meaning of “right and wrong” then we run into many problems. for instance, I believe that killing is wrong, so do most people. However in the tribal areas of Africa there are tribes who believe in cannibalism. What if they got a hold of your child somehow and sacrificed him. would you believe that’s wrong? absolutely. So in ones own mind, he may think something is right while it’s actually a terrible and unjust act. And we have seen this throughout history, when someone takes their own emotions and logic and applies it to whats right and wrong. Pharoah did this, Hitler did this. The militias in Darfur are doing this. So we see that we cannot rely merely on a persons perception of right and wrong. Perhaps we should believe in a generation or a socieities meaning of right and wrong. However, what if one generation or society defines the true meaning, and then they all die out? the meaning of right and wrong changes to what the next generation or society thinks is right? Plus who says that last generation was right? maybe we have progressed and amassed more knowledge and understanding and we are right. Who says that the next generation will be right? They are lacking some of the knowledge and values that we know of. So we really can’t rely solely on human views. They can be skewed, biased and outdated.
Imagine you are on a boat right? You are the dude in charge of the anchor. So the captain says, “hey bro drop the anchor, we gotta stop at this exact point, longitute and latitude.” so you say, “cool man, I’m in, I’ve been waiting all day for this.” So you grap the anchor, you walk to the middle of the boat, and you drop it right on the surface of the boat. The captain looks at you like you are nuts, but you reply “you told me to drop the anchor, don’t worry we won’t sway at all.” What happened here was, you didn’t anchor the boat to an absolute source (the ocean ground), you anchored yourself to a moving and drifting source, the boat. This obviously won’t work. So to anchor our morals on relative and changing sources such as our own views, societies views, etc., we are doing exactly what this anchorman did. Based on this, there must be an absolute, non changing source of where we derive our morals from. (Do not mix this up with the concept that every person has a specific purpose in this world, and we are not all supposed to be identical robots. This is true in regards to purpose, however the Torah set a standard of morals which is pertinent to everybody. Also, do not mix this up with the concept of “tinok shenishba,” which literally means a child taken into capitivity and was not taught the laws of the Torah, and therefore cannot be held accountable. This concept applies to many people these days because they were raised with families and school systems which were completely unexposed to Torah values. At the end of the day, morals are absolute, but even a Rabbi will tell, or should tell a beginner not to take on all of the mitzvos at once, because we are human and an extreme life change like this is very unhealthy emotionally, and can cause many many problems. So for a beginner the absolute moral system or code of Jewish law should be seen as a goal which we must meet and we were given the ability to meet.)
But who says the Torah values are true? Well why not look at the world, and at the religions and say “hey where did all this spirituality and religious stuff from come anyway? Apparently there are 15,000 official, established religions in this world(truth). My goodness there must be a first or a source.” so you do your research and you realize that there was this guy named Abraham and he found G-d, and connected with Him and followed his word. This guy Abraham, you learn, was the first monotheist. Generations later, this led to a tried titled the Children of Israel (Abraham’s grandson) whose leader was Moses. Moses let them through decades in the desert to Mount Sinai, eventually leading to the complete establishment of this tribe as a religion when they received the Torah. From the day on The “Jews” were the first religion, and the sources of all the other’s. Comes, jesus, muhammed and the buddha and brings their own reinvented for of what Judaism is. Rashi actually explains that the Jewish leader at the time actually gave “spiritual gifts to the east.” This is understood to be the powers in buddhism. My point of all this being, the Torah is the beginning, (it was even around before the world, and the Torah is actually the blueprint of creation, however we don’t want to stay is intellectual as possible for the sake of this discussion), the Torah is the source. the Torah holds in it the answer we are looking for, of “where is this set of absolute morals held?” Remember, we don’t know G-ds thinking. I any case to even attempt to discount G-d because we don’t (yet) understand his ways, is like discounting electricity because we don’t understand it. We don’t know why he made it that homosexuality or adultery etc. is deemed as a bad act. But this is what he choses and when we pass we will understand everything. If we COULD understand G-d and all His guidelines, then we wouldn’t have a religion worth following or living for.
The following article is from Aish.com:
Passover is often described as the holiday of freedom. And in liberal democracies freedom is often misunderstood as the ability to do whatever you like with no oppressive authority telling you what to do. But that is not how the Bible and Judaism define freedom.
The Jewish idea of freedom is best summarized by that very famous expression — “Praise the servants of God who are not servants of Pharaoh.” 1That is, freedom is seen a means to an end, not an end in and of itself-True freedom means to be free of outside influences and pressures so that we can be free to pursue ultimate meaning-relationship with God. 2 In the specific context of the Exodus story it means being free from an oppressive authority in order to stand at Mount Sinai and commit to a certain responsibility.
What happened at Mount Sinai?
To answer quite simply, the Jewish people — every man, woman and child — had an encounter with God.
It was a totally unique event in all of human history. The Bible itself states in Deuteronomy 4:33 that this never happened any place else. You can check all history books; you’ll never find a similar story of God speaking to an entire people.
All other claims about revelation in human history are based on the experience of one individual or at best a small group of initiates. For example, Islam is founded on the teachings of Mohammed who said that God spoke to him in a cave and revealed the teachings contained in the Koran to him.
The notion of an entire people having an encounter with God is unique to Judaism. And it’s the one claim that cannot be faked. So for example, I can claim that I had a vision last night and God spoke to me, and if I’m charismatic enough and you are gullible enough you might believe I am a prophet. But I can’t convince you that you saw something that you know you didn’t see.
Jews say that we have kept the Torah for thousands of years, not because of miracles or any other supernatural phenomena of Jewish history, but because we all stood at Mount Sinai and heard God speak and for generation after generation that very fact was passed down. 3 The great Medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides summed it up perfectly when he wrote:
The Jewish people did not believe in Moses our teacher because of the miracles he performed. If one believes in something because of miracles, he may suspect that they were performed through sleight of hand or sorcery…We believe in Moshe because of what happened at Mount Sinai. Our own eyes saw, not a stranger’s, our own ears heard, and not another’s…The revelation at Sinai is the only real proof that Moses’ prophecy was true and above suspicion…(Yad, Yesodei HaTorah 8:1.)
The story of the survival of the Jewish people is going to be to a large extent the story of what’s called shalshelet hakabala — the transmission process of Torah from one generation to the next.
A NATION IS BORN
At Mount Sinai the Jewish people become a nation. Again, this is a unique event which says a lot about the Jewish people. What’s so unique about it?
Well, consider how the French became “the French.” Did they all wake up one morning to collectively decide they liked white wine and blue cheese and they were going to speak French? No. It was a long process. As with every other nation, this process involved a people living in a specific geographic area for an extended period of time and evolving a common language and a common culture born of a shared historical experience. Eventually, this people developed a political entity and government (with a king at its head) and they defined their boundaries, flew a flag, minted coins and called themselves France.
For Jews the process of becoming a nation started outside their national homeland — in fact while in bondage and under the most adverse conditions designed to erase any cultural or historical identity. Jews did not become a nation by pledging allegiance to the State of Israel. A scraggly band of escaped slaves became a nation standing at the foot of Mount Sinai and saying to God: “We will do and we will listen” — that is, pledging to fulfill the commandments of the Torah and with time to understand the mission that came with it.
Just as Abraham said, many, many generations earlier, “I choose to live, and if necessary to die, for the reality of God,” so too these descendants of Abraham made the same commitment.
That’s how the Jews became the Nation of Israel.
This is why we say that Judaism is not just a religion — it’s a national identity. Being a Jew is not the same as being a Christian. Christianity is purely a religious belief. You could be British, American, French and still be a Christian.
Not so the Jews.
The Jews can certainly become citizens of the countries in which they live and they often look and act like everyone else, but all the while, they and everyone else knows they are different. If they choose to deny this fact, the rest of the world will always remind them of it.
Being a Jew is being part of a distinct people and a nation, which does have a land, does have a language, does have a history and a world mission.
Most importantly, Jews have a specific relationship with God which is not just a religious/spiritual identity; it’s an all-encompassing view of the world — how to live every second of life — which is unique in the world.
The Jewish national identity was forged by the experience at Mount Sinai where we committed to a mission, and a specific way of life to be lived in accordance with the commandments of the Torah, which is the guidebook for accomplishing that mission on a personal and national level. 4
THE ULTIMATE SCRIBE
After the original revelation, Moses spent 40 days listening to God talking to him, dictating to him the 613 commandments of the Torah (which are encapsulated in Ten Statements, the so-called “Ten Commandments”) and also the principles how to apply these commandments (which are referred to as the Oral Law). 5
Note that the Oral Law was given first. And the Oral Law has been exclusively in the domain of the Jews. The Christians adopted the Written Law — the Torah and other parts of the Hebrew Bible as part of their scriptures — but the Oral Law stayed uniquely Jewish. Because it is the Oral Law that tells us how to live as Jews.
It cannot emphasize strongly enough how significant the Oral Law is. One can’t live as a Jew without it. It’s going to become a very important issue when we look at splinter sects in Judaism later on in Jewish history.
The Written Law was written over a period of 40 years while the Jews wandered in the desert and God was dictating to Moses. There’s a lot of material in the Bible that’s explaining what happens later on in their wanderings, so obviously this wasn’t given in advance at Mount Sinai or there’d be no free will. 6
Although the Torah — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy — are called the Five Books of Moses, Moses was not the author. Moses was the scribe — the ultimate scribe. God dictated to Moses.
But it’s very clear, and the Bible says over and over again, that Moses was unique among all prophets.
And there arose no prophet in Israel like Moses whom the Lord knew face to face.(Deut. 34:10)
Prophecy is a process whereby God communicates directly with man. Prophecy is not something that just happens to someone. To achieve prophecy means that a person is able to perfect himself and transcend to a higher level of spiritual reality, and of course, what that level is depends on the prophet’s direct experience of the infinite. Most prophets would be asleep or in a trance when God would communicate with them via a vision and would later put that vision into words. Moses’ prophecy was unique in that God spoke to him while awake and fully conscious. He “heard” God directly. 7
And the Torah is considered a direct dictation, which is why the Five Book of Moses have a unique position among all holy books of the Jewish people and a unique authority in the Jewish world.
Having learned the Oral Law and with the Ten Commandments in hand, Moses came down the mountain and what he saw shocked him to such an extent that he dropped the stone tablets. Below the mountain, where just a few weeks ago, they stood in an encounter with God, the Jews were
worshipping an idol in direct violation of the law they had just been given.”
———The following is a piece from Aish.com as well regarding how we know G-d revealed himself at Sinai:
“Who did God give the Torah to at Mount Sinai? Most people reply, “God gave the Torah to Moses.”
And what were the Jewish people doing while Moses was receiving the Torah? “Worshipping the Golden Calf.”
Correct answers — but NOT according to the Bible.
The above answers come from Cecil B. DeMille’s classic film, “The Ten Commandments.” Amazing the impact one movie can have on the Jewish education of generations of Jews. It’s a great film, but DeMille should have read the original.
The version found in the Torah is quite different. The Torah’s claim is that the entire people heard God speak at Mount Sinai, experiencing national revelation. God did not just appear to Moses in a private rendezvous; He appeared to everyone, some 3 million people. This claim is mentioned many times in the Torah.
[Moses told the Israelites]: ‘Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld. Do not remove this memory from your heart all the days of your life. Teach your children and your children’s children about the day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horev [Mount Sinai]…
God spoke to you from the midst of the fire, you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His covenant, instructing you to keep the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.’ (Deut.4:9-13)
‘You have been shown in order to know that God, He is the Supreme Being. There is none besides Him. From heaven he let you hear His voice in order to teach you, and on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words amid the fire.’ (Deut. 4:32-36)
Moses called all of Israel and said to them: ‘Hear, O Israel, the decrees and the ordinances that I speak in your ears today — learn them, and be careful to perform them. The Lord your God sealed a covenant with us at Horev [Mount Sinai]. Not with our forefathers did God seal this covenant, but with us — we who are here, all of us alive today. Face to face did God speak with you on the mountain from amid the fire.’ (Deut. 5:1-4)
The Torah claims that the entire Jewish nation heard God speak at Sinai, an assertion that has been accepted as part of their nation’s history for over 3,000 years.
DeMille’s mistake is such a big deal because the Jewish claim of national revelation, as opposed to individual revelation, is the central defining event that makes Judaism different than every other religion in the world.
How so?
HISTORY AND LEGENDS
Two types of stories are part of any national heritage.
The first kind is legends. Included in this category is George Washington’s admission to chopping down the cherry tree, along with his statement, “I cannot tell a lie.” Johnny Appleseed planting apple trees across America with his discarded apple cores is another legend.
Then there is history. For example, George Washington was the first president of the United States. William the Conqueror led the Battle of Hastings in 1066 in which Harold, King of England, was killed. The Jews of Spain were expelled from their country in 1492, the year Christopher Columbus set sail.
What is the difference between legend and history?
A legend is an unverified story. By their very nature legends are unverifiable because they have very few eyewitnesses. Perhaps little George did chop down the cherry tree. We can’t know if it happened. This does not mean that the legend is necessarily false, only that it is unverifiable. No one thinks legends are facts, therefore they are not accepted as reliable history.
History, however, is comprised of events we know actually happened. It is reliable because we can determine if the claimed event is true or false through a number of ways. One key to verification is the assertion that large numbers of eyewitnesses observed the specific event.
Why is the number of claimed original witnesses a principal determining factor in making historical accounts reliable? This can be understood through looking at the nature of the following series of claims and weighing their levels of credibility. The nature of the claim itself can often determine its degree of believability.
THE BELIEVABILITY GAME
Gauge the level of credibility of the following scenarios.
Some claims are inherently unverifiable. For example, would you believe me if I told you the following:
Scenario #1:
“Last week after dinner, I went for a walk through the forest near my house. Suddenly everything was awash in a tremendous light and God appeared to me, designating me as His prophet. He told me to announce this revelation to you at this time.”
Believable?
In theory this could have happened. It doesn’t seem likely, but you don’t know I’m lying. Would you choose to believe me?
Without any substantiating evidence, why choose to believe me? A foolish move, indeed.
Scenario #2:
Would you believe me if I told you the following:
“Last night while I was eating dinner with my family, the room started to suddenly shake and God’s booming voice was heard by all of us. He designated me as His prophet and commanded me to announce this revelation.”
Believable?
This could have happened too. If I were to bring in my family to confirm the story it would be more believable than the first story. You certainly don’t know if I’m lying.
Would you believe me? Would you fork over $10,000 dollars if I told you God commanded you to do so?
No way. There is still not enough evidence to trust my claim — because it is very possible that my family is lying.
Scenario #3:
There is another type of claim that you can know is false. For example, would you believe me if I told you this:
“Do you remember what happened 10 minutes ago just as you began reading this article? Remember how the room started shaking, then the ceiling opened up to the skies, and you and I together heard God’s booming voice come down and say ‘Thou shalt hearken to the voice of Nechemia Coopersmith for he is my prophet!’ And then the room went back to normal and you continued reading. You remember that, don’t you?”
Is this believable?
This kind of claim is completely different. The two previous scenarios at least had the possibility of being true. You chose not to accept them because they were unverifiable. However this third scenario is impossible to believe. I’m claiming something happened to you that you know did not happen. Since you didn’t experience it, you know I’m lying. I cannot convince you of something that you yourself know didn’t happen.
I cannot convince you of something that you yourself know didn’t happen.
This first type of claim — that something happened to someone else — is unverifiable, because you do not know for certain that the claim is a lie. Therefore it is possible for a person to decide to accept the claim as true if he really wanted to and take that leap of faith.
However, the other type of claim — that something happened to you — you know if it is inherently false. People do not accept patently false assertions, especially those that carry significant consequences.
SINAI: AN IMPOSSIBLE HOAX
So far we have seen two types of claims — one is unverifiable and the other is inherently false.
Could the revelation at Sinai have been a brilliant hoax, duping millions of people into believing that God spoke to them?
Let’s imagine the scene. Moses comes down the mountain and claims, “We all today heard God speak, all of you heard the God’s voice from the fire…”
Assuming Moses is making it up, how would the people respond to his story?
“Moses! What are you talking about?! Boy, you sure had us going there for awhile. We may have even believed you if you came down and claimed that God appeared to you personally. But now you blew it! Now we know you’re lying because you’re claiming an event happened to us that we know didn’t happen! We did not hear God speak to us from any fire!”
If the revelation at Sinai did not occur, then Moses is claiming an event everyone immediately knows is an outright lie, since they know that they never heard God speak. It is preposterous to think Moses can get away with a claim that everyone knows is lie.
REVELATION CLAIMED LATER IN HISTORY
Perhaps a hoax such as this could have been attempted at a later period in history. Perhaps the claim of national revelation did not originate at Sinai, but began, for example, 1,000 years after the event was said to have occurred. Perhaps the leader Ezra, for example, appears on the scene, introducing a book purported to be written by God and given to a people who stood at Sinai a long time ago.
Could someone get away with this kind of hoax? For example, would you believe the following:
“I want to let you in on a very little-known, but true fact. In 1794 over 200 years ago, from May until August, the entire continent of North America mysteriously sank under the sea. For those four months, the whole continent was submerged and somehow all animal, plant and human life managed to adapt to these bizarre conditions. Then, on August 31, the entire continent suddenly floated up to the surface and life resumed to normal.”
Is there a possibility that I’m telling the truth? Do you know for a fact that it is a lie? After all, it happened so long ago, how do you know it didn’t happen? Maybe you learned about in school and just forgot about it.
You know North America did not sink hundreds of years ago for one simple reason: If it did, you would have heard about it. An event so unique and amazing, witnessed by multitudes of people would have been known, discussed, and passed down, becoming a part of history. The fact that no one has heard of it up until now means you know the story is not true, making it impossible to accept.
An event of great significance with a large number of eyewitnesses cannot be perpetuated as a hoax.
An event of great significance with a large number of eyewitnesses cannot be perpetuated as a hoax. If it did not happen, everyone would realize it is false since no one ever heard about it before. Thus, if such an event was indeed accepted as part of history, the only way to understand its acceptance is that the event actually happened.
INTRODUCED LATER?
Let’s assume for the moment that the revelation at Mount Sinai is really a hoax; God did not write the Torah. How did the revelation at Sinai become accepted for thousands of years as part of our nation’s history?
Imagine someone trying to pull off such a hoax. An Ezra figure shows up one day holding a scroll.
“Hey Ezra – what are you holding there?”
“This is the Torah.”
“The Torah? What’s that?”
“It’s an amazing book filled with laws, history and stories. Here, take a look at it.”
Very nice, Ezra. Where did you get this?”
“Open up the book and see what it says. This book was given thousands of years ago to your ancestors. Three million of them stood at Mount Sinai and heard God speak! God appeared to everyone, giving His law and instruction.”
How would you respond to such a claim?
The people give Ezra a quizzical look and say,
“Wait a second, Ezra. Something is a little fishy here. Why haven’t we ever heard of this before? You’re describing one of the most momentous events that could ever happen, claiming that it happened to our ancestors – and we never heard about it?”
“Sure. It was along time ago. Of course you never heard about it.”
“C’mon Ezra! It’s impossible that our grandparents or great-grandparents would not have passed down the most significant event in our nation’s history to some of the people! How could it be that no one has heard about this up until now?! You’re claiming all my ancestors, the entire nation, 3 million people heard God speak and received a set of instructions called the Torah, and none of us have heard about it?! You must be lying.”
If one cannot pull off a hoax with regard to a continent sinking, so too one cannot pull off a hoax to convince an entire people that their ancestors experienced the most unique event in all of human history.
Everyone would know it’s a lie.
For thousands of years, Sinai was accepted as central to Jewish history. How else can this be explained?
Given that people will not fall for a hoax they know is a lie, how could national revelation have been not only accepted — but faithfully followed with great sacrifice by the vast majority of Jews?
The only way a people would accept such a claim is if it really happened. If Sinai did not happen, everyone would know it’s a lie and it would never have been accepted. The only way one can ever claim a nation experienced revelation and have it accepted is if it is true.
SINAI: THE ONLY CLAIM OF NATIONAL REVELATION
Throughout history, tens of thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that God spoke to him or her. All religions that base themselves on some type of revelation share essentially the same beginning: a holy person goes into solitude, comes back to his people, and announces that he has experienced a personal revelation where God appointed him to be His prophet.
Would you believe someone who claims God appointed him or her as God’s new prophet?
Would you believe someone who claims to have received a personal communication from God appointing him or her as God’s new prophet?
Maybe He did. Then again, maybe He didn’t. One can never know. The claim is inherently unverifiable.
Personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion since one can never know if it is indeed true. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, there is still no verification that he is a genuine prophet. Miracles do not prove anything. All they show — assuming they are genuine — is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.
Maimonides writes:
Israel did not believe in Moses, our teacher, on account of the miracles he performed. For when one’s faith is based on miracles, doubt remains in the mind that these miracles may have been done through the occult and witchcraft…
What then were the grounds of believing him? The revelation on Sinai which we saw with our own eyes, and heard with our own ears, not having to depend on the testimony of others… (Mishna Torah – Foundations of Torah 8:1)
A BOLD PREDICTION
There are 15,000 known religions in all of recorded history. Given this inherent weakness, why do all of them base their claim on personal revelation? If someone wanted their religion to be accepted, why wouldn’t they present the strongest, most believable claim possible — i.e. national revelation! It’s far more credible. No one has to take a leap of faith and blindly trust just one person’s word. It is qualitatively better to claim that God came to everyone, telling the entire group that so-and-so is His prophet.
Why would God establish His entire relationship with a nation through one man, without any possibility of verification, and still expect this nation to obediently follow an entire system of instructions, based only on blind faith?
Yet, Judaism is the only religion in the annals of history that makes the best of all claims — that everyone heard God speak. No other religion claims the experience of national revelation. Why?
Furthermore, the author of the Torah predicts that there will never be another claim of national revelation throughout history!
‘You might inquire about times long past, from the day that God created man on earth, and from one end of heaven to the other: Has there ever been anything like this great thing or has anything like it been heard? Has a people ever heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fires as you have heard and survived?’ (Deut. 4:32-33)
Let’s consider the option that God did not write the Torah, and its author successfully convinced a group of people to accept a false claim of national revelation. In this book, the author writes a prediction that over the course of history no one will ever make a similar claim. That means if such a claim is ever made at some future time, the prediction will end up being false and his religion is finished.
How could the author include in the book he is passing off as a hoax the prediction that no other person will ever attempt to perpetuate the same hoax when he just made that exact claim? If he could do it, he can be certain that others will too, especially since it is the best possible claim to make. If you are making up a religion, you do not write something you know you cannot predict and whose outcome you would think is guaranteed to be exactly the opposite.
However, aside from the Jewish claim of Mount Sinai, it is a fact that no other nation has ever claimed such a similar national revelation.
Let’s summarize two primary questions:
1. Out of 15,000 known religions in recorded history, why is Judaism the only one that claims national revelation, the best of all claims? Why do all other religions base themselves on the inherently weak assertion of personal revelation?
2. If Judaism’s claim is indeed an example of a successful hoax that falsely asserts national revelation, the author just got away with passing off the best possible claim, and others will certainly follow suit. Why then would he predict that no one else will ever make a similar claim, a prediction he knows he cannot foresee, and whose outcome is likely to be the exact opposite?
There is one simple answer to both questions. A national revelation — as opposed to personal revelation — is the one lie you cannot get away with. It is one event you cannot fabricate. The only way to make this claim is if it actually happened.
If the claim is true, the people will believe it because they are agreeing to something they already know. Either they personally witnessed it, or their ancestors collectively passed down the account as part of their nation’s accepted history.
If the claim is false, it’s like trying to convince you that God spoke to you or your parents and somehow you never heard of it. No one would ever accept such a claim.
Therefore no other religion has ever made the best of all claims, because it is the one claim that can only be made if it is true. One cannot pass national revelation off as a hoax.
When inventing a religion, the originator must resort to personal revelation, despite its inherent weakness, since it is a claim that is unverifiable. The originator can hope to find adherents willing to take a leap of faith and accept his or her religion. After all, no one can ever know it is a lie. [Of course, no one can know if it's true either.] This simply cannot work with national revelation since it’s the one claim that everyone will know is a lie.
It is no wonder that all other religions are based on a claim of personal revelation.
Only Judaism can claim national revelation since the Jewish people is the only nation in the history of mankind who ever experienced it.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the other major religions of the world both accept the Jewish revelation at Sinai, including the Five Books of Moses in their Bible, and hold the Sinai revelation as a key component of their religion.
When starting their own religions, why did they build upon the Jewish claim? Why didn’t they just deny the revelation ever happened?
The answer is that they knew that if national revelation can never be fabricated; so too, its validity can therefore never be denied.
Now it is understandable how the Author of the Torah can confidently predict that there will never be another claim of national revelation in history.
Because only God knew it would happen only once, as it did — at Sinai over 3,000 years ago.”
Here is a piece from askmoses.com:”1. Capital punishment was only legally allowed as long as the Sanhedrin (the Jewish supreme court, comprised of 71 of the greatest sages of the time) was seated in the courtyard of the Holy Temple. The Sanhedrin ceased to sit in their chambers 40 years before the destruction of the Second Temple, and since then (30 c.e.) there is no capital punishment by Jewish courts. In Deuteronomy,1 the Torah speaks of the person who rebels against the Sanhedrin (High Court). We are told that “the man who will act with willfulness, not listening to the Kohen (priest) who stands there to serve the Lord, your G-d, or to the judge, that man shall die.” The Talmudic sages asked,2 why does the Torah mention a Kohen in this verse? After all, the Sanhedrin did not have to include any Kohens in its ranks! From these words the rabbis inferred that the Sanhedrin has the right to administer the death penalty only as long as the Kohen is serving G-d in the Holy Temple.
2. Corporeal punishment was only allowed as long as there were rabbis who were ordained by another rabbi with a direct chain of ordination dating back to Moses. When this chain was stopped (by the anti-religious Roman Empire), the Jewish courts do not have the right to impose the Torah’s corporeal punishments, nor do they have the right to hand out punitive damage awards. Instead, today’s courts only assess monetary loss damages. The Torah describes a Jewish court as “Elohim”,3 which is also G-d’s name. The reason for this is because G-d is with the court, and the verdict which is issued by the judges has G-d’s seal of approval. However, this only applies when at least one of the judges was ordained by another rabbi with a direct chain of ordination dating back to Moses. For Moses bequeathed from his holiness unto Joshua and the other seventy elders4 who in turn bequeathed this holiness to their successors etc. When Moses complained to G-d, saying that he needed people to assist him in his duties of administering to the needs of the Jewish people, G-d didn’t just tell Moses, “Well, why don’t you let your disciples help you!” Instead, G-d responded by saying,5 “Gather to Me seventy men from the elders of Israel . . and I will increase some of the spirit which is upon you and place it upon them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with you.” There is no question that those rabbis who were ordained by Moses and imbued with his spirit (and those whom they ordained thereafter) had greater Divine assistance when executing their duties. For this reason they were allowed to order corporeal or capital punishment, knowing that G-d agreed with the verdict. This cannot be said of every other Jewish judge throughout history. It is important to note that even after there ceased to be authentically ordained rabbis, the Jewish courts still have the right to mete out corporeal punishment as they see fit, but these aren’t the lashes which the Torah mandates.
3. This does not G-d forbid represent any “modification” of the Bible. It simply means that present circumstances do not allow us to perform every single commandment – just as we cannot offer sacrifices without a holy temple.”
But what if Jewish morals were right for that time period but they are completely outdated now? Can’t it be possible that these ridiculous dietary laws which back then may have only been to save people from disease, could be outdated? Well, given the fact that G-d is super powerful. Knows the past, present and future, without a problem, I can guarantee that He dictated universal, everlasting morals and ethics. And also, He entrusted the Rabbis (the proper ones) with the need to apply Torah values to more moden ideas and concepts.
Let me tell you something that they don’t teach us in school. It says in the Torah that if a Jewish court killed someone every 70 years it was bloodthirsty court. Sometimes we see the law and allowance of the court and assume that they did this on a daily basis. The amount of evidence and the strength of evidence that was required was unbelievably vast so that the courts wouldn’t G-d forbid falsely accuse. G-d was telling us the punishment not because He wants us to kill every wife but He wants us to realize the sanctity of marriage. G-d wants us to understand the sanctity of the human body and the we are here to essentially use it in sanctity so that we can merit the greatest eternal rewards.
I am sure you know many people who are vegatarians or vegans. There may be many reasons for this. Some people don’t appreciate the mass murder of animals. Some don’t want to show support for the animals harsh breeding and living conditions. Some think it’s pure cruelty to G-d forbid hurt an animal through slaughter. If we only understood the spiritual reality of the situation we may start to run toward eating animals. By eating, we are strengthening ourselves to live and to carry out good deeds. This is the essence of life. By using that animal or its meet to strenghten us to fulfill our purpose, that is the absolute highest level of purpose in which the animal can fulfull in this world. This a true merit for the animal. I am not condoning the harsh conditions, but what I am trying to say is that although it may seem bitter and evil to kill an animal, in reality this is it’s greatest wish, to be able to help creations highest and holiest creature (human) to live and do good and fulfill their purpose.
Do u believe in the overall theory of the secular court system and concept of reward and punishment? for instance someone comes to your house and kidnap your kid (c’v), do u feel he should suffer the consequences of let’s say jail time? Obviously you do. So the Torah as well holds that a person who errs must be brought to justice, but not in the sense of you are BAD and you will suffer. The true essence of these punishments is actually blessing in disguise. How? Because we have a fundamental belief in right and wrong, purpose in this world, and our true destination, the afterlife. G-d built a system where when one sinned he or she would have to go through a cleansing process of “hell.” The essence of punishment is to teach someone that they are wrong and that they shouldnt do it again. so why if the person is dead already who this be applied to him? he cant change his actions anyway? That is because, hell is not a punishment, it is a cleansing process. If you smoke two packs of cigarettes a day, when you go play basketball, your lungs hurt. This is a cleansing process. When we sin it dirties our soul and we need cleansing so that we can enter the next world of eternal bliss. Suffering in this world is actually a blessing so that we can gain proper perspective while we still have the ability to change, and also because it actually lessens the amount or intensity of hell and allows for a greater share in eternal bliss. So this archaic system of punishment is actually much deeper than what meets the human eye.
Our soul is put here for a very lofty reason. We are a spark of G-d and the mitzvos are very frequently looked at as 613 burdens. However, the Zohar states that the mitzvos are actually 613 ways of getting close to G-d. Life is not all or nothing man. Every little bit we do we get great reward. Hashem does not need us. He does not need to give us all these ways of gaining “olam habah.” He put us here for us, not for Him. We can obvously counter this by focusing on all the bad that happens to us, but this is also leading us to our true purpose. and like I said before this pain in this world and the next, is a cleansing process for a bad act that our soul was involved in whether in this liftime or a previous. G-d gives us the opportunity to do repentance no matter what we did wrong. Not only can we do repentance even a moment before our deaths, but proper repentance actually turns all the negative energy of the sins into positive energy of mitzvos. (however we cant use this as an excuse to sin or to wait until we are on our deathbeds to repent)
Someones personal story:
“Some years ago a rabbinic colleague of mine in Chicago was giving a class on the Ten Commandments to a secular audience. Not one given to apologetics, he staunchly defended the death penalty the Bible prescribes for adultery. The rabbi argued that society as a whole, even today, would be a much better place if adultery was a capital crime.
Everyone in the class vociferously disagreed, saying that the Biblical punishment was too harsh. Except for one young man who sat there silently. This fellow had suffered through horrible teen years in large part because his father had been involved in an adulterous relationship. When he spoke up, all he said was “I see nothing wrong with the Torah’s penalty.” His words brought the rest of the class – who knew of his background – to immediate silence.
You do realize people aren’t going to read that thesis paper-length rant, right “once a non-believer”? I don’t particularly care to read it either, but I can say one thing: Writing something that long in this sort of informal discussion makes you look desperate, and doesn’t help your cause.
Look, I have nothing against you, I’m sure you’re a good person but defending the “Torah Judaism” worldview rationally is probably logically impossible. If you want to try, though, I’d suggest using shorter soundbytes.
Too much to filter through but check out http://www.talkreason.org/articles/kuzariflaws.cfm#argue for a response. Notice by the way how this Aish slave (yes I am aware of the ad hominem but I cannot hide my sheer hatred for the kind of evil this spreads) never attributes his ideas to the Kuzari argument, trying to make it seem like this approach is new and exciting. It isn’t; it’s from the 12th century and it stinks. The assumptions are speculative but they are presented as obvious. This kind of crap appeals to people who do not know much about epistemology or useful evidence.
You can believe whatever the hell you want but don’t try to coerce or convince people to throw away their current lives to believe in something which people have no necessity in which to believe. People come to religion for personal, spiritual reasons but they don’t realize that by accepting a universal/organized religion (one that is binding on not just you), they implicitly MUST believe that their beliefs must be compelling and coerced on others. Halacha and the idea of a heretic reflect this idea. For example, as an observant Jew, you cannot benefit off of my work done on Shabbat with the implication being that I should not be doing work on Shabbat. In addition, I should theoretically be liable for death every week. Or for a more apropos example, look how civil marriage is disallowed in Israel. This is a law based on Torah revelation at its heart that forces people into religious marriage if they want to marry in Israel. So don’t tell me that religion is a totally personal thing.
If you want to be spiritual, fine, but do it on your own time and don’t spread your evangelical crap like it is rational. Reason and revelation are not compatible. As Thomas Paine said, “it [revelation] is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief on such evidence.”
Interesting (I actually read it).
But I don’t get something (at least one thing): When are you proposing the 5 books of the Bible were actually written and given? All of it was written and given at Mount sinai (you say no because then no free will)? When else – and then what was given by Mount Sinai?
I read less than one sentence every time I pushed “page dn.”
Some issues:
Why would you expect other religions to claim mass revelation, since apparently people are willing to believe from personal revelation?
Deut. 4:32-33 is clearly talking about the past, not the future.
And of course, there HAVE been other religions that claim mass revelation…
Chris_B U are definately nit picking but sorry i’ll rephrase –”most pagan religions not all”.. but then again eastern religions have had almost no affect on western culture. we think the way we do in one facet or another because of the Torah and that alone. the main pagan cults/ popular cultures that were in the west or near east are considered immoral by our standards now. norse , greek roman , egyptian, or babylonian polytheism all had human sacrifice, rape, etc and were incredibably unjust.
G*3- Ok i could have said somewhere between 1 and 5 generations like you or i could have said the median number of 3… semantics my man..
Yehuda- nice arguement, your apologetics are so well thought …
to all-
My logic is sound, Without a doubt, look at the numbers, look at the growth of cheredim are actually one of the fastest growing subcultures in america.. But to appease you here is my arguement all broken down..
the stats are provided by the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs:
Total population-
Aprox. 2.5 million strictly orthodox jews in the world
Aprox 3 million active conservitive reconstructionist and reform jews combine world wide
that remains about 10 million jews that are not religious or are minorly religious
Birthrate-
cheredim avg 6.5 children per couple
modern orthodox avg 3.5 children per couple
non orthodox familiys avg 1.3 children (less than replacement number)
(* please note it takes 6 non orthodox familiys to make 3 next generation jews a decrease by 50%*)
by the next generation just on birth rate alone (not counting assimilation, convertion to other religions etc) 13 million non orthodox jews will only produce a harvest of 6.5 million, after that 3.25 million and then 1.625 million etc.
this is without assimilation at all, they are literally breeding there way of judaism into the ground. but you might say that they are gaining prostlytes, but not enough to matter, and the majority of the 3 million active reform and conservitive are in fact reform- who do not preform kosher conversions, and the conservitive conversions are suspect in many cases as well. now these sects will grow in terms of OTD’s that leave orthodoxy, even if that number where as high as 25% which it is no where near that high, not even close. they still would be loosing a populus of 25% every generation. so the boat is taking water and sinking- no matter how many buckets or pails their scrawny hands can muster to fish out the oncoming water. the dingy is going down.
Now take a look at orthodox- take the cheredim avg combine with the modern orthodox and you get an avg. of approx. 5 children for every 2 jews. so they replace the current number and then grow by an additional 133% so in one generation from now the 2.5 milllion orthodox jews will be 5.85 million jews in two generations 13.57 million etc. etc. now among that there will be fall off, some children will go off the derech. but even if the OTD rate was 1/3 or 33 % (which its not) the overall group would still be doubling itself every generation. these numbers are without taking in account of how many baal teshuvah’s that join.
so save another shoah or other G-d awful tragic event, the frumkeit only need to keep having kids and they will again take its place as the dominant jewish denomination. lets face it i just don’t see the orthodox cease from having kids anytime soon. it’s like telling a fish to give up water. because to be orthodox, means you keep the torah, the torah says to have a minimum or 2 kids and the more you have the more blesed you are. so its a cycle that perpetuates their future. because they follow the Torah they are orthodox, because they are orthodox they have many kids, because they have many kids, there population grow. in order to stop the orthodox from growing you would need to stop them from being orthodox, which defeats the purpose.
you say i am no prophet, very true, but I can prognosticate using the actual data givien. now does this mean i am 100% right? no… but i am not 100% wrong either. and i think my numbers are more close to accurate than not.
the number of reform, conservitive, reconstructionist, and non affiliated jews, are dying.. not just because of assimilation (which is rampant in these sects) But these sects are simply dying because they are not replacing theirselves. by defying the first commandment in the Torah, Pru-Vu… they are killing their own sects and ironically the weapon that is doing the most damage is the very weapon they forged, lawlessness.
the Torah is the thread, the morter, the glue that holds us together. it is what makes us Jews. not lox and bagels, not big noses or becoming a dentist. The Torah is still very prevailant and is still an Etz Chaim. for those that think the converse we shall see. its funny how the non orthodox hate to hear this stuff but its really simple math. if it costs you six bucks to make three, you are going to be broke before long. if it cost you 2 buck to make 5 bucks, you will be a wealthy man before long.
“Chris_B U are definately nit picking but sorry i’ll rephrase –”most pagan religions not all”.. but then again eastern religions have had almost no affect on western culture.”
If it is possible to have a just society that wasn’t derived from the Torah, it shows the Torah is not necessary. It is irrelevant whether western culture, or most cultures, take their morality from scripture or not.
“…the Torah is the thread, the morter, the glue that holds us together. it is what makes us Jews.”
It’s the desiccated bullshit that has historically bound a tribe together. Without it the tribe would be joined by mortise and tenon with the rest of humanity.
“My logic is sound, Without a doubt, look at the numbers, look at the growth of cheredim are actually one of the fastest growing subcultures in america.”
Things change. The hareidi world will not be able to maintain both its lifestyle and obscurantism forever. The internet is banned because refutations of its apologetics are accessible, but they won’t be able to keep it out forever. L’moshol, computers become obsolete even without wear, as technology changes and tasks require progressively more and more computing power, so too hareidi culture will change and die or die.
“…so save another shoah or other G-d awful tragic event…”
Emuna will be shaken by the terrible fate of Israel. B’derech hateva, it is doomed.