tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post111894937559538470..comments2023-10-30T08:40:59.016-04:00Comments on Wolfish Musings: On The Validity Of Historical Events And Their Effect On Our ObservancesBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119583119426814272005-06-23T23:18:00.000-04:002005-06-23T23:18:00.000-04:00CA,>I mean, a meager few hundred years after deliv...CA,<BR/>>I mean, a meager few hundred years after delivery of this divine document we were immersed in sin, How convincing could it have been ??<BR/><BR/>>"A few hundred years?" Ever heard of the "sin of the Golden Calf?" According the story, the Israelites were immersed in sin while they were recieving the damn thing!<BR/><BR/><BR/>Apologetics would say they hadn't had a chance to read it yet, or some such nonesense. <BR/><BR/>Of course, your right, it's the hundreth misshapen piece in a puzzle where nothing connects.Ben Avuyahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08814145983874592449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119535412338157322005-06-23T10:03:00.000-04:002005-06-23T10:03:00.000-04:00I mean, a meager few hundred years after delivery ...<I>I mean, a meager few hundred years after delivery of this divine document we were immersed in sin, How convincing could it have been ??</I><BR/><BR/>"A few hundred years?" Ever heard of the "sin of the Golden Calf?" According the story, the Israelites were immersed in sin while they were recieving the damn thing!<BR/><BR/>It must have had something to do with the mountain that God held over the peoples' head like a beer keg, as He threatened them with Torah or death.Conservative Apikorishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13152425126119843584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119535138142960982005-06-23T09:58:00.000-04:002005-06-23T09:58:00.000-04:00That was one of the problems with my Rabbi's Machs...<I>That was one of the problems with my Rabbi's Machshava class.</I><BR/><BR/>What does Pascal's Wager have to do with <B>computers</B>? And why do you have a rabbi teaching a computer class? And anyaway, Pascal was a goy, why was your rabbi teaching goyish philosophy?<BR/><BR/><I> He attempted to integrate Pascal's Wager into our class, and stated that, "What is there to lose? So you'll miss out on some fun in this world. Either you meet up with God in the next world and garner some amazing rewards, or you are dead and don't know any better."</I><BR/><BR/>Pascl's wager is bullshit, because it doesn't consider all the possiblities. You might meet up with God in the next word and find out that he gives rewards only if you do exactly theopposite of what the Torah commands. Or he punishes you for not having "fun" when you were alive.<BR/><BR/>If there is a next world and if God punishes me beause of my transgressions of the Torah, then so what? Either God really wants me to obey the Torah and is upset that I've trangressed, or He is some sort of Divine Sociopath and is actually pleased that he has another sinner to torment. If He's upset at me, then, even as I suffer, I will have the staisfaction of knowing that I made God upset by putting a monkey wrench in His plan for the world. If He's the Divine Sociopath, I can endure my suffering becuase I know I'm OK, and it's God who is evil. <BR/><BR/>Either way, I will be at peace becuase I will know that I have delayed the onset of moshoach, and the human race will remain in golus for a little bit longer.<BR/><BR/>[The above makes about as much sense as doing mitzvos in order to receive a divine reward after death.]Conservative Apikorishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13152425126119843584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119296083908746522005-06-20T15:34:00.000-04:002005-06-20T15:34:00.000-04:00mississippi fred,His failure occurred when he bega...mississippi fred,<BR/>His failure occurred when he began to envision that Judaism was more than pure faith. He fooled himself into believing that you could prove it based on evidence. But to the contrary, all religions should hide under the bed sheets of faith, for evidence brings only the kiss of death.<BR/>The fact that he convinced people of the eleventh century does not bring great praise to his achievement; rather it is a sobering testament to the state of free thought and acceptable conjecture at that time.Ben Avuyahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08814145983874592449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119289118207669642005-06-20T13:38:00.000-04:002005-06-20T13:38:00.000-04:00I don't think the Kuzari should be called a misera...I don't think the Kuzari should be called a miserably failed attempt. It was a work of apologetics for rabbinic Judaism aimed <I>at</I> 11th century (?) Jews. On the contrary, the fact that its been kicking around for a thousand years or so tells you something of its potency.<BR/><BR/>I won't claim that R. Yehuda Ha-levi himself saw holes in his argument, but that's irrelevent. The greatest of philosophers make arguments with holes in them. But as a work aimed at Jews who had to confront the argments of Karaite Jews, Muslims and Christians the Kuzari was very successful. <BR/><BR/>Does it work in the 21st century? Not really. It works for those who want it to work, most of whom are already convinced that it does. The argument itself is flawed as most pairs of 21st century eyes will see. But that doesn't mean this 11th century work is a failure.Mississippi Fred MacDowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02734864605700159687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119288344158539182005-06-20T13:25:00.000-04:002005-06-20T13:25:00.000-04:00The Kuzari proof, as I understand it and as Rabbi ...The Kuzari proof, as I understand it and as Rabbi Chai appears to unoriginally restate it, is that all of our ancestors saw and heard Matan Torah. And after this in an unbroken chain passed the information of Gods revelation down the line. And that is supposed to equal proof.<BR/><BR/>Now I am familiar with the fact that orthodoxy prickles at basic academic knowledge outside of Judaism, but surely, it’s ethnocentricity should provide for the ability to recall it’s own history.<BR/><BR/>I mean, a meager few hundred years after delivery of this divine document we were immersed in sin, How convincing could it have been ??<BR/>A couple of hundred years later and someone pops up with sefer Divorim. Guess What? Not one of the assembled peoples knows what the hell it is.<BR/>Unbroken chain ????.<BR/>How do we know the uninformed public wasn’t handed Devarim and several other things that they didn’t know better than to call Devarim. And if that is how discriminatory they were in adding to the torah, how could anyone trust them.<BR/><BR/>The greatest downfall of the Kuzari is revealed by the very heritage, which he is struggling to uphold. <BR/><BR/>Take a moment to bask in the irony.<BR/><BR/>I am truly mystified at the effort of modern Rabbi’s to write long and onerous essays to bolster this miserably failed attempt.Ben Avuyahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08814145983874592449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119285194344615812005-06-20T12:33:00.000-04:002005-06-20T12:33:00.000-04:00"Judaism has nothing to do with Creation. I am con...<I>"Judaism has nothing to do with Creation. I am confused why you would mention that. Rambam said he could have lived with an eternal universe. The main thing is Mattan Torah, and of course G-d."</I><BR/><BR/>I just have to remind you that the Rambam could have been wrong about that too. The Rambam may provide a model we like in many ways but if the Rambam's ikkarim aren't settled facts then neither are his other assertions such as the one you mention.Mississippi Fred MacDowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02734864605700159687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119284691830720642005-06-20T12:24:00.000-04:002005-06-20T12:24:00.000-04:00The Samaritans refute the Kuzari argument.They too...The Samaritans refute the Kuzari argument.<BR/><BR/>They too believe that their ancestors were at Sinai, where they heard God tell them to build a makom ha-mikdash on Har Gerizim.Mississippi Fred MacDowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02734864605700159687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119277087570630762005-06-20T10:18:00.000-04:002005-06-20T10:18:00.000-04:00Gadol,I debated on whether or not to include Creat...<B>Gadol</B>,<BR/><BR/>I debated on whether or not to include Creation when I first wrote my post. In the end I decided to include it for two reasons:<BR/><BR/>1. One of the central observences of Judaism, Shabbos, is based on Creation, not on the Exodus.<BR/><BR/>2. Because, as you mention, a belief in God is central to Judaism. But the primary way that we define God is as the Creator. As such, I decided to include that as well.<BR/><BR/>The WolfBrooklynWolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119259309022125272005-06-20T05:21:00.000-04:002005-06-20T05:21:00.000-04:00dbh,Have you read Shapiro, "The Limits of Orthodox...dbh,<BR/><BR/>Have you read Shapiro, "The Limits of Orthodox Theology"?<BR/><BR/>Even Rambam himself didn't fit exactly with those 13 supposed needed beliefs.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119235992382550542005-06-19T22:53:00.000-04:002005-06-19T22:53:00.000-04:00True, of course, Orthoprax, but I didn't want to m...True, of course, <B>Orthoprax</B>, but I didn't want to make matters any more complicated than they had to be.<BR/><BR/>The WolfBrooklynWolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119235474261366472005-06-19T22:44:00.000-04:002005-06-19T22:44:00.000-04:00wolf,"...(the Mabul cannot have started in both Ni...wolf,<BR/><BR/>"...(the Mabul cannot have started in both Nissan and Tishrei -- only one of them can be correct)."<BR/><BR/>Or neither.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119235381710083242005-06-19T22:43:00.000-04:002005-06-19T22:43:00.000-04:00Moosik,"That is the Kuzari argument. So how do you...Moosik,<BR/><BR/>"That is the Kuzari argument. So how do you refute it?" <BR/><BR/>Like I said, I refute it by the fact of it being a false dilemma. That means it is a falacious argument. <BR/><BR/>Myths arise and lots of people believe them, no matter how huge the fictional event was supposed to be. It doesn't have to be a case of malicious conspiracy.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119231572106197052005-06-19T21:39:00.000-04:002005-06-19T21:39:00.000-04:00The problems with the Kuzari proof are as follows:...The problems with the Kuzari proof are as follows:<BR/><BR/>The proof pre-supposes that the Jewish nation consisted of one unified nation since it's creation. If, however, the Jews were several tribes of nomads who settled in the area (and did not come from Egypt via an Exodus) then it is certainly possible that the myths of one group may have eventually been accepted by all the other groups as well.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, the idea that a foreign idea would be rejected by the group is taken as a given without any proof on it's own. Why is this a given? Certainly, if this were really true, then there would be no machlokes at all in any historical fact or halacha. One person would say to the other: How can you say that the mabul started in Tishrei? My father told me it started in Nissan, and his father before him, and his father before him, etc. By the fact that both views exist and neither has been disproven, this proves that false ideas *can* gain a foothold and not be rejected outright (the Mabul cannot have started in both Nissan and Tishrei -- only one of them can be correct).<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, it does not take into account the fact that an item can be introduced as myth in one generation and evolve to "fact" in a later generation. One man may tell a story about a Biblical event, never intending it to be taken seriously. His son tells it over as a quaint myth. His son tells it over as a homelitic lesson. And his son accepts it as fact. (Note: "Son" doesn't have to literally mean son here, it could just as well be a number of generations).<BR/><BR/>This list is not meant to be exhaustive. There can certainly be other arguments against it as well.<BR/><BR/>The WolfBrooklynWolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119221435322866332005-06-19T18:50:00.000-04:002005-06-19T18:50:00.000-04:00I'm very dubious about Torah min-ha-Shamayim, but ...I'm very dubious about Torah min-ha-Shamayim, but I still see worth in following the mitzvot. One of the commenters is correct that one can believe that the Torah is true NOT in the literal sense but in the mythic sense - and that (as Arthur Waskow would say) it's the record of Jewish wrestling with God. One can see it more from the human side and less from the divine side - as our ancestors' perceptions of what a covenant with God means. I also believe that it's not just true from the human side - that there is something of the divine in it as well. But then I also believe that other religions have some truth in them as other peoples' wrestling with God (or with Absolute Reality, if one is speaking of Buddhism or some branches of Hinduism).Rebeccahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17626228106192215280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119218960452831592005-06-19T18:09:00.000-04:002005-06-19T18:09:00.000-04:00That is the Kuzari argument. So how do you refute ...That <I>is</I> the Kuzari argument. So how do you refute it? I have some ideas but I want to see what other people out there think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119218299116823352005-06-19T17:58:00.000-04:002005-06-19T17:58:00.000-04:00Moosik,If it's just "proof" then it's not proof."H...Moosik,<BR/><BR/>If it's just "proof" then it's not proof.<BR/><BR/>"Had the event at Sinai not actually occurred anyone fabricating it at any point in time would have met with the stiff refutation of the people, “had a mass event of that proportion ever occurred we surely would have heard of it.” Fabrication of an event of public proportion is not within the realm of credibility."<BR/><BR/>Typical Kuzari argument. False dilemma. Either it's true or a mass conspiracy. What happened to myth?Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119218241139554942005-06-19T17:57:00.000-04:002005-06-19T17:57:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119217114318019892005-06-19T17:38:00.000-04:002005-06-19T17:38:00.000-04:00here is "proof" of G-d and Torah m'Sinai. Is this ...<A HREF="http://www.mesora.org/torahfromsinai.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> is "proof" of G-d and Torah m'Sinai. Is this "More Bad Reasoning and Bad Proofs" or does it hold water in your opinion?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119146372613265102005-06-18T21:59:00.000-04:002005-06-18T21:59:00.000-04:00Agreed, Hedyot. What I meant to say is that a Jew...Agreed, <B>Hedyot</B>. What I meant to say is that a Jew would have to posit that *he believes* Judaism...<BR/><BR/>The WolfBrooklynWolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119136549124427052005-06-18T19:15:00.000-04:002005-06-18T19:15:00.000-04:00> ...a Jew would have to posit that Judaism is the...<I>> ...a Jew would have to posit that Judaism is the best religion out there - otherwise, why not become whatever is better?</I><BR/><BR/>Not that I think the logic is sound, but according to that thinking, the fact that thousands of people choose other than Judaism kind of makes the point that it isn't the best religion out there, no?<BR/><BR/>The fact of the matter is that what a group of people choose has no bearing whtasoever on the objective superiority of any religion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119041925452633892005-06-17T16:58:00.000-04:002005-06-17T16:58:00.000-04:00I copied it from Future of the Internet for Ortho...I copied it from <A HREF="http://frumnet.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Future of the Internet for Orthodox Jews</A>Reuven Chaim Kleinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836805247888732019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119028957639392382005-06-17T13:22:00.000-04:002005-06-17T13:22:00.000-04:00The claim was actually made about democracy, not a...The claim was actually made about democracy, not about Judaism. Rachack (or whomever he was copying the article from) extrapolated it to Judaism.<BR/><BR/>I suppose, however, that if you don't posit Torah Min-Shamayim, that a Jew would have to posit that Judaism is the best religion out there - otherwise, why not become whatever is better?<BR/><BR/>The WolfBrooklynWolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119025236995101072005-06-17T12:20:00.000-04:002005-06-17T12:20:00.000-04:00On what basis can one claim that Judaism is "the b...On what basis can one claim that Judaism is "the best system out there"? (Or however he phrased it, that was his intent, right?) I think that's a very tenuous claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-1119018387042687292005-06-17T10:26:00.000-04:002005-06-17T10:26:00.000-04:00If the Torah was accepted as constitutionally bind...<I>If the Torah was accepted as constitutionally binding at any point (Sinai or the time of Ezra), it would be no different from any constitution, and the HISTORICAL origin of the document isn't as important as the narrative under which the constitution was accepted. </I><BR/><BR/>In a legal sense, perhaps. But not in a moral sense.<BR/><BR/>For example, the U.S. Constitution states that there are two houses of Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each state's representation in the House is decided based upon it's population, while each state's Senate representation is equal.<BR/><BR/>There are historical reasons for this - specifically the conflict between the larger states and the smaller states - and this compromise was necessary to get the Constitution ratified by the states. But in the two centuries since, this particular configuration of the legislative branch of the government has become very useful. If we were to discover tomorrow that the Constitutional Conventions in 1787 were a fraud, we would still have valid reason to keep the structure of Congress as we have it.<BR/><BR/>You can't say the same thing about Shaatnez. Or Para Aduma. Or any of the other chokim that are in the Torah. We can't go back and say "there is still a good reason to keep this on the books" as there might be with many of the mitzvos (murder, theft, etc.). It just doesn't hold. The only reason we keep those mitzvos to begin with is because we *were* commanded to do so at Sinai. Take that away, and all you have left are a bunch of cute, quaint customs.<BR/><BR/>The WolfBrooklynWolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.com