but not enough! So I'm snipping more
>> The idea was to _study_ the source, rather than make assumptions
>> and then ask questions based on those assumptions.
>>
>> > Is there an explanation, or is this one of those rules for which
>> > the rabbis said that we don't know, but simply follow G-d's
>> > commandment?
>>
>> A general rule is that we "observe' the rule because it is G-d's
>> command. _After_ that is frimly established and accepted, we may and
>> even _should_, "study" the rule to try and understand it's meanings
>> and further lessons. But after all the "study", when it comes to
>> observance, we disregard whatever we may have felt we understood,
>> and carry it out, because it's G-d's will.
>
> I have to disagree with this. If G-d merely wanted us to be automatons
> He wouldn't have burdened us with free will and the ability to reason.
Free will is not a "burden" but the reason d'etr (sp?) of Creation.
That does give me the "ability" to defy G-d and His commandments.
But that is _not_ why He gave it to us.
> Unthinking obedience is, to me, a profanation of G-d.
Different strokes for different folks.
> We obey because it is right and just and because G-d has given us
> the ability to *see* this.
And as soon as we fail to *see* it, we get the right to _disobey_.
So are we serving G-d, or our _own_ human understanding.
Dan, you seem to think that man is "infallable". If _I_ *see* it,
I do it. And if not? Do you really think that man's finite limited
capacity understanding could ever *grasp* G-d's Infinite Wisdom?
You have lowered G-d to human level. and you say _I_ "profane" Him!
> "I'm just following orders" is not a concept I care to have
> associated with Judaism.
Tweet! Godwin's law!
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > "I'm just following orders" is not a concept I care to have
> > associated with Judaism.
>
> Tweet! Godwin's law!
Nope. "Just following orders" has been used from (I suppose) the time of
pre-recorded history. You are the one who just invoked Godwin's Law, Moshe.
You lose!
Shelly
We have the right to disobey all along. There may be consequences for
disobeying, but that doesn't mean we can't do it.
But you're missing the point. I'm not arguing that we should only obey
those rules we agree with, but that to be consciously engaged in what we do.
When you stop at a red light or a stop sign, it's automatic. You don't
think about *why* you are doing it. But when you put on t'fillin or make
kiddush you *should* be aware of why you are doing it. And if you don't
understand why you are doing it you should strive, to the best of your
ability, to learn why.
> Dan, you seem to think that man is "infallable". If _I_ *see* it,
> I do it. And if not? Do you really think that man's finite limited
> capacity understanding could ever *grasp* G-d's Infinite Wisdom?
> You have lowered G-d to human level. and you say _I_ "profane" Him!
You miss my point. G-d gave us the ability to think. When we mindlessly go
through the motions without thinking we are not using G-d's gift.
(1) God wrote the rules in a literal sense, so we have to do what God
says. Isn't that a rather fundamentalist view?
(2) God dodn't write these rules in a literal sense, so we don't have
to follow the mitzvot, except those we choose to follow. Isn't that
putting each of us in the position o God?
What gets me is that the traditional Jewish views on this issue are
in-between these two extreme positions. Note that I said "views"
(plural), as the tradition offers more than one reason!
The following material is excerpted from Rabbi David Golinkin's
"Halakhah for Our Time: A Conservative Approach to Jewish Law"
[Published by the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism".
A. Theocentric reasons
1. We must observe the laws commandments because they are Divine in
origin; they were given to us in the Torah at Mount Sinai by God
Himself. And what about all the laws that were added by the rabbis
throughout the ages? According to this approach, they too were given
at Mount Sinai, as we read in the Palestinian Talmud "Even what a
clever pupil will expound before his teacher has already been given to
Moses at Sinai."
2. Halakhah is the way that the Jewish people throughout the
generations understood God's revelations at Mount Sinai and observed
it. A Jew who observes mitzvot fulfill's God's will as Klal Yisrael -
the collective people of Israel - understood God's will for 3,000
years.
3. The Torah and the mitzvot express the eternal brit [covenant] made
between God and the Jewish people. As Moses states in Deuteronomy:
"It was not with our fathers that the Lord made this
covenant, but with us, the living, every one of us
who is here today. Face to face the Lord spoke to
you on the mountain out of the fire."
This statement would not be surprising if it had been made to the
people who had been present at the revelation at Mt. Sinai. But Moses
is speaking to their children forty years later - and yet he says
"us", "every one of us", "you" ! His point was that the covenant was
not a one shot deal; it is renewed in every generation as Moses
clearly explains at the end of Deuteronomy:
"I make this covenant not with you alone, but both
with those who are standing here this day before
the Lord our God and with those who are not with us
here this day.
4. The mitzvot lead us to holiness, sanctify our lives and bring us
closer to God. This is the approach taught by the Tanna Issi ben
Yehuda 1700 years ago: "With each new command, God adds holiness to
the people of Israel.[Mekhilta, parashah 20] This approach is also
reflected in the standard formula of blessings recited over mitzvot
such as Shabbat and Hanukkah candles, lulav, tefillin and tallit:
"Blessed are you, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who has
sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us..."
B. Ethnocentric reasons
1. Halakhah is the cement that binds together the scattered "bricks"
of the Jewish people. Without it, the Jewish people would have long
ago disappeared. The mitzvot tie every Jew in the world together with
every other Jew in the world, as we all perform the same mitzvot.
When we put on tefillin in the morning, we know that a Jew in Morocco
does the same. When we light candles on Hanukkah, we know that a Jew
in Argentina does the same. When we give tzedakah, we know that a Jew
in Australia does the same.
2. The mitzvot are the golden chain which binds us and our children to
our ancestors, and to the history of our people. Without them we would
lose our continuity and we would feel like orphans in history. When
we observe Shabbat, we know that Moses our teacher did the same. When
we keep kosher, we know that Rabbi Akiva of the second century did the
same. When we visit the sick, we know that Rashi of the eleventh
century did the same. When we comfort the mourner, we know that
Maimonides of the 12th century did the same.
3. The greatest threat to the Jewish people is assimilation and
intermarriage. For thousands of years the mitzvot have protected the
Jewish people from these threats. The famous Zionist thinker Ahad
Ha'am said "More than the Jews have preserved the Sabbath, the
Sabbath has preserved the Jews." The same can be said of all mitzvot.
C. Anthropocentric reasons
1. Mitzvot are a means of self-discipline, of improving character and
of making us better human beings. This idea sounds very modern, but
it is not. It was first suggested by the Letter if Aristeas, one of
the books of the Apocrypha, written by a Greek jew in the second
century B.C.E. The author states: "The sacred commandments were given
for the sake of righteousness to arouse pious thoughts, and to perfect
one's character." [Letter of Aristeas, paragraph 144]. A similar
suggestion was made three hundred years later by Rav, a Babylonian
rabbi and a major contributor to the Talmud. He said: "The
commandments were given only in order to refine and discipline the
person who performs them." [Bereshit Rabbah, 44:1 ed. Theodore
Albreck, p.424]
2. We perform Mitzvot because they are enjoyable! They uplift the
spirit and bring joy to the heart. This point of view has been
popular from biblical times until today. The Psalmist wrote three
thousand years ago: "The precepts of the Lord are just, making the
heart rejoice."
...There are many other possible responses to the question "Why
observe the halakhah?" but in the final analysis the chief thing is
not to expounds the Law but to do it. [Mishna, Avot 1:17]
----------
Rabbi Golinkin's booklet is available from the United Synagogue Book
Service. (Also ask for their free catalogue.)
United Synagogue Book Service
Rappaport House
155 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10010 (212) 533-7800 ext.2003
http://www.uscj.org/mall/bookservice.htm
http://www.uscj.org/publications/
e-mail: Boo...@uscj.org
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
> "Sheldon Glickler" <shel...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3B52F57F...@mediaone.net...
> >
> > mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >
> > > "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > > > "I'm just following orders" is not a concept I care to have
> > > > associated with Judaism.
> > >
> > > Tweet! Godwin's law!
> >
> > Nope. "Just following orders" has been used from (I suppose) the time of
> > pre-recorded history. You are the one who just invoked Godwin's Law,
> Moshe.
> > You lose!
> >
> In modern times, it is still best known as an attempted defense at the
Yes, but... It is not the same as invoking Hitler. Others have said the same
thing in modern times and, I believe, it is only because we are Jews that we are
super-sensitized the nazi defense. It is almost a reflex action. Point is, He
did not invoke the Law. Moshe, by his calling it in invoked it.
> trials of nazis for war crimes. The reason it has been generally useless at
> trial is that there is also a rule in the Laws of Land Warfare that no
> soldier can be required to obey an order he knows or should know is illegal.
> It's obviously not applicable in the realm of halacha, since any "orders"
> imparted by G-d are per se legal ones.
Not true there either. The orders are not from God. They are from people who
**claim** they are from God to people who want to believe it as well. Not the
same thing.
Shelly
Robert wrote:
> I am always amazed at the debate as to why one should, or should not,
> follow the mitzvot. Time and again I see two extreme positions
> advocated:
>
> (1) God wrote the rules in a literal sense, so we have to do what God
> says. Isn't that a rather fundamentalist view?
Yes.
> (2) God dodn't write these rules in a literal sense, so we don't have
> to follow the mitzvot, except those we choose to follow. Isn't that
> putting each of us in the position o God?
No, it puts in the position of being human with a mind to judge.
Shelly
:><mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
:>news:2001Jul1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
:>> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
:>> >> A general rule is that we "observe' the rule because it is G-d's
:>> >> command. _After_ that is frimly established and accepted, we may and
:>> >> even _should_, "study" the rule to try and understand it's meanings
:>> >> and further lessons. But after all the "study", when it comes to
:>> >> observance, we disregard whatever we may have felt we understood,
:>> >> and carry it out, because it's G-d's will.
:>> > I have to disagree with this. If G-d merely wanted us to be automatons
:>> > He wouldn't have burdened us with free will and the ability to reason.
:>> Free will is not a "burden" but the reason d'etr (sp?) of Creation.
:>> That does give me the "ability" to defy G-d and His commandments.
:>> But that is _not_ why He gave it to us.
:>> > Unthinking obedience is, to me, a profanation of G-d.
:>> Different strokes for different folks.
:>> > We obey because it is right and just and because G-d has given us
:>> > the ability to *see* this.
:>> And as soon as we fail to *see* it, we get the right to _disobey_.
:>> So are we serving G-d, or our _own_ human understanding.
:>We have the right to disobey all along. There may be consequences for
:>disobeying, but that doesn't mean we can't do it.
Exactly.
:>But you're missing the point. I'm not arguing that we should only obey
:>those rules we agree with, but that to be consciously engaged in what we do.
You previously wrote "We obey because it is right and just and because G-d has
given us the ability to *see* this."
Do you now back down from that position and agree that one should obey G-d
even if G-d has NOT given us the ability to see that a certain order is right
or just"?
:>When you stop at a red light or a stop sign, it's automatic.
Perhaps.
:> You don't
:>think about *why* you are doing it.
In heavy traffic, to avoid accidents.
In the middle of the night, to avoid tickets and a fine.
:> But when you put on t'fillin or make
:>kiddush you *should* be aware of why you are doing it.
Why does one put on teffilin or make Kiddush?
:> And if you don't
:>understand why you are doing it you should strive, to the best of your
:>ability, to learn why.
And what if you cannot figure out why?
For example:
Explain to me why Jews cannot eat yummy pork chops.
Explain to me why one who is sitting in the shade of a apple tree cannot reach
up, pick and eat a fresh apple on Shabbat. It certainly seems less work than
going to the house to get an apple.
Explain to me why a women is a Niddah for seven days and why she may not have
intercourse in that period.
:>> Dan, you seem to think that man is "infallable". If _I_ *see* it,
:>> I do it. And if not? Do you really think that man's finite limited
:>> capacity understanding could ever *grasp* G-d's Infinite Wisdom?
:>> You have lowered G-d to human level. and you say _I_ "profane" Him!
:>You miss my point. G-d gave us the ability to think. When we mindlessly go
:>through the motions without thinking we are not using G-d's gift.
What does that have to do with following His orders?
Do you now acknowledge that one must follow G-ds orders, even if one does not
understand them?
That "I'm just following G-ds orders" IS a Jewish concept (even though it is
not the ideal)?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Sheldon Glickler wrote:
>
> Robert wrote:
>
> > (2) God dodn't write these rules in a literal sense, so we don't have
> > to follow the mitzvot, except those we choose to follow. Isn't that
> > putting each of us in the position o God?
>
> No, it puts in the position of being human with a mind to judge.
There are certain things that we humans cannot ever be qualified to judge.
Shaineleah
If so, how are we to judge which things those are?
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
shaineleah wrote:
You can surrender your mind if you wish with such a statement. I will keep my
human ability and requirement to judge, thank you very much.
Shelly
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
Dan, give it up. Dissen is totally incapable of distinguishing between "God's
orders" and "believing them to be God's orders". To him they are one and the
same. As such, your attempts at pointing out the obvious can lead nowhere.
Shelly
: You can surrender your mind if you wish with such a statement. I will keep my
: human ability and requirement to judge, thank you very much.
I would have said that there are some things which we can only judge
in bulk. IOW, rather than deciding about each and every halachah, the O
Jew decides to trust halachah as a whole, leaving personal decision to
the issues where that trust doesn't lead to a single answer.
There are two layers of choice here:
1- Choice in defining right vs wrong
2- Choice between two actions, given #1
(Maybe that should be 2a and 2b:
2a- Choosing whether or not to do what's right (rather than what's desired)
2b- Choosing between right things, setting priorities when unclear)
Adopting a guideline for #1 doesn't eliminate #2. Nor does it eliminate
rethinking and refining #1.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905
>: You can surrender your mind if you wish with such a statement. I will keep my
>: human ability and requirement to judge, thank you very much.
>I would have said that there are some things which we can only judge
>in bulk. IOW, rather than deciding about each and every halachah, the O
>Jew decides to trust halachah as a whole, leaving personal decision to
>the issues where that trust doesn't lead to a single answer.
There are some issues where one should leave decisions
to those who are more capable. However, I cannot see
that those who lived 2000 years ago were more capable,
because of their necessary lack of knowledge, and
therefore I cannot see that those who accepted that
they had to be more capable are correct.
God also gave us some laws which we cannot disobey, the
laws of nature. We need to interpret the claimed laws
He gave us verbally in that light. This means that we
almost need to start over.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
><mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>news:2001Jul1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
>> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> >> A general rule is that we "observe' the rule because it is G-d's
>> >> command. _After_ that is frimly established and accepted, we may and
>> >> even _should_, "study" the rule to try and understand it's meanings
>> >> and further lessons. But after all the "study", when it comes to
>> >> observance, we disregard whatever we may have felt we understood,
>> >> and carry it out, because it's G-d's will.
>> >
>> > I have to disagree with this. If G-d merely wanted us to be automatons
>> > He wouldn't have burdened us with free will and the ability to reason.
>>
>> Free will is not a "burden" but the reason d'etr (sp?) of Creation.
>> That does give me the "ability" to defy G-d and His commandments.
>> But that is _not_ why He gave it to us.
>>
>> > Unthinking obedience is, to me, a profanation of G-d.
>>
>> Different strokes for different folks.
I wish I could be so... what? Understanding? Patient? Tactful? I
don't know, but when I see someone turn things on its head, I can't do
it.
>> > We obey because it is right and just and because G-d has given us
>> > the ability to *see* this.
>>
>> And as soon as we fail to *see* it, we get the right to _disobey_.
>> So are we serving G-d, or our _own_ human understanding.
>
>We have the right to disobey all along. There may be consequences for
>disobeying, but that doesn't mean we can't do it.
This is a very common word replacement. Actually we have the power to
disobey. We don't have the right. The fact that there may be
consequences doesn't affect this. Another driver cuts you off as you
drive into a parking lot. When you complain, he knocks out some of
your teeth and breaks your nose. He thought it was fair and it will
teach you to keep your mouth shut. That's what his human
understanding gives him, but maybe you'll agree he had the power but
not the right.
Oh, you think you're smarter than he is. When it comes to the things
you do wrong, you're not. I'm not merely talking about keeping
kosher. Look at the tale-bearing that has gone on in this newsgroup
and how those who did it think they've done nothing wrong. Are you
smarter than they are?
>But you're missing the point. I'm not arguing that we should only obey
>those rules we agree with,
And Moshe didn't say you said that. "Only" is a word you put in and
it enables you to go one more round while not addressing Moshe's
comment which was addressed to those laws you do disobey.
> but that to be consciously engaged in what we do.
And you don't think Moshe's comment applies equally to this category?
You're "consciously engaged" and apparently sometimes you decide not
to do things Judaism requires. It's not the times you do things
right, like times you put on t'fillin, that require discussion. It's
the other times.
>When you stop at a red light or a stop sign, it's automatic. You don't
>think about *why* you are doing it. But when you put on t'fillin or make
>kiddush you *should* be aware of why you are doing it. And if you don't
>understand why you are doing it you should strive, to the best of your
>ability, to learn why.
>
>> Dan, you seem to think that man is "infallable". If _I_ *see* it,
>> I do it. And if not? Do you really think that man's finite limited
>> capacity understanding could ever *grasp* G-d's Infinite Wisdom?
>> You have lowered G-d to human level. and you say _I_ "profane" Him!
>
>You miss my point.
Twice in one post, you think someone else missed "the point". This
enables you to give only a cursory look to what he said. He's already
heard your point and he's making a relevant point in return. If you
don't look a little closer, it won't benefit you.
> G-d gave us the ability to think. When we mindlessly go
>through the motions without thinking we are not using G-d's gift.
And when after "thinking", you decide you're right and G-d's wrong,
that's when Moshe's 4 lines apply. He didn't miss even *your* point.
There is plenty of occasion to think while obeying G-d's law. Look at
some of the discussion that go on here. Compare: When the jeweler
leaves a gold bracelet on the counter and you mindlessly don't steal
it, do you think you are not using G-d's gift? Isn't it a fact that
you don't think the laws you don't like don't come from God in the
slightest. You've already "thought" that out, and now you consider
other factors, but aren't there a whole host of things where you don't
think about G-d and what he wants any more than those who obey halacha
do.
Or maybe you think G-d did command these things and you don't care.
After all, in your previous post, you made an implicit comparison of
observant Jews to nzi murderers, and of G-d to a nzi commandant.
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
I too thought that Benyamin's examples in the latter part of the post,
picking an apple and niddah, wouldn't work so well with Dan, but he
can answer the first part of Binyamin's post itself without changing
anything.
WRT the latter part, Dan can replace those two examples with ones Dan
does say are from G-d and then he can answer the amended questions.
Unless, I can't keep track, he can't think of any examples. Maybe he
sees himself bound by the same laws as a Noachide, or maybe the laws
all societies have in common.
>Shelly
> The following material is excerpted from Rabbi David Golinkin's
> "Halakhah for Our Time: A Conservative Approach to Jewish Law"
> [Published by the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism".
>
> A. Theocentric reasons
>
> 1. We must observe the laws commandments because they are Divine in
> origin; they were given to us in the Torah at Mount Sinai by God
Amen. But the big question is what exactly was given?
> Himself. And what about all the laws that were added by the rabbis
> throughout the ages? According to this approach, they too were given
> at Mount Sinai, as we read in the Palestinian Talmud "Even what a
> clever pupil will expound before his teacher has already been given to
> Moses at Sinai."
Could you provide the entire passage from the Talmud
that contains this line? Does it mean that what the
pupil says was already made into Law by God at Sinai?
I don't get this. If it was already made into Law, it
would have been taught to the pupil and he would not
have to expound it, right?
Or does it mean that on Sinai God showed Moses Everything?
That is, God even showed him what some clever pupil
will say in the future. In this case, Rabbinic legislation
is not from God.
> 2. Halakhah is the way that the Jewish people throughout the
> generations understood God's revelations at Mount Sinai and observed
Not true. In your other posts you call for a more
scientific look at history. Can you give scientific
evidence that the above statement is true? Can you
show that Moses wore tefillin??
> 3. The Torah and the mitzvot express the eternal brit [covenant] made
> between God and the Jewish people. As Moses states in Deuteronomy:
>
> "It was not with our fathers that the Lord made this
> covenant, but with us, the living, every one of us
> who is here today. Face to face the Lord spoke to
> you on the mountain out of the fire."
Amen. But this argument does not apply to Rabbinic law.
> 4. The mitzvot lead us to holiness, sanctify our lives and bring us
> closer to God. This is the approach taught by the Tanna Issi ben
OK.
> B. Ethnocentric reasons
>
> 1. Halakhah is the cement that binds together the scattered "bricks"
The rites of any religion bind the adherents together. So?
> 2. The mitzvot are the golden chain which binds us and our children to
> our ancestors, and to the history of our people. Without them we would
Again, true for every religion. Should we also worship
idols because (some of) our ancestors did so, to their
great error?
> 3. The greatest threat to the Jewish people is assimilation and
> intermarriage. For thousands of years the mitzvot have protected the
The Lord God has promised that we will never cease to be.
Not because of our doings, but only because He so wishes. No
matter how much assimilation there is, there will always
be Jews. Frankly, I find all these concerns about assimilation
a bit atheistic since they seem to overlook God's
promise.
> C. Anthropocentric reasons
>
> 1. Mitzvot are a means of self-discipline, of improving character and
So is yoga.
> 2. We perform Mitzvot because they are enjoyable! They uplift the
I like doing yoga. Really.
> ...There are many other possible responses to the question "Why
> observe the halakhah?" but in the final analysis the chief thing is
> not to expounds the Law but to do it. [Mishna, Avot 1:17]
Amen to that as well.
=====
__________________________________________________
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/qanda3000/
Last updated 21 June 2001
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
This argument always comes down to this. This reminds
me of Godel's famous theorem. But I'm too tired
to comment. Anyone?
Ow. That made my head hurt. :)
Since we have neither proof of nor reliable access to anything better
capable of judging, we humans MUST judge -- whether we judge based on
our intellect or on our faith. It's still human judgment and it's
still not provably correct either way.
>Shaineleah
-Naomi
"Cease, then, to fashion state-made sin
Nor give your children cause to doubt
That virtue springs from iron within,
Not lead without." Rudyard Kipling
Nowhere did I say that G-d is wrong, so I'm not even bothering to respond to
the rest of it.
> On 17 Jul 2001 06:37:44 GMT,
> shaineleah <scyu...@mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Sheldon Glickler wrote:
> >>
> >> Robert wrote:
> >>
> >> > (2) God dodn't write these rules in a literal sense, so we don't have
> >> > to follow the mitzvot, except those we choose to follow. Isn't that
> >> > putting each of us in the position o God?
> >>
> >> No, it puts in the position of being human with a mind to judge.
> >
> >There are certain things that we humans cannot ever be qualified to judge.
>
> If so, how are we to judge which things those are?
>
Seems to me that's what G_d gave us the Torah for. Regardless, our G_d-given
conscience+human reasoning seems sufficient to qualify us to judge ourselves
(this
is same capacity as the one which enables us to determine right from wrong),
and
therefore we are qualified to judge our own strengths and weaknesses. Knowing
our
strengths and weaknesses allows us to wisely determine what we are qualified
to judge.
Shaineleah
> On 17 Jul 2001 06:37:44 GMT, shaineleah <scyu...@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >Sheldon Glickler wrote:
> >>
> >> Robert wrote:
> >>
> >> > (2) God dodn't write these rules in a literal sense, so we don't have
> >> > to follow the mitzvot, except those we choose to follow. Isn't that
> >> > putting each of us in the position o God?
> >>
> >> No, it puts in the position of being human with a mind to judge.
> >
> >There are certain things that we humans cannot ever be qualified to judge.
>
> Since we have neither proof of nor reliable access to anything better
> capable of judging, we humans MUST judge -- whether we judge based on
> our intellect or on our faith. It's still human judgment and it's
> still not provably correct either way.
Yes, and that's why it seems better to err on the side of doing more mitzvahs
rather than
doing less. Needless to say, I believe that every mitzvah is worthy. Like
Micha said, I take
them at face value, just because I have convinced myself using my own
judgement that G_d
rules absolute Truth, and therefore I infer that the words and wishes of G_d
are absolute Truth.
Shaineleah
>>Himself. And what about all the laws that were added by the rabbis
>>throughout the ages? According to this approach, they too were
given
>>at Mount Sinai, as we read in the Palestinian Talmud "Even what a
>>clever pupil will expound before his teacher has already been given
to
>>Moses at Sinai."
> Could you provide the entire passage from the Talmud
> that contains this line? Does it mean that what the
> pupil says was already made into Law by God at Sinai?
> I don't get this. If it was already made into Law, it
> would have been taught to the pupil and he would not
> have to expound it, right?
You have just exposed a flaw in the ultra-Orthodox claim! That is
precisely why Modern Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews reject a
literal reading of this passage.
>> 2.Halakhah is the way that the Jewish people throughout the
>> generations understood God's revelations at Mount Sinai and
>> observed
> Not true. In your other posts you call for a more
> scientific look at history. Can you give scientific
> evidence that the above statement is true? Can you
> show that Moses wore tefillin??
I think you misunderstand. Rabbi Golinkin did not write that the
halakha today is identical to the halakha then! In fact, Rabbi
Golinkin is big on the the historical study of halakha, as you seem to
be as well. Rabbi Glinkin's point was something different: That the
*system* of halakha is the way that Jews understand God's will.
Individual rules change in different circumstances.
>> "It was not with our fathers that the Lord made this
>> covenant, but with us, the living, every one of us
>> who is here today. Face to face the Lord spoke to
>> you on the mountain out of the fire."
> Amen. But this argument does not apply to Rabbinic law.
On a literal level, I agree. But according to the rabbis, rabbinic
law is God's will. The text of the Torah doesn't have much of a real
meaning, excepted when understood through the oral law.
>> 1. Halakhah is the cement that binds together the scattered
"bricks"
> The rites of any religion bind the adherents together. So?
Isn't Jewish unity a good thing? Holding together Klal Yisrael is a
religious ideal.
> > 2. The mitzvot are the golden chain which binds us and our children to
> > our ancestors, and to the history of our people. Without them we would
>
> Again, true for every religion. Should we also worship
> idols because (some of) our ancestors did so, to their
> great error?
According to Jews, Judaism is not an "error" or idolatry. We Jews
cherish Judaism. If you see it in a bad light, I guess you have other
opinions.
> The Lord God has promised that we will never cease to be.
> Not because of our doings, but only because He so wishes. No
> matter how much assimilation there is, there will always
> be Jews. Frankly, I find all these concerns about assimilation
> a bit atheistic since they seem to overlook God's
> promise.
Then you stand alone, for this is an issue that Orthodox, Conservative
and Reform Jews stand united on. I find it odd that you would
describe the vast majority of religious Jews as atheisitic!
Shalom,
Robert
Rabbi Elliot Dorff points out the flaw in this kind of thinking. He
writes:
"In one sense of course, individuals should take responsibility for
decisions which affect their lives so deeply, and this brings me to my
second point. For Rabbi Irving Greenberg, one lesson of the Holocaust
is that people should not depend upon the law to tell them what is
right and proper, for the legal mode caries with it the ultimate
danger of legitimizing morally atrocious acts. He is clearly right in
his warning, but certainly even he must admit that the Nazi's use of
law constituted an _abuse_ of it. The correct lesson to learn from
this event, I would say, is _not_ that because of this danger the law
should be abandoned as a way of determining moral decisions - but
rather that individuals should retain the obligation to examine any
law or ruling for its morality and to disobery all laws which are
immoral on their face."
"This of course is not an easy criterion to use, especially in the
modern complex matters such as those posed by contemporary
medicine,for one person's judgement may well differ from another's.
If a legal system is working properly, however, those adhering to it
_should_ be able to depend on it to guide them through morally murky
waters, and they would need to disobey the law only in case of obvious
and gross moral perversion. Jewish law [halakha] clearly assumes both
elements of this methodology: it asserts that God's law is just and
good, and it bids us obey the rabbi's interpretation of that law in
every generation; but it also requires that we go beyond the letter
of the law and even disobey it when it - or a given interpretation of
it - is mean spirited or downright immoral (3). Thus personal
responsibility _can_ and _would_be retained in a properly understood
halakhic system, but the burdern of moral responsibility would not
fully and exclusively devolve upon the individual."
From "A Methodology for Jewish Medical Ethics" by Elliot N. Dorff.
p.161-176 in "Contemporary Jewish Ethics and Morality: A Reader"
Edited by Elliot N. Dorff and Louis E. Newman,Oxford University Press,
1995
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
>
><meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:plr8lt4h68u2re514...@4ax.com...
>> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 16 Jul 2001 21:39:05 GMT "Dan
>> Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>>
>> > G-d gave us the ability to think. When we mindlessly go
>> >through the motions without thinking we are not using G-d's gift.
>>
>> And when after "thinking", you decide you're right and G-d's wrong,
>> that's when Moshe's 4 lines apply. He didn't miss even *your* point.
>
>Nowhere did I say that G-d is wrong,
I apologize for implying you had. I'm referring to whatever occasions
you decide you're right and the halacha is wrong, or you decide what
others tell you the halacha is are wrong while only your "gut feeling"
or somehing tells you you're right.
> so I'm not even bothering to respond to
>the rest of it.
There's no chance you would have answered the rest of it anyhow.
> > Could you provide the entire passage from the Talmud
> > that contains this line? Does it mean that what the
> > pupil says was already made into Law by God at Sinai?
> > I don't get this. If it was already made into Law, it
> > would have been taught to the pupil and he would not
> > have to expound it, right?
> You have just exposed a flaw in the ultra-Orthodox claim! That is
> precisely why Modern Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews reject a
> literal reading of this passage.
What is the non-literal reading?
> be as well. Rabbi Glinkin's point was something different: That the
> *system* of halakha is the way that Jews understand God's will.
> Individual rules change in different circumstances.
OK.
I understand that C do change some laws working within the
system of halakha. But are these changes only minor laws?
(In which case C would be very close to O.) Or do C believe
that in principle they can change (right now, not in some
distant future) any of the rabbinical laws? If so, why have
most laws remained the same?
Who is in charge of actually making these changes?
> > Amen. But this argument does not apply to Rabbinic law.
>
> On a literal level, I agree. But according to the rabbis, rabbinic
> law is God's will. The text of the Torah doesn't have much of a real
> meaning, excepted when understood through the oral law.
Naturally, "according to the rabbis, rabbinic
law is God's will." Why wouldn't it be? All the leaders
have always derived their power and authority by
(ab)using God's name. How is the rabbinic claim
different?
> > The rites of any religion bind the adherents together. So?
> Isn't Jewish unity a good thing? Holding together Klal Yisrael is a
> religious ideal.
I agree that some degree of national pride is a
good thing. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a
religious ideal. But that's not the point. The
question was: Why observe Judaism? As an answer,
you (or the person you quoted) said that a reason
to follow Judaism is because it builds national
pride / unity. But any religion does this. IOW,
it's an argument for following any religion, not
just Judaism.
> > Again, true for every religion. Should we also worship
> > idols because (some of) our ancestors did so, to their
> > great error?
> According to Jews, Judaism is not an "error" or idolatry. We Jews
> cherish Judaism. If you see it in a bad light, I guess you have other
> opinions.
I understand that Judaism is not an error. But,
1. As above, the argument of linking to one's ancestors
could be applied to following any religion, not Judaism
in particular; and
2. What if the ancestors were in error? One does not
observe the Law because it is from the ancestors;
rather because it is from God. Certainly we know
that Abraham did not follow the ways of his ancestors.
That's all that I meant.
> > The Lord God has promised that we will never cease to be.
> > Not because of our doings, but only because He so wishes. No
> > matter how much assimilation there is, there will always
> > be Jews. Frankly, I find all these concerns about assimilation
> > a bit atheistic since they seem to overlook God's
> > promise.
> Then you stand alone, for this is an issue that Orthodox, Conservative
> and Reform Jews stand united on. I find it odd that you would
> describe the vast majority of religious Jews as atheisitic!
Just this particular concern of theirs.
This is the problem with organized religion. It has leaders.
Those leaders need followers. Assimilation leads to
less followers. Battling assimilation leads to feelings
of nationalism and more commitment from the non-assimilated.
Maybe I'm missing something. You tell me. But why is
assimilation a concern? Is anyone afraid that we will disappear?
All I was saying is that this fear is unfounded.
%Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
%
%> On 17 Jul 2001 06:37:44 GMT, shaineleah <scyu...@mit.edu> wrote:
%>
%> >Sheldon Glickler wrote:
%> >>
%> >> Robert wrote:
%> >>
%> >> > (2) God dodn't write these rules in a literal sense, so we don't have
%> >> > to follow the mitzvot, except those we choose to follow. Isn't that
%> >> > putting each of us in the position o God?
%> >>
%> >> No, it puts in the position of being human with a mind to judge.
%> >
%> >There are certain things that we humans cannot ever be qualified to judge.
%>
%> Since we have neither proof of nor reliable access to anything better
%> capable of judging, we humans MUST judge -- whether we judge based on
%> our intellect or on our faith. It's still human judgment and it's
%> still not provably correct either way.
%
%Yes, and that's why it seems better to err on the side of doing more mitzvahs
%rather than
%doing less. Needless to say, I believe that every mitzvah is worthy. Like
%Micha said, I take
%them at face value, just because I have convinced myself using my own
====================================
%judgement that G_d
=========
%rules absolute Truth, and therefore I infer that the words and wishes of G_d
%are absolute Truth.
So you also used your own, human, judgement to reach a certain
conclusion, so in what way do you differ in principle from
all the others who also used *their* judgement but came to
a different conclusion?
%Shaineleah
Michael Shimshoni
%"Colin Rosenthal" <colin.r...@astro.uio.no> wrote in message
%news:9j0onj$rq9$2...@readme.uio.no...
%> On 17 Jul 2001 06:37:44 GMT,
%> shaineleah <scyu...@mit.edu> wrote:
%> >
%> >
%> >Sheldon Glickler wrote:
%> >>
%> >> Robert wrote:
%> >>
%> >> > (2) God dodn't write these rules in a literal sense, so we don't have
%> >> > to follow the mitzvot, except those we choose to follow. Isn't that
%> >> > putting each of us in the position o God?
%> >>
%> >> No, it puts in the position of being human with a mind to judge.
%> >
%> >There are certain things that we humans cannot ever be qualified to
%judge.
%>
%> If so, how are we to judge which things those are?
%
%Ow. That made my head hurt. :)
If so learn some more Tora, as it says, ha`hash berosho ya`asoq
batora (whose head hurts should learn Tora).
Michael Shimshoni
I imagine from this that you must have suffered terribly from
headaches once, Michael, judging from the Torah you know. I hope you
feel better now. :-)
-Shlomo-
We have the "ability", that's what "Free Will" is all about. I
wouldn't call it a "right", but that may be just semantics.
> But you're missing the point. I'm not arguing that we should only
> obey those rules we agree with, but that to be consciously engaged
> in what we do. When you stop at a red light or a stop sign, it's
> automatic. You don't think about *why* you are doing it. But when
> you put on t'fillin or make kiddush you *should* be aware of why
> you are doing it. And if you don't understand why you are doing
> it you should strive, to the best of your ability, to learn why.
Dan, if you had said this originally, I would not have argued. See my
post where I said; "we may and even _should_, "study" the rule to try
and understand it's meanings and further lessons". Does that sound
that I'm encouraging an "automon"? I _did_ make one further statement
which _might_ be the bone of contention between us; "But after all
the "study", when it comes to observance, we disregard whatever we
may have felt we understood, and carry it out, because it's G-d's
will." But this does _not_ mean "automatically" like stopping at a
red light. It means _consciously_ and with great intent, perform the
action _because_ its "G-d's Will".
>> Dan, you seem to think that man is "infallable". If _I_ *see* it,
>> I do it. And if not? Do you really think that man's finite limited
>> capacity understanding could ever *grasp* G-d's Infinite Wisdom?
>> You have lowered G-d to human level. and you say _I_ "profane" Him!
>
> You miss my point. G-d gave us the ability to think. When we
> mindlessly go through the motions without thinking we are not
> using G-d's gift.
It seems we may be in more agreement than we thought. I did _not_
advocate going "mindlessly through the motions". I _did_ advocate
"observing" _because_ it's "G-d's Will" and not based on my own
(superficial by definition) understanding.
Maybe there's hope for SCJM yet!
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
shaineleah wrote:
IOW, we judge what we judge we can judge?????
Shelly
Michael Shimshoni wrote:
For once, just ONCE, I would like to see someone from the O side REALLY address
this.
Shelly
: For once, just ONCE, I would like to see someone from the O side REALLY address
: this.
What's there to address?
Yes, O is a belief system, as is R. Michael didn't say anything more than
that.
Given one's belief in a given system, one behaves pretty much the same
way as if one could prove it were true. Otherwise, you don't really
believe it, do you?
-mi
I can't speak for SL and I doubt one would consider this answer to be
about principle -- I don't think so either -- but the result is that
when she's made up her mind, she's decided to practice Judaism, and
the others you mention would have decided to practice Judaism
sometimes or not at all, depending.
It's often true in Judaism and I think in Jewish culture, which is
still, even among assimilated Jews, determined quite a bit by Judaism,
that action is more important than principle, especially underlying or
tangential principle.
But I'll have to leave it up to others to decide if SL's situation is
one of those cases.
>
>%Shaineleah
>
> Michael Shimshoni
Micha Berger wrote:
Micha, the point is that the O [here on SCJM] do not readily admit to that. They
start with "God said...." and do not even admit to the possibility that "God didn't
say, just men said that God said". There is nothing wrong with **believing** that
"God said" and acting accordingly. That is a logical course of action given the
premise. However, it does not translate to "God said".
So, I will ask you directly what Michael asked:
Since you admit that O is a belief system and that your "God said" is really "I
believe God said" based upon your judgments, then how is this fundamentally different
from C or R coming to different conclusions based upon their judgments? Please show
how these logically differ.
Question asked:
1 - You believe A to be true based upon your judgment (and you are an intelligent
person).
2 - Others believe B to be true based their best judgments (and they are intelligent
people).
3 - Neither A nor B is experimentally provable.
What makes your conclusion valid and theirs not?
You answered instead, a question not asked:
1 - You believe A to be true so you do C which logically follows from it.
2 - Others believe B to be true so they do D which logically follows from it.
There is nothing wrong with (1) you say because don't you (meaning me) accept (2) as
also being valid.
Shelly
>> : For once, just ONCE, I would like to see someone from the O side REALLY
>> : address this.
>> What's there to address? Yes, O is a belief system, as is R. Michael
>> didn't say anything more than that.
>> Given one's belief in a given system, one behaves pretty much the same
>> way as if one could prove it were true. Otherwise, you don't really
>> believe it, do you?
>Micha, the point is that the O [here on SCJM] do not readily admit to that. They
>start with "God said...." and do not even admit to the possibility that "God didn't
>say, just men said that God said". There is nothing wrong with **believing** that
>"God said" and acting accordingly. That is a logical course of action given the
>premise. However, it does not translate to "God said".
Reread what Micha said. If the O who believes that it all began with
"God said" admitted the possibility that it began with men who said
"God said", well, then he doesn't really believe it. Which is a different
issue than knowing that OTHER people believe it all began with men...
>So, I will ask you directly what Michael asked:
>Since you admit that O is a belief system and that your "God said" is really "I
>believe God said" based upon your judgments, then how is this fundamentally different
>from C or R coming to different conclusions based upon their judgments? Please show
>how these logically differ.
Because it's true, and therefore the other position is false, since the
two positions are mutually exclusive. Mamzerim either exist or they
don't exist. I recognize that you believe they don't exist, but that
doesn't change the reality I perceive: they exist. To go deeper than
that would get back into the rationalist vs. empiricist debates of the
17th century. (I just started reading a book about Kant, figuring that
I need to in order to understand Micha and Rav Soloveitchik).
>Question asked:
>1 - You believe A to be true based upon your judgment (and you are an intelligent
>person).
>2 - Others believe B to be true based their best judgments (and they are intelligent
>people).
>3 - Neither A nor B is experimentally provable.
>What makes your conclusion valid and theirs not?
You forgot
4) A and B are mutually exclusive.
In which case, if I hold A, and B implies not-A, for me to really hold A
involves denying the possibility of B.
>You answered instead, a question not asked:
>1 - You believe A to be true so you do C which logically follows from it.
>2 - Others believe B to be true so they do D which logically follows from it.
>There is nothing wrong with (1) you say because don't you (meaning me) accept (2) as
>also being valid.
Because the question you asked cannot be answered the way you want without
your correspondents' admitting that what they believe, they don't really
believe. You put your correspondents in an impossible situation.
--
Jonathan Baker | It's almost time ta muze
jjb...@panix.com | about the Destruction.
Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker>
I notice this many times. Only one level of attribute is given.
That makes it very hard to figure out who said what. Please, if
you can, leave in _all_ the attributes.
> :> There are certain things that we humans cannot ever be qualified to judge.
>
> : You can surrender your mind if you wish with such a statement.
> : I will keep my human ability and requirement to judge, thank
> : you very much.
I wonder. Just because you have the "ability" to judge, why you think
you have a "requirement" to do so?
> I would have said that there are some things which we can only judge
> in bulk. IOW, rather than deciding about each and every halachah, the O
> Jew decides to trust halachah as a whole, leaving personal decision to
> the issues where that trust doesn't lead to a single answer.
Hmm, this makes much more sense.
> There are two layers of choice here:
>
> 1- Choice in defining right vs wrong
> 2- Choice between two actions, given #1
> (Maybe that should be 2a and 2b:
> 2a- Choosing whether or not to do what's right (rather than what's desired)
> 2b- Choosing between right things, setting priorities when unclear)
2b sounds closest to Shelly's "requirement".
> Adopting a guideline for #1 doesn't eliminate #2. Nor does it
> eliminate rethinking and refining #1.
Which is what Jews are supposed to spend their entire lives doing.
What you wrote is one aspect of Torah study.
Thanks for the compliment. Maybe I just don't have the strength to
argue with someone who does what you say in your next line.
> I don't know, but when I see someone turn things on its head,
> I can't do it.
I agree that Dan has a very nasty habit of "turning things on its
head" when he argues. The best example of this is when he claimed
that N.R. _conceded_ that Oral Transmission of Torah is not
accurate. But (maybe I'm a masochist), I still respond to Dan.
Maybe for the sake of the other posters and the lurkers. It does
seem clear that Dan is impervious to argument. Worse, he turns it
on its head. <sigh>
I'm not deleting the rest of this. Meir, in his style, demonstrates
the falacies in Dan's arguments. I enjoyed reading them!
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
--Unsnipped---
No. But what you said, or at least seemed to imply, was that if you
decide that it doesn't make "sense", you'll decide that G-d didn't
say it. I'll be very happy to be told I'm wrong. But if I'm wrong,
could you please explain what you did mean by the phrase (quoting
from faulty memory) "We do it because we *see* that it's right and
G-d gives us the ability to *see* that". My question is, what happens
when, for whatever reason, you _don't_ *see* that?
BTW, I don't agree you that:
1 - Believing something to be true without any possibility of it being proven
automatically means
2 - There is no possibility of error and the opposite being true,
Taking that kind of position is what we call a closed mind.
Shelly
> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > <meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
> >> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
> >>
> >> > G-d gave us the ability to think. When we mindlessly go
> >> >through the motions without thinking we are not using G-d's gift.
> >>
> >> And when after "thinking", you decide you're right and G-d's wrong,
> >> that's when Moshe's 4 lines apply. He didn't miss even *your* point.
> >
> > Nowhere did I say that G-d is wrong, so I'm not even bothering to
> > respond to the rest of it.
>
> No. But what you said, or at least seemed to imply, was that if you
> decide that it doesn't make "sense", you'll decide that G-d didn't
Bingo! Give that man a prize.
When you question TMS, then you have the luxury of critically examining and
saying "obviously, that was some error that the writers couldn't envision.
It must be wrong".
> say it. I'll be very happy to be told I'm wrong. But if I'm wrong,
> could you please explain what you did mean by the phrase (quoting
> from faulty memory) "We do it because we *see* that it's right and
> G-d gives us the ability to *see* that". My question is, what happens
> when, for whatever reason, you _don't_ *see* that?
By whose definition? By your definition of "right"? It is that very
methodology that we don't accept.
Shelly
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> writes:
> > Sheldon Glickler <shel...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > : Somebody (I think Sheinaleah) wrote:
>
> I notice this many times. Only one level of attribute is given.
> That makes it very hard to figure out who said what. Please, if
> you can, leave in _all_ the attributes.
>
> > :> There are certain things that we humans cannot ever be qualified to judge.
> >
> > : You can surrender your mind if you wish with such a statement.
> > : I will keep my human ability and requirement to judge, thank
> > : you very much.
>
> I wonder. Just because you have the "ability" to judge, why you think
> you have a "requirement" to do so?
Because I am a living, thinking being. I "judge" thousands of times a day. I do
it from the time I choose what clothes to put on in the morning to what to eat for
dinner, to etc. etc. Call it a habit, if you prefer. So, I use that judging for
everything -- even such esoteric topics as we discuss here. Call it part of being
human.
> > I would have said that there are some things which we can only judge
> > in bulk. IOW, rather than deciding about each and every halachah, the O
> > Jew decides to trust halachah as a whole, leaving personal decision to
> > the issues where that trust doesn't lead to a single answer.
>
> Hmm, this makes much more sense.
Who decides whether or not it leads to a single answer if not you?
> > There are two layers of choice here:
> >
> > 1- Choice in defining right vs wrong
> > 2- Choice between two actions, given #1
> > (Maybe that should be 2a and 2b:
> > 2a- Choosing whether or not to do what's right (rather than what's desired)
> > 2b- Choosing between right things, setting priorities when unclear)
>
> 2b sounds closest to Shelly's "requirement".
No, all of them are mine.
> > Adopting a guideline for #1 doesn't eliminate #2. Nor does it
> > eliminate rethinking and refining #1.
>
> Which is what Jews are supposed to spend their entire lives doing.
> What you wrote is one aspect of Torah study.
Or thinking and study in general. We just seem to come to different conclusions,
that's all.
Shelly
>BTW, I don't agree you that:
>1 - Believing something to be true without any possibility of it being proven
>automatically means
>2 - There is no possibility of error and the opposite being true,
>Taking that kind of position is what we call a closed mind.
Yes, and we all have that on questions of religion, as has been amply
demonstrated here. By the way, in the last couple of days a number of
your posts have been running past 80 characters per line. Wassup widdat?
"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
> In <ne.net> Sheldon Glickler <shel...@mediaone.net> writes:
> >Then all of this is useless because one can't argue with someone who takes the position
> >the position "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts".
>
> >BTW, I don't agree you that:
>
> >1 - Believing something to be true without any possibility of it being proven
>
> >automatically means
>
> >2 - There is no possibility of error and the opposite being true,
>
> >Taking that kind of position is what we call a closed mind.
>
> Yes, and we all have that on questions of religion, as has been amply
Somehow I simply cannot equate "questioning" with "closed mind", so I have to take exception
with your use of the word "all".
> demonstrated here. By the way, in the last couple of days a number of
> your posts have been running past 80 characters per line. Wassup widdat?
Thanks. It goes like this.
After an eleven year run of about 50 hours billed per week, I am now caught in the
technological depression in New England. (A recession is when your neighbor is out of work
and a depression is when you are <g>). So, I am currently looking for another position,
contract or perm (what ever that means <g>) and am doing so from my summer place in Maine.
(It has a great beach, great golf course for which I am fully paid for the season, my son's
motorboat and wonderful people). As a consequence, however, we only have one computer (on
cable modem) and my wife already has use of Outlook Express. I am now using Netscape
Messenger as my email and news reader. I guess I have not adequately adjusted the settings,
as you point out and N.R. pointed out with respect to sending HTML. I'm working on it and
will adjust them after this reply.
Now back to my (hopefully) temporary, enforced retirement and job hunting.
Shelly
P&M
When we believe that an "order" comes from G-d, not only is it permissible
to follow it without understanding the reasons and ramifications, but it's
laudatory. That's not to say that we shouldn't try to learn and understand
the reasons for such "orders", but if each of us only obeys the mitzvot he
or she understands, we'd end up with a real patchwork of observance that
varied widely from one Jew to the next.
We all receive orders or instructions throughout life that don't make a lot
of sense to us. Corporate headquarters may tell your boss to have you
abandon a project you've almost finished, and while you haven't the foggiest
idea why they're dropping it, you'll still let it go. Civil and criminal
laws are the same way. We don't just obey the ones that make sense to us
unless we want to end up in trouble a lot of the time. For example, one of
the many subsections of Title 18 USC makes it unlawful to manufacture, sell,
or use, funeral urns that are similar in design to those approved by the
Secretary of Defense. Another subsection prohibits the use of the coat of
arms of the Swiss Federation in advertising. The law makes no sense
whatsoever, but we still obey it because the alternative theoretically
includes spending six months in a Federal prison. We can always do research
and look for the reasons that such laws were enacted, but unless we have
have reason to believe that they require us to act illegally or immorally,
we'll still obey them in the meantime simply because "that's the law."
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
[snip]
> > Yes, O is a belief system, as is R. Michael didn't say anything more than
> > that.
> >
> > Given one's belief in a given system, one behaves pretty much the same
> > way as if one could prove it were true. Otherwise, you don't really
> > believe it, do you?
>
> Micha, the point is that the O [here on SCJM] do not readily admit to that.
[shrug] I do, and I believe most other O do, at least implicitly. We
call it "faith", don't we?
> They
> start with "God said...." and do not even admit to the possibility that "God didn't
> say, just men said that God said". There is nothing wrong with **believing** that
> "God said" and acting accordingly. That is a logical course of action given the
> premise. However, it does not translate to "God said".
>
> So, I will ask you directly what Michael asked:
>
> Since you admit that O is a belief system and that your "God said" is really "I
> believe God said" based upon your judgments, then how is this fundamentally different
> from C or R coming to different conclusions based upon their judgments? Please show
> how these logically differ.
I don't think they do. This is why I respect the beliefs of those who
actually *came* to these different conclusions (rather than swallow
them via indoctrination - and indoctrination doesn't exist only in
O!).
> Question asked:
> 1 - You believe A to be true based upon your judgment (and you are an intelligent
> person).
> 2 - Others believe B to be true based their best judgments (and they are intelligent
> people).
> 3 - Neither A nor B is experimentally provable.
> What makes your conclusion valid and theirs not?
We can, and do, argue about what interpretation of available evidence
makes sense. We also argue about what in our psychological makeup
makes us likely to believe differing interpretations of said evidence.
But you're right - at some point the disagreements get reduced to
unprovables, and then we can only agree to disagree.
> You answered instead, a question not asked:
> 1 - You believe A to be true so you do C which logically follows from it.
> 2 - Others believe B to be true so they do D which logically follows from it.
> There is nothing wrong with (1) you say because don't you (meaning me) accept (2) as
> also being valid.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
In a single word -- NO. I will expand.
>
> When we believe that an "order" comes from G-d, not only is it permissible
> to follow it without understanding the reasons and ramifications, but it's
What if that soldier believed that the officers were reciting from a
"higher calling", God if you will, and that he was only "following
orders -- God's orders"? Would his defense at Nuremberg have then
been acceptable to you? The point is that:
1 - We **know** the orders come from the higher officer
2 - The soldier is to use his judgment based only upon that, no
matter how "high up" he figures the original order came from.
Likewise, the person **knows** only that the orders come from his
rabbi (or from documents prepared by a set of rabbis over time). He
has to use his judgment based upon that, no matter how "high up" he
figures the original order came from.
> laudatory. That's not to say that we shouldn't try to learn and understand
> the reasons for such "orders", but if each of us only obeys the mitzvot he
> or she understands, we'd end up with a real patchwork of observance that
> varied widely from one Jew to the next.
Yes, and your problem is......?
>
> We all receive orders or instructions throughout life that don't make a lot
> of sense to us. Corporate headquarters may tell your boss to have you
> abandon a project you've almost finished, and while you haven't the foggiest
> idea why they're dropping it, you'll still let it go. Civil and criminal
> laws are the same way. We don't just obey the ones that make sense to us
> unless we want to end up in trouble a lot of the time. For example, one of
> the many subsections of Title 18 USC makes it unlawful to manufacture, sell,
> or use, funeral urns that are similar in design to those approved by the
> Secretary of Defense. Another subsection prohibits the use of the coat of
> arms of the Swiss Federation in advertising. The law makes no sense
> whatsoever, but we still obey it because the alternative theoretically
> includes spending six months in a Federal prison. We can always do research
> and look for the reasons that such laws were enacted, but unless we have
> have reason to believe that they require us to act illegally or immorally,
> we'll still obey them in the meantime simply because "that's the law."
But the point is that not all of us recognize "that's the law" when
it comes to Judaic restrictions, while we all **do** recognize those
other meaningless laws as "being on the books".
Therefore, we do not "obey them" not because we challenge them, but
because we do not recognize them as being laws at all (for us).
Shelly
>Somehow I simply cannot equate "questioning" with "closed mind", so I have to take exception
>with your use of the word "all".
Somehow I simply cannot fathom how you misunderstood me - I was quite plain,
but you did it.
"Questions of religion" to an outside observer, the conflict between your
and my mutually exclusive belief is a question - how could a third party
determin which is "correct" or even "better"? So yes, "all" - you have
your definite beliefs, and I have mine, and they are mutually exclusive.
Well as far as SCJM O goes, you are somewhat of an anomaly.
>
> > They
> > start with "God said...." and do not even admit to the possibility that "God didn't
> > say, just men said that God said". There is nothing wrong with **believing** that
> > "God said" and acting accordingly. That is a logical course of action given the
> > premise. However, it does not translate to "God said".
> >
> > So, I will ask you directly what Michael asked:
> >
> > Since you admit that O is a belief system and that your "God said" is really "I
> > believe God said" based upon your judgments, then how is this fundamentally different
> > from C or R coming to different conclusions based upon their judgments? Please show
> > how these logically differ.
>
> I don't think they do. This is why I respect the beliefs of those who
> actually *came* to these different conclusions (rather than swallow
> them via indoctrination - and indoctrination doesn't exist only in
> O!).
Well as far as SCJM O goes, you are somewhat of an anomaly.
>
> > Question asked:
> > 1 - You believe A to be true based upon your judgment (and you are an intelligent
> > person).
> > 2 - Others believe B to be true based their best judgments (and they are intelligent
> > people).
> > 3 - Neither A nor B is experimentally provable.
> > What makes your conclusion valid and theirs not?
>
> We can, and do, argue about what interpretation of available evidence
> makes sense. We also argue about what in our psychological makeup
> makes us likely to believe differing interpretations of said evidence.
> But you're right - at some point the disagreements get reduced to
> unprovables, and then we can only agree to disagree.
Well as far as SCJM O goes, you are **really are** somewhat of an
anomaly.
Shelly
This I heartily agree with. Why I came to what I did was the
sequence. You responded with your sentence immediately after my
statement of "closed mind". "closed mind" means that "I am right
and there is no other possibility that can ever be even
considered". I do not say, for example, that TMS is impossible,
just that the probability against it is so overwhelming as to be
discounted. That is different than the "closed mind" of TMS
happened, period!". Is it still unfathomable to you?
Shelly
P&M
Unless I misunderstood you, I beg to differ. I became O when new
information came my way and this was the most reasonable (to me) way
to interpret it. I can't in good faith rule out the possibility that
something like this will happen again. Otherwise, you lay yourself
open to the charge of "trading your brain for a yarmulka".
"Sheldon Glickler" <shel...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B56E166...@mediaone.net...
>
>
> > demonstrated here. By the way, in the last couple of days a number of
> > your posts have been running past 80 characters per line. Wassup
widdat?
>
> Thanks. It goes like this.
>
> motorboat and wonderful people). As a consequence, however, we only have
one computer (on
> cable modem) and my wife already has use of Outlook Express. I am now
using Netscape
> Messenger as my email and news reader. I guess I have not adequately
adjusted the settings,
> as you point out and N.R. pointed out with respect to sending HTML. I'm
working on it and
> will adjust them after this reply.
>
> Now back to my (hopefully) temporary, enforced retirement and job hunting.
>
> Shelly
You could both use Outlook Express using different identities. There are 3
of us on my one machine.
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
>
>"Robert" <judai...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:ae1d01e4.01071...@posting.google.com...
>> Why follow the commandments? Isn't "following orders", as some here
>> have stated, the same kind of mindless slavery that led Germans to
>> follow the dictates of the Nazi party? Why not just remove the idea
>> of mitzvot (commandments) and replace them with the enlightenment
>> concept of "folkways"!
>>
>Robert,
>I didn't expect to have to call Godwin's Law on you as well... :-(
You may know that for about a dozen reasons, I consider Robert to be
the most unreliable and worst poster here.
But nonetheless, he means what he means. You snip over 30 lines of his
post and totally change, reverse, the meaning of what he said.
His first two lines following the lines above were: "Rabbi Elliot
Dorff points out the flaw in this kind of thinking. He writes:"
Plainly his five lines at the top are a rhetorical device to get the
reader's attention.
Maybe you didn't read the part that followed.
July 19, 3:30 EST
Separate issue, noticed later, Robert had written in the previous
post:
>Rabbi Elliot Dorff points out the flaw in this kind of thinking. He
>writes:
>
>"In one sense of course, individuals should take responsibility for
>decisions which affect their lives so deeply, and this brings me to my
>second point. For Rabbi Irving Greenberg, one lesson of the Holocaust
>is that people should not depend upon the law to tell them what is
>right and proper,....
[rest of paragraph makes 5 more reference to law or legal]
Only one of the 6 references to law or legal is specifically about
nazis, and I think Rabbi Dorff should make more clear that Rabbi
Greenberg is talking here about not depending on *civil* law, that
he's not casting aspersions on Jewish law. Sure it's obvious to some
people, but in or out of context some people will be confused.
My gosh, especially so since Rabbi Dorff in the paragraph quoted next
says it's possible that "a given interpretation of [the letter of the
law] - is mean spirited or downright immoral" It seems the second of
these paragraphs follows right after the first, and so it seems Rabbi
Dorff is trying to drag Rabbi Greenberg into this, making it look like
Rabbi Greenberg agrees with him. He shouldn't try to do this without
clear, properly presented quotations. It also sets a bad example for
those who read Rabbi Dorff's writing, and can lead them into the same
bad practice. I know one other C who writes like this, and Rabbi
Dorff may be to blame.
>> >> >Then all of this is useless because one can't argue with someone
>> >> >who takes the position "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with
>> >> >the facts".
>> >> >BTW, I don't agree you that:
>> >> >1 - Believing something to be true without any possibility of it
>> >> >being proven automatically means
>> >> >2 - There is no possibility of error and the opposite being true,
>> >> >Taking that kind of position is what we call a closed mind.
>> >> Yes, and we all have that on questions of religion, as has been amply
>> >Somehow I simply cannot equate "questioning" with "closed mind", so
>> >I have to take exception with your use of the word "all".
>> "Questions of religion" to an outside observer, the conflict between your
>> and my mutually exclusive belief is a question - how could a third party
>> determin which is "correct" or even "better"? So yes, "all" - you have
>> your definite beliefs, and I have mine, and they are mutually exclusive.
>This I heartily agree with. Why I came to what I did was the
>sequence. You responded with your sentence immediately after my
>statement of "closed mind". "closed mind" means that "I am right
>and there is no other possibility that can ever be even
>considered". I do not say, for example, that TMS is impossible,
>just that the probability against it is so overwhelming as to be
>discounted. That is different than the "closed mind" of TMS
>happened, period!". Is it still unfathomable to you?
One's mind should be open to the point where one's brains fall out?
Think about it. If you admit that TMS is possible, even though you
believe that TMS is false, the only logical position for you to take
would be Pascal's Wager. The kind of relativism that you advocate as
"open-mindedness" does not work in real life. If I believe that TMS
is true, but admit the possibility that it is false, then really I
don't believe it's true - it reduces me to the status of an agnostic
from the status of a believer.
Perhaps this is why the Rambam used the word "Know" rather than "Believe"
when he talked about mitzvot of belief (God's existence, unity, etc.).
Because belief, as you put it, includes doubt. As in, R' Lamm's book
"Faith and Doubt". But being in the doubting faith-state is not the
ideal. The ideal is to KNOW that TMS is true, that God exists, etc.
This reminds me of the book by Mike Royko, _I may be wrong but I doubt
it_. There is a point where allowing for the very slim possibility
that the other side may be right turns into a closed mind, or is
indistinguishable from it.
And separately, what else does it mean to say the probability against
it is so overwhelming as to be discounted?
I think it is pretty clear on some of these issues that nothing anyone
says is going to change your mind, as with mine on some other issues.
They're closed.
>Shelly
>P&M
>
>
>You could both use Outlook Express using different identities.
Good suggestion.
>There are 3
>of us on my one machine.
If three Goodmans can be on one machine, how many Goodmans can be on
the head of a pin?
>Henry Goodman
>henry....@virgin.net
"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tlehur8...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:28geltcaeull8bq61...@4ax.com...
> > In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 19 Jul 2001 17:58:34 GMT "Henry
> > Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> posted:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >You could both use Outlook Express using different identities.
> >
> > Good suggestion.
> >
> > >There are 3
> > >of us on my one machine.
> >
> > If three Goodmans can be on one machine, how many Goodmans can be on
> > the head of a pin?
> >
> Or to put it in the more classic format, how many Goodmans could dance on
> the head of a pin, and would we allow mixed dancing there? :-)
> --
Touché. Actually since the other 2 are my wife and daughter even the most O
Rabbis would not mind us dancing. Not sure about R though
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
OTOH, prefacing everything you ever post, no matter how surely you believe
its content, with an "IMHO" is absurd.
For example, I note you didn't include one when you called "forcing the
guy to say I want to divorce her" "just plain silly" (or somesuch).
-mi
--
Micha Berger The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org "The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905 trust, and not be afraid" (Isa 12:2). -Shalhevesya
Do you mean the poster "R", or the denomination "R"? The latter
doesn't mind at all.
Shelly
Saying "The Torah says so" or "halacha says so" is one thing.
Saying "God said so" is something else again.
>
> For example, I note you didn't include one when you called "forcing the
> guy to say I want to divorce her" "just plain silly" (or somesuch).
OK, IMO, .....
Shelly
>Saying "The Torah says so" or "halacha says so" is one thing.
>Saying "God said so" is something else again.
Depends what text you're talking about. I could say "God said that one
should not wear kilayim, linen and wool together", and be literally true.
>
><meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:q9celtkdhl7spq4p9...@4ax.com...
>> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 19 Jul 2001 15:23:20 GMT "Eliyahu"
>> <lro...@hotmail.com> posted:
>>
>> >
>> >"Robert" <judai...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ae1d01e4.01071...@posting.google.com...
>> >> Why follow the commandments? Isn't "following orders", as some here
>> >> have stated, the same kind of mindless slavery that led Germans to
>> >> follow the dictates of the Nazi party? Why not just remove the idea
>> >> of mitzvot (commandments) and replace them with the enlightenment
>> >> concept of "folkways"!
>> >>
>> >Robert,
>> >I didn't expect to have to call Godwin's Law on you as well... :-(
>>
>> You may know that for about a dozen reasons, I consider Robert to be
>> the most unreliable and worst poster here.
>>
>> But nonetheless, he means what he means. You snip over 30 lines of his
>> post and totally change, reverse, the meaning of what he said.
>>
>> His first two lines following the lines above were: "Rabbi Elliot
>> Dorff points out the flaw in this kind of thinking. He writes:"
>>
>> Plainly his five lines at the top are a rhetorical device to get the
>> reader's attention.
>>
>> Maybe you didn't read the part that followed.
>>
>I did, but I've also see the reasoning in the first paragraph used here far
>too much.
Are you punishing him for what others have done?
>Even as an attention-getting device, it's inappropriate here.
So criticize that part, but don't snip the rest of what he said. Or
snip it, but summarize that "the part snipped makes clear you're
actually promoting the opposite point of view". Maybe you're not
convinced that's true. If you can't come up with any sentence you're
happy with, go back to not snipping it.
People can't be expected to remember his previous post. A lot of
people don't read his posts, only read him when someone quotes him. I
don't read or even download his posts, and it's only because I know
what kind of crap is his and what kind isn't that I went back and got
his post to see what he actually said. Others newer than I won't know
to do that, and others won't do it because of other reasons. One
still may not leave them with a false impression.
You made him out to look like he said what his first four lines
said. You may not do that. If I said how low I thought he was and how
I would not invite him to my parties, how false I thought his posts
very very often are, if I gave the long long list of examples of this
and worse, I might not get my article posted. But you still may not
mislead people as to what he said *this* time.
I don't understand you. When someone says something "mean" or harsh,
you're almost always trying to show the other side of the story. I
don't pay the closest attention, I don't keep notes, but my impression
is that you did this on all sides of most issues, and I thought you
were doing this to keep the record straight** and for peace, and not
for example, consistently to support one particular viewpoint or set
of them. Am I right? So what is the difference here?
**FTR I think sometimes you bend way over backwards, defending someone
or something more than deserved. I figured you did that for the sake
of peace. (What is the difference here?)
.... when the wife isn't a niddah. And, when in public, dancing with one's
wife is discouraged because it shows who is a niddah and who isn't.
-mi
: Saying "The Torah says so" or "halacha says so" is one thing.
: Saying "God said so" is something else again.
Why?
If "the Torah says so" means "I'm confident that the TOrah said so", and
draws no objection from you, then why doesn't "G-d say so" mean something
similar and be equally objectionable.
:> For example, I note you didn't include one when you called "forcing the
:> guy to say I want to divorce her" "just plain silly" (or somesuch).
: OK, IMO, .....
My point wqs that anything I say is IMO, and we can take that as a given
on any post. What's being added, except forcing people to imply a level
of uncertainty they personality do not feel?
If you were discussing the **text** of the Torah, then you would be
correct.
Shelly
See posts by Lisa and Dissen, for example, and then you can
reconsider this sentence. That was what I referring to.
Shelly
> See posts by Lisa and Dissen, for example, and then you can
> reconsider this sentence. That was what I referring to.
> Shelly
Everything anyone says is in their opinion. Everyone knows that their
opinion is absolute truth.
>> on any post. What's being added, except forcing people to imply a level
>> of uncertainty they personality do not feel?
>>
>> -mi
>>
>> --
>> Micha Berger The most prevalent illness of our generation is
>> mi...@aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety:
>> http://www.aishdas.org "The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will
>> Fax: (413) 403-9905 trust, and not be afraid" (Isa 12:2). -Shalhevesya
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
"Correct". There's the word.
You proceed from your belief, which includes the negation of the possibility
that the other side might be possible. So don't demand that others admit
the inadmissible in their belief systems.
>Shelly
<snip>
>
> > But you're missing the point. I'm not arguing that we should only
> > obey those rules we agree with, but that to be consciously engaged
> > in what we do. When you stop at a red light or a stop sign, it's
> > automatic. You don't think about *why* you are doing it. But when
> > you put on t'fillin or make kiddush you *should* be aware of why
> > you are doing it. And if you don't understand why you are doing
> > it you should strive, to the best of your ability, to learn why.
>
> Dan, if you had said this originally, I would not have argued. See my
> post where I said; "we may and even _should_, "study" the rule to try
> and understand it's meanings and further lessons". Does that sound
> that I'm encouraging an "automon"?
See? This is why I enjoy our exchanges. It may sometimes be exasperating
for one or the other but suddenly we find we're both on the same side of the
fence. :)
>I _did_ make one further statement
> which _might_ be the bone of contention between us; "But after all
> the "study", when it comes to observance, we disregard whatever we
> may have felt we understood, and carry it out, because it's G-d's
> will." But this does _not_ mean "automatically" like stopping at a
> red light. It means _consciously_ and with great intent, perform the
> action _because_ its "G-d's Will".
I see what you're saying, but that's a level of -- well, call it holiness,
spirituality, kavanah, whatever -- that I have not yet achieved. I'm not
able to deal with the material in a non-rational (note I didn't say
"irrational") manner.
> >> Dan, you seem to think that man is "infallable". If _I_ *see* it,
> >> I do it. And if not? Do you really think that man's finite limited
> >> capacity understanding could ever *grasp* G-d's Infinite Wisdom?
> >> You have lowered G-d to human level. and you say _I_ "profane" Him!
> >
> > You miss my point. G-d gave us the ability to think. When we
> > mindlessly go through the motions without thinking we are not
> > using G-d's gift.
>
> It seems we may be in more agreement than we thought. I did _not_
> advocate going "mindlessly through the motions". I _did_ advocate
> "observing" _because_ it's "G-d's Will" and not based on my own
> (superficial by definition) understanding.
>
> Maybe there's hope for SCJM yet!
As long as we listen to each other instead of just trying to score points,
there's always hope for SCJM. :)
Well, we're going to disagree because I make a distinction between what G-d
said and what men said. The latter isn't necessarily wrong, but it's just
not on the same level. So dismissing a halachic prohibition against hearing
women sing because it came from some medieval rabbi is not, to me, the same
as dismissing something from G-d. You presumably disagree. So let's move
on from there.
Take an example where there's no disagreement: that pork is treif. Now
Dissen is obsessed with the example of "yummy pork chops" (I have no idea
why; I assume he's never eaten them). From that mindset one doesn't eat
pork because G-d commanded it, period, ended. One needn't *think* anymore
about it. To me, that is being an automaton. One is operating at the level
of a slave. I do not see how that honors G-d.
Now the reductionist approach -- it was a health issue, it avoids
contracting trichinosis -- isn't satisfying. It's a beneficial side effect,
but it reduces G-d to a Supernanny: "Brush after meals. Don't pick up food
off the floor."
However I want to invest this with some meaning other than mindless
obedience. The approach that works for *me* is that such separation into
kosher and non-kosher is part of what we do to emulate G-d's holiness:
separating clean from unclean, Shabbat from the other days. It becomes an
act of will not a mindless -- and meaningless -- act.
Is that G-d's intent? How could any human possibly know? We can make
assumptions (G-d seems to be into separating things so it must be a G-dly
thing to do) but that will only take us so far. But we are supposed to
emulate G-d. (Talk about role models!) Is mindless obedience enough?
Perhaps. Perhaps it's better than disobedience, mindless or willful. Yet
G-d gave us these brains that look for reasons, that are more satisfied when
we understand the *why* of something, that are nagged at when we want to
know why and can't get an answer. There has to be a reason for that.
Perhaps it's merely because I'm a product of late 20th century America where
the idea of "the king commands, the subjects obey" is anathema. When I ask
why and the answer is "Shut up and do it" I rebel. It's a good thing I was
never in the military. G-d seems to have no problem providing answers. Why
should you object? Indeed, I have no doubt you have asked and had answered
many more questions than I.
In the end, I think it is a greater honor to G-d to think and to question.
>Now back to my (hopefully) temporary, enforced retirement and job hunting.
Best of luck.
>Shelly
>P&M
-Naomi
"Cease, then, to fashion state-made sin
Nor give your children cause to doubt
That virtue springs from iron within,
Not lead without." Rudyard Kipling
>
>"Robert" <judai...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:ae1d01e4.01071...@posting.google.com...
>> Why follow the commandments? Isn't "following orders", as some here
>> have stated, the same kind of mindless slavery that led Germans to
>> follow the dictates of the Nazi party? Why not just remove the idea
>> of mitzvot (commandments) and replace them with the enlightenment
>> concept of "folkways"!
>>
>Robert,
>I didn't expect to have to call Godwin's Law on you as well... :-(
>As I point out elsewhere, the "just following orders" defense failed at the
>Nuremberg trials not because it is wrong per se, but because internationally
>accepted Law of Land Warfare includes provisions that a soldier is not to
>follow orders he knows (or should reasonably know) are illegal.
>
>When we believe that an "order" comes from G-d, not only is it permissible
>to follow it without understanding the reasons and ramifications, but it's
>laudatory. That's not to say that we shouldn't try to learn and understand
>the reasons for such "orders", but if each of us only obeys the mitzvot he
>or she understands, we'd end up with a real patchwork of observance that
>varied widely from one Jew to the next.
Um.... no.
The Muslims honestly believe that if they die in the process of
killing the opposition in a jihad, they will go directly to heaven,
because this is the thing Allah commanded them to do. It is not
laudatory; it is sick. If one believes that an order comes directly
from God and it is fairly clearly sick and destructive to others by
any sane earthy secular standard, one is just as culpable morally if
one is stupid enough to obey it. Better one should say "I don't
believe my God told me this even if it says so and all the sages and
great thinkers who have studied the book also say so, because it
doesn't make moral sense and a good God would never do that; however,
if He did, then He is definitionally not good and I will reject His
commandment and face His wrath with my own. He should be ashamed of
Himself for giving an order like that and I wish to be a good person,
so I will refuse it."
When Muslims say this, we all it laudatory. When they do what you
called laudatory, we call them sick and horrible and if they don't get
themselves killed in the process we're very pleased to lock them in a
cell for the rest of their lives to punish them for what they did....
under their God's orders, which we do *not* take as an excuse.
>"Questions of religion" to an outside observer, the conflict between your
>and my mutually exclusive belief is a question - how could a third party
>determin which is "correct" or even "better"? So yes, "all" - you have
>your definite beliefs, and I have mine, and they are mutually exclusive.
And when yours tell you to harm or kill me, or mine tell me to harm or
kill you, is that okay because we were each only following our
religious beliefs?
FWIW, Outlook Express supports Multiple Identities. You can do that from the
File Menu. I use it to create one public identity for usenet, etc. and a
private identity when I VPN to work, and don't want the overhead of full
blown Outlook.
> Now back to my (hopefully) temporary, enforced retirement and job hunting.
Good luck.
I don't think anyone would mind if you posted a resume. You never know who
might have a need for someone with your particular skill set. And in this
age of telecommuting, location often does not matter.
Abe
July 19, 2001 12:56 pm EDT
P & M
Yes, this is more or less the view I had in mind.
> It's often true in Judaism and I think in Jewish culture, which is
> still, even among assimilated Jews, determined quite a bit by Judaism,
> that action is more important than principle, especially underlying or
> tangential principle.
Absolutely.
> But I'll have to leave it up to others to decide if SL's situation is
> one of those cases.
Uh oh. Judgement time :)
Among which cases am I being judged, exactly? That part I didn't quite understand.
Shaineleah
> >
> >%Shaineleah
> >
> > Michael Shimshoni
Please rest assured that I did in fact write the line above. :)
Shaineleah
>
> Moshe Schorr
> It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
> May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
Of course, as do we all. We can't help it--the realm of thoughts has
little or no free will, if I understand correctly. (BTW, which is why
actions seem to be more meaningful in Judaism than beliefs. Though in
some cases, beliefs *are* the actions I guess...). I think that
there's a fine line (or maybe not so fine) between making a judgement
and accepting it as Truth.
Shaineleah
>
> Shelly
Yeah, something like that. :)
Shaineleah
> Shelly
I have already stated that with TMS (as an example) I **don't** say
that it is impossible, but that I **do** say that the probability is
so small as to be discounted. So, please do not put words in my
mouth that are the opposite of what I said.
"Correct" here is a technical term. If we are discussing what
appears in the text of the Torah, then there is a document that can
prove just what the text says. In this case the document clearly
says this, so the statement is "correct, the text says that".
Whether or not the text itself is correct in its meaning is another
matter entirely. You believe yes. I believe that since it was
written by men, so it is only their best guess.
> the inadmissible in their belief systems.
I will continue to counter the arrogance of people who **know**,
with certainty, what God said and repeat it as if they had held a
direct conversation with God. When they admit it is their
**belief** then I will be satisfied.
Shelly
> >> My point wqs that anything I say is IMO, and we can take that as a given
>
> > See posts by Lisa and Dissen, for example, and then you can
> > reconsider this sentence. That was what I referring to.
> Everything anyone says is in their opinion. Everyone knows that their
> opinion is absolute truth.
Yes. No, only (in this case) the fundies.
Shelly
>In <ne.net> Sheldon Glickler <shel...@mediaone.net> writes:
>>Micha Berger wrote:
>>> On 19 Jul 2001 11:10:00 GMT, Sheldon Glickler <shel...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>> : 1 - Believing something to be true without any possibility of it being proven
>>> : automatically means
>>> : 2 - There is no possibility of error and the opposite being true,
>>> : Taking that kind of position is what we call a closed mind.
>>>
>>> OTOH, prefacing everything you ever post, no matter how surely you believe
>>> its content, with an "IMHO" is absurd.
>
>>Saying "The Torah says so" or "halacha says so" is one thing.
>>Saying "God said so" is something else again.
>
>Depends what text you're talking about. I could say "God said that one
>should not wear kilayim, linen and wool together", and be literally true.
No you couldn't... you could say that it's written that He said it.
Unless you can (a) prove God's existence, independently of any
authority or source, written or spoken, which claims it, and then (b)
prove via a good sound recording with some verifiable means of
identification that He in fact said it, you're outta luck on saying
flatly that God said *anything*, or indeed exists at all.
> >Even as an attention-getting device, it's inappropriate here.
>
> So criticize that part, but don't snip the rest of what he said. Or
> snip it, but summarize that "the part snipped makes clear you're
> actually promoting the opposite point of view". Maybe you're not
> convinced that's true. If you can't come up with any sentence you're
> happy with, go back to not snipping it.
>
I generally snip parts of posts to which I'm not replying, or which have no
bearing on the current discussion. I don't do it with the intent of
distorting someone's opinion or beliefs, and I didn't mean to do that here.
> People can't be expected to remember his previous post. A lot of
> people don't read his posts, only read him when someone quotes him. I
> don't read or even download his posts, and it's only because I know
> what kind of crap is his and what kind isn't that I went back and got
> his post to see what he actually said. Others newer than I won't know
> to do that, and others won't do it because of other reasons. One
> still may not leave them with a false impression.
>
> You made him out to look like he said what his first four lines
> said. You may not do that. If I said how low I thought he was and how
> I would not invite him to my parties, how false I thought his posts
> very very often are, if I gave the long long list of examples of this
> and worse, I might not get my article posted. But you still may not
> mislead people as to what he said *this* time.
>
If I made it appear that Robert was advocating the position or analogy I
criticized, then I apologize to him. That was not my intent.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Not you. The situation. Whether this is one of the cases in which
action is more important than principle. (frankly there are several
different principles and several different actions, both at various
levels, and I'd have to think too hard to figure out which was the
original one we were talking about.)
That is a separate thing from whether Michael, who asked about
specifically about principle, is satisfied with the answer.
I later read Micha and Jonathan and thought they gave good answers
based on principle, not on results as I did.
>I have already stated that with TMS (as an example) I **don't** say
>that it is impossible, but that I **do** say that the probability is
>so small as to be discounted. So, please do not put words in my
>mouth that are the opposite of what I said.
Well, think about what you have said. Yes, it's possible that the
Torah was not from Sinai, just like it's possible that all the air
molecules in the room could decide to rush over to the other side,
leaving this side a vacuum.
IOW, it's not possible absent a miracle, in which case it would be
proven.
>"Correct" here is a technical term. If we are discussing what
>appears in the text of the Torah, then there is a document that can
>prove just what the text says. In this case the document clearly
>says this, so the statement is "correct, the text says that".
>Whether or not the text itself is correct in its meaning is another
>matter entirely. You believe yes. I believe that since it was
>written by men, so it is only their best guess.
>> the inadmissible in their belief systems.
>I will continue to counter the arrogance of people who **know**,
>with certainty, what God said and repeat it as if they had held a
>direct conversation with God. When they admit it is their
>**belief** then I will be satisfied.
That much we agree about. Of course, we have different domains of
what constitutes valid statements of "God said".
Well, you have /some/ free will, so in your sentence I'd go with
"little", not "no". You can train yourself to get into the habit of
thinking certain ways. You can educate yourself, so you can think about
things and in ways you couldn't before.
For example, if you spend a lot of time thinking about the wonders that
exist you'll find yourself noting the wonderful that's in everyday life
even when you're not consciously trying to.
Or if you study enough gemara (or law) you can learn to think in a way
a rav (or judge) would.
-mi
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905
: Yes. No, only (in this case) the fundies.
Is this post its own counterproof?
-mi
Which is okay depends on who is right. Not, as you seem to assume,
which is provably right.
So, how do we judge people? Well, the judges too have their beliefs...
Why not? It's a question of risk assessment and tolerance. As Jubal
Harshaw said in "Stranger In A Strange Land": "Once we admit God or
gods into the picture, they're all fair game. Come Judgment Day, it
may turn out that Mumbo Jumbo the god of Congo was the Big Boss all
along." But you make your choice based on what makes the most sense to
you, and then act as if you believe it 100%, even if you don't. "A
good Jew prays as if God exists, and fends for himself as if He
doesn't."
> If I believe that TMS
> is true, but admit the possibility that it is false, then really I
> don't believe it's true - it reduces me to the status of an agnostic
> from the status of a believer.
First of all, I'm not sure that's a "reduction" :-) Second, what's so
bad about it? Believers, as a rule, are a very dangerous crowd, from
Moloch worshippers of old to Fatah suicide bombers of today. If doubt
will stop someone from murder in the name of his god, long live doubt.
Everything is possible, but most things are not likely enough to base
one's life on.
> Perhaps this is why the Rambam used the word "Know" rather than "Believe"
> when he talked about mitzvot of belief (God's existence, unity, etc.).
> Because belief, as you put it, includes doubt. As in, R' Lamm's book
> "Faith and Doubt". But being in the doubting faith-state is not the
> ideal. The ideal is to KNOW that TMS is true, that God exists, etc.
I don't see how this ideal is achievable without turning off the
brain. [sigh]
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
No. I agree that everything everyone states is their opinion. The
answer to be is no, and is **proof** because I, for one, don't
maintain my opinion is absolute truth. Hence the second sentence is
provably wrong.
Shelly
>On 20 Jul 2001 05:03:08 GMT, Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote:
>: And when yours tell you to harm or kill me, or mine tell me to harm or
>: kill you, is that okay because we were each only following our
>: religious beliefs?
>
>Which is okay depends on who is right. Not, as you seem to assume,
>which is provably right.
I don't assume it depends on which is provably right. I assume that
*unless* it ir provably right to hurt someone, then whoever's beliefs
tell them to hurt someone is automatically most likely to be wrong,
and should be treated as if they are wrong.
>So, how do we judge people? Well, the judges too have their beliefs...
Yes, and most good ones have the one I just described.
>-mi
Obviously. So, if there was, indeed, a miracle, then it could have
happened. However, simply based upon logic and human behavior,
there are vastly more probable scenarios. Hence, I do not accept it
since it depends only upon a miracle.
>
> >"Correct" here is a technical term. If we are discussing what
> >appears in the text of the Torah, then there is a document that can
> >prove just what the text says. In this case the document clearly
> >says this, so the statement is "correct, the text says that".
>
> >Whether or not the text itself is correct in its meaning is another
> >matter entirely. You believe yes. I believe that since it was
> >written by men, so it is only their best guess.
>
> >> the inadmissible in their belief systems.
>
> >I will continue to counter the arrogance of people who **know**,
> >with certainty, what God said and repeat it as if they had held a
> >direct conversation with God. When they admit it is their
> >**belief** then I will be satisfied.
>
> That much we agree about. Of course, we have different domains of
> what constitutes valid statements of "God said".
True.
Shelly
Moshe as the FDA Director? :-)
> However I want to invest this with some meaning other than mindless
> obedience. The approach that works for *me* is that such separation into
> kosher and non-kosher is part of what we do to emulate G-d's holiness:
> separating clean from unclean, Shabbat from the other days. It becomes an
> act of will not a mindless -- and meaningless -- act.
Different strokes for different folks. Some are happy doing what you
describe as "mindless". For them it's not meaningless, as obedience to
God is a worthwhile endeavour in and of itself. (It's not my approach,
but people are different.)
> Is that G-d's intent? How could any human possibly know? We can make
> assumptions (G-d seems to be into separating things so it must be a G-dly
> thing to do) but that will only take us so far. But we are supposed to
> emulate G-d. (Talk about role models!) Is mindless obedience enough?
> Perhaps. Perhaps it's better than disobedience, mindless or willful. Yet
> G-d gave us these brains that look for reasons, that are more satisfied when
> we understand the *why* of something, that are nagged at when we want to
> know why and can't get an answer. There has to be a reason for that.
To look fot ta'amei hamitzvot (reasons, lit. "taste" for the mitzvot)
is an old Jewish pastime. Shlomo is said to have comprehended them
all, except the red cow.
> Perhaps it's merely because I'm a product of late 20th century America where
> the idea of "the king commands, the subjects obey" is anathema. When I ask
> why and the answer is "Shut up and do it" I rebel.
I don't listen to rabbis who give such answers. Fortunately, such
rabbis are very few, in my experience.
> It's a good thing I was
> never in the military. G-d seems to have no problem providing answers. Why
> should you object? Indeed, I have no doubt you have asked and had answered
> many more questions than I.
>
> In the end, I think it is a greater honor to G-d to think and to question.
Sure, and I try to do a lot of both. But in the end, if thinking fails
to provide a good enough answer, and questions remain unanswered, I
still do it, because it's the law and I believe God wants me to abide
by the law. It's the nature of the covenant. Otherwise, what are the
people who are not as intelligent as you are to do? Drop everything
they don't understand?
>>> On 19 Jul 2001 23:05:57 GMT, Sheldon Glickler <shel...@mediaone.net> quoted
>>> me and responded:
..................
>Everything anyone says is in their opinion. Everyone knows that their
>opinion is absolute truth.
This is far from the case. It is only in mathematics and
logic that one can claim truth, from provability, assuming
the axioms are consistent.
We have various sources, and some of them seem to be easier
to trust than others. A copy of the Torah which could be
dated to the time of Moses would carry lots of weight, but
it seems that all we have from the days of the First Temple
are two silver scrolls with portions of the priestly
blessing and information about the owners. The oldest
real text is well into the Second Temple days. Clay tablets
and Egyptian papyri go farther back.
Even dating can give problems, and historians and
archaeologists try to use methods which involve crosschecking,
carbon dating, astronomical events, etc. There are still
problems with this, but with enough evidence, we can be
REASONABLY sure. But we still do not have absolute truth.
Then there are things we can deduce from what we have
learned about the laws of nature. These can correlate
with the others. We can put things together.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Does that mean in a secular wedding everybody dances with a female?
toichen
:><mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
:>news:2001Jul1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
:>> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
:>> > <meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
:>> >> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
:>> >> > G-d gave us the ability to think. When we mindlessly go
:>> >> >through the motions without thinking we are not using G-d's gift.
:>> >> And when after "thinking", you decide you're right and G-d's wrong,
:>> >> that's when Moshe's 4 lines apply. He didn't miss even *your* point.
:>> > Nowhere did I say that G-d is wrong, so I'm not even bothering to
:>> > respond to the rest of it.
:>> No. But what you said, or at least seemed to imply, was that if you
:>> decide that it doesn't make "sense", you'll decide that G-d didn't
:>> say it. I'll be very happy to be told I'm wrong. But if I'm wrong,
:>> could you please explain what you did mean by the phrase (quoting
:>> from faulty memory) "We do it because we *see* that it's right and
:>> G-d gives us the ability to *see* that". My question is, what happens
:>> when, for whatever reason, you _don't_ *see* that?
:>Well, we're going to disagree because I make a distinction between what G-d
:>said and what men said. The latter isn't necessarily wrong, but it's just
:>not on the same level. So dismissing a halachic prohibition against hearing
:>women sing because it came from some medieval rabbi is not, to me, the same
:>as dismissing something from G-d. You presumably disagree. So let's move
:>on from there.
You are making that argument.
The point is not obvious.
:>Take an example where there's no disagreement: that pork is treif. Now
:>Dissen is obsessed with the example of "yummy pork chops" (I have no idea
:>why; I assume he's never eaten them).
They certainly smell good.
Non-Jews seem to enjoy them.
I am extrapolating from beef/lamb.
:> From that mindset one doesn't eat
:>pork because G-d commanded it, period, ended. One needn't *think* anymore
:>about it. To me, that is being an automaton. One is operating at the level
:>of a slave. I do not see how that honors G-d.
So according to your opinion if I can't think of a reason for G-ds orders,
either I should not follow them or disparage them?
:>Now the reductionist approach -- it was a health issue, it avoids
:>contracting trichinosis -- isn't satisfying. It's a beneficial side effect,
:>but it reduces G-d to a Supernanny: "Brush after meals. Don't pick up food
:>off the floor."
So WHAT is the reason?
:>However I want to invest this with some meaning other than mindless
:>obedience. The approach that works for *me* is that such separation into
:>kosher and non-kosher is part of what we do to emulate G-d's holiness:
:>separating clean from unclean, Shabbat from the other days. It becomes an
:>act of will not a mindless -- and meaningless -- act.
What is the difference between not eating pork because G-d said (for some
unknown reason) that it is an "unclean animal" or not eating pork because G-d
said so (for some unknown reason)?
:>Is that G-d's intent? How could any human possibly know? We can make
:>assumptions (G-d seems to be into separating things so it must be a G-dly
:>thing to do) but that will only take us so far. But we are supposed to
:>emulate G-d. (Talk about role models!) Is mindless obedience enough?
:>Perhaps. Perhaps it's better than disobedience, mindless or willful. Yet
:>G-d gave us these brains that look for reasons, that are more satisfied when
:>we understand the *why* of something, that are nagged at when we want to
:>know why and can't get an answer. There has to be a reason for that.
That still doesn't explain why a woman cannot have intercourse for seven days
after her period.
:>Perhaps it's merely because I'm a product of late 20th century America where
:>the idea of "the king commands, the subjects obey" is anathema. When I ask
:>why and the answer is "Shut up and do it" I rebel.
Not a bad attitude when confronted with an imperfect being.
I certainly fail to see how that could apply to following G-d, a Perfect
Being.
:> It's a good thing I was
:>never in the military. G-d seems to have no problem providing answers.
Yes???
Where did He explain why a pig is an unclean animal?
:> Why
:>should you object? Indeed, I have no doubt you have asked and had answered
:>many more questions than I.
???
:>In the end, I think it is a greater honor to G-d to think and to question.
A classic strawman argument. No one suggests that one should not think or even
question.
The issue is if one does not understand the reason for a law or objects to the
law, is that sufficient cause to freely violate it.
For a G-d given law the answer is obviously NO.
For a man given law, such as a stop sign in the middle of the night with no
traffic, perhaps.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
How sad.
> >
> > -mi
>
> Does that mean in a secular wedding everybody dances with a female?
Since the advent of tampons, women even go swimming during that
time. Dancing? You must be joking.
Shelly
That one is trivially simple. It is to greatly increase the chance
of her becoming pregnant when she does. The end of the time
coincides with ovulation.
> For a G-d given law the answer is obviously NO.
Once again, prove it was from God.
Shelly