Thursday, July 14, 2011

I Want to Create a New Word



What should you call someone who acts like an orthodox Jew but rejects some or all of the beliefs of orthodox Judaism?

He could be called a hypocrite, fake or impostor. These words however are very general and have nothing specifically to do with religion. These people like to call themselves "orthoprax", however I feel that this seems to emphasize the positive excessively - practicing Orthodox Judaism, at least publicly.

I would like to use the word "phonydox", short for "phony Orthodox Jew". I believe that rooting out the phonydox and expelling them from our homes, schools and synagogues should be an urgent priority.

68 comments:

zeke said...

How do you define orthodox beliefs and what are criteria for them?

jewish philosopher said...

The Maimonides 13 principles are generally accepted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith#Maimonides.27_13_principles_of_faith

Garnel Ironheart said...

Problem is that the classical Orthoprax are not the only phonydox out there. To be consistent you would have to also remove people who espouse the 13 ikkarim but act indecently despite them, like stealing, loshon horo, etc.

Abe said...

"jewish philosopher said...
Fighting the homosexual mafia is quite an uphill battle especially in New York State. I might try suing individual students who denigrated me, but alas they are probably all penniless and will remain so."

Why not sue the school? Afer all they created a hostile learning environment for you.
Do you think that their actions were motivated solely by their detestation of a hater, or was god using them for a purpose that requires an understanding for which he has not endowed us?
Why do you think that god targeted you for such injustice and misery?

jewish philosopher said...

"Problem is that the classical Orthoprax are not the only phonydox out there. To be consistent you would have to also remove people who espouse the 13 ikkarim but act indecently despite them, like stealing, loshon horo, etc."

That's just a run of the mill sinner, no new words needed.

"Why do you think that god targeted you for such injustice and misery?"

Obviously because in my many sins, I am not working hard enough to stop sexual perverts.

Alex said...

How would you answer your phonydox child if he were to ask you the following:

"If you let me continue living at home, at least I'll continue to eat kosher and keep the Sabbath. But if you toss me out, I'm positive that I will give that up."

Alex said...

I noticed that there was no mention of first trying to "educate" them into believing in the 13 principles before kicking them out of the house, school, and synagogue.

Do you think you were negligent by not saying anything about that?

NC said...

"What should you call someone who acts like an orthodox Jew but rejects some or all of the beliefs of orthodox Judaism?"

I have a better word.

"Enlightened".

I am in search for a word, for an outwardly pious ultra-orthodox person who in fact is a misanthrope and perhaps a psychopath.

"Psychodox"?
"Orthopocrite"?

jewish philosopher said...

If he is over 13 so therefore responsible for his decisions however under 18 and therefore the parents are responsible to support him, he should be placed in some sort of boarding school or foster care and otherwise disowned.

jewish philosopher said...

Once a person has declared himself a nonbeliever, I think he has passed a point of no return as I mention here. 

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/11/atheism-guide-to-prevention.html

The priority then is simply damage control - limiting his impact on others who are still orthodox.

jewish philosopher said...

Enlightened people are those who have found the truth, like me.

nc said...

" he should be placed in some sort of boarding school or foster care and otherwise disowned."

Only an emotionally impoverished person with a dearth of personal attachments could advocate such a thing.

Do you think that such actions would either:
1. Deter people from changing beliefs
2. "protect" those in the orthodox community from being exposed to competing ideas
3. Help maintain functional families?

You again demonstrate a remarkable lack of insight and emotional intelligence. Anybody with even a minimal understanding of people and society would know that such actions would do only harm, would not benefit anyone, as well as being plain stupid and impractical.

What, do you think people and society are living in biblical times? Shall we burn adulterers and blasphemers?

jewish philosopher said...

In cases of substance abuse it is standard practice for mental health professionals to advise family members to sever all ties with the addict until and if he seriously commits to recovery.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/intervention/MH00127

In other words when you have a situation where someone is doing something legal, so you can't just call the police, however it is very self destructive, and he knows that and he continues to do it and he does not want to change, the universal advice of psychologist is: get him out of your life, cut him off, disown him, throw him out.

Doing so will indeed deter people from making bad choices, protect others from making bad choices and help maintain functional families.

nc said...

Where does it say that you should throw your own minor child out of your home and disown him? How is that a "treatment program"?

jewish philosopher said...

"Deciding on specific consequences. If your loved one doesn't accept treatment, each person on the team needs to decide what action he or she will take. Examples include asking your loved one to move out or taking away contact with children."

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/intervention/MH00127

This would presumably apply to teenagers as well, on the condition that some arrangement is made to provide minimal child support as required by law until age 18.

Here is a little more detail about conducting a teen intervention.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2078756_conduct-teen-intervention.html

NC said...

The only circumstances I know of where a child is removed from the house is by social services when the parents cannot provide a safe environment. That is not the same as cutting off contact.

As I said, doing so because of a childs beliefs is absurd.

jewish philosopher said...

I don't think that fundamentally, intervention for a teen is that much different than for an adult, although by law a teen cannot be told "leave my home and take care of yourself".

Options instead would include boot camps, boarding schools, military schools or treatment facilities.

http://www.teenbootcamps.com/ 

nc said...

and what is the "treatment" for falling from faith?

do you have any idea how absurd you sound?

jewish philosopher said...

My point is quite simple: when you have a situation where someone is doing something legal, so you can't just call the police, however it is very self destructive, and he knows that and he continues to do it and he does not want to change, the universal advice of psychologist is: get him out of your life, cut him off, disown him, throw him out.

Doing so will indeed deter people from making bad choices, protect others from making bad choices and help maintain functional families.

Regarding your question about kicking out a minor, in that case some alternative out of the home living facility is generally arranged.

ksil said...

every now and then we get a post like this, comic relief indeed, but it just makes me think you are putting on a big show just to make frum people look stupid.

which is work, btw.

could be this whole blog is a joke...

jewish philosopher said...

I would put you right into boot camp, my little phonydox. Make a man out of you.

ksil said...

yep. confirmed.

jewish philosopher said...

After a 10 mile hike and 100 push ups, you'll really lol!

Avi Bitterman said...

"He could be called a hypocrite, fake or impostor."

And if he is openly orthoprax?

jewish philosopher said...

That's an entirely different story. If some guy goes around with a beard and a yarmulke and keeps kosher but does not attend synagogue services because he's an atheist, he may be evil but he's not a phony. He's being honest.

Avi Bitterman said...

And you can't attend synagogue services if you're openly orthoprax? I know of many UO shuls that would let me attend.

jewish philosopher said...

"I know of many UO shuls that would let me attend."

Why would you? If you openly do not believe in God what is the point of praying? Once I had decided to become a Jew, I refused to worship in church.

Sounds like phonydox territory.

Avi Bitterman said...

"Why would you?"

Why do anything. You can ask why would an orthoprax person do all the other things in the first place as well. There are many reasons for being orthoprax, it all depends on the person. Some are orthoprax because they have an orthodox significant other, some just enjoy their tradition and/or religious practices and sense of community (which shul is a big part ot), while others find themselves in a situation where they have no other way of living life that they believe will bring them happiness.

Whatever their reason, if they admit that they are orthoprax I can't see the legitimate tarring of them as "phonies" to be justified.

Avi Bitterman said...

there are those who think it is the best way to live life, god or no god. There are those who do it to keep shalom bayis. There are those who simply enjoy it.

Your religion forbids you from going to church.

Atheism does not forbid one to go to shul or even pray to god. In fact, there are no restrictions directly tied to you as a direct result of being an atheist, even things most people consider immoral. Any restriction must come from somewhere else.

Whatever their reasons for being orthoprax, if they admit they are orthoprax they are not phonies.

jewish philosopher said...

If you dress up like an orthodox Jew and worship in an orthodox synagogue while in fact believing in Darwin, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph smith or whatever other religion, you're an imposter.

I see it as no different than someone impersonating a law enforcement officer for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_impersonation

Even if he claims to have all kinds of "benign" reasons it is rightfully a crime.

Avi Bitterman said...

Honestly do you even read that which you quote?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_impersonation

"Police impersonation is an act of falsely portraying oneself as a member of the police, for the purpose of deception."

Notice the "for the purpose of deception". If the orthoprax person is admitting he is orthoprax his purpose is clearly not deception.

jewish philosopher said...

Fine, if you want to wear a uniform to a Halloween party that's probably not a crime. You are not deceiving any reasonable person. But if you put lights on your car and start pulling people over, showing them a badge you bought on ebay, you should go to jail.

By the same token, if you want to wear a streimel and fake beard to a Halloween party, you're not an imposter, hypocrite or phonydox. However if you put on a yarmulke and go into a synagogue and recite "Blessed are You, L-rd our G-d, King of the universe, who has chosen us from among all the nations and given us His Torah. Blessed are You L-rd, who gives the Torah."

http://www.chabad.org/library/howto/wizard_cdo/aid/382001/jewish/The-Blessings-and-Instructions.htm

while not believing a word of it, you are.

Anonymous said...

There's no difference between reciting Shakespeare's lines in a production of Hamlet and saying Shema in synagogue or at home. The words are scripted and don't necessarily refer to anything factual or truly felt.

nc said...

Does the "impersonation" of orthodoxy have any victims?

jewish philosopher said...

If your an actor playing the role of an orthodox Jew that's fine.

And of course the phonydox harm others.

http://www.ok.org/Content.asp?ID=292

NC said...

"And of course the phonydox harm others."

I don't know of any evidence that Orthoprax people are more likely to commit fraud than regular orthodox.

As I read your posts and comments, as well as those of Nathan. a pattern becomes clear: you jump to sweeping generalizations and unjustified conclusions based on anecdote:

* Atheists are drunks and pornographers because a few of them are
* orthoprax are mentally unstable or losers because a few of them are.
* all homosexuals are promiscuous because some of them are
* A few scientists are fraudulent so none of them can be believed.
* A few war criminals are atheists so all of them are

While generalization is often a valid form of inductive reasoning, over-generalizing and anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_generalization

You also falsely yell "appeal to authority!", when in fact, an argument from authority is NOT fallacious when the authority is an expert on the subject in question. Its a form of inductive reasoning. Its only a fallacy if I use, say, an expert economist as a source of authority on a medical question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

nc said...

BTW, I am about to write here the killer argument against religion and god, that blows away all of your arguments, and will certainly cause you and Nathan to abandon your beliefs.

Are you ready??

jewish philosopher said...

Regarding phonydox, maybe I'm just not crazy about fakes.

Regarding my critiques of certain lifestyles, I think I provide solid sources.

Regarding having blind faith in scientists, no. I'm not having surgery or taking medication, for example, without getting a second opinion, doing research and understanding it.

nc said...

If you are interested in the truth, affirm that you will not censor my comment and I will submit this ultimate argument and proof.

If this comment does not appear, I will take that as if you are afraid to hear the truth.

jewish philosopher said...

You make me smirk. Ha! I fear no man!

NC said...

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Any person who reads this presentation and still believes in religion, is either insane or a liar.

Some of it is meant for Christians, but no matter. Just substitute "god" or "Messiah" for "jesus", and "Judaism" for "Christianity".

jewish philosopher said...

This website has no relevance whatsoever to Judaism. 

The New Testament teaches

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 
Mark 11:24

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+11%3A24&version=NIV  

However the Talmud teaches

R. Eleazar said: Since the destruction of the Temple, the gates of prayer are locked, for it is written, Also when I cry out, he shutteth out my prayer. 
Baba Mezi'a 59a

http://www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia/babamezia_59.html

nc said...

"Since the destruction of the Temple, the gates of prayer are locked, for it is written,"

1. So prayer is futile. Great. So all of the references in prayer to requests is phony, right? As far as I know that is not Judaism. That's why in the Shmona Esrei we ask for this and that, and we make mishabarach, etc.
2. I though that prayer and penitence is a substitute for sacrifices.

ותשובה תפילה וצדקה מעבירין את רע הגזרה
3. Prayer is only one point made on the web site. Everything else mentioned is equally relevant to Judiasm as well. The nature of God. Good and evil. The bible's authorship. Etc.

Face it, JP, this site makes all of your claims go down the drain.

Show me a factually incorrect statement or illogical argument made in the web site.

Are you "converting" yet? We await you with open arms.

jewish philosopher said...

Actually about 90% of the Jewish prayerbook consists of praise, not requests. I guess we hope that something might get through, however, due to our many sins, God has basically turned His cell phone off

Regarding scientific challenges to Judaism, I think I've covered that:

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-i-understand-genesis.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/10/biblical-deluge.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/02/torah-and-archaeology.html

Regarding the wisdom of the Torah, I've got that too.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/gods-wisdom.html

nc said...

None of your posts even begin to answer the questions raised by this web site.

Regarding prayer, your claim regarding praise is equally absurd. What kind of god would need/want our constant praise? Only a jealous, insecure, human god, like all of the rest of the gods in the dustbin of history.

jewish philosopher said...

"None of your posts even begin to answer the questions raised by this web site."

My answers are actually quite brilliant and convincing to any objective reader.

"What kind of god would need/want our constant praise?"

As I point out here, God's motives are unfathomable to mere mortals.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/12/higher-power-as-i-understand-him.html

Incidentally, I also explain the Jewish attitude toward slavery and homosexuality.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/04/slavery-is-it-evil.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/04/beheading-orthodox-jewish-punishment.html

This website is just more of the same run of the mill anti-God ranting I've read a hundred times.

nc said...

The problem, JP, with your explanations is that either they are contradictory or false.

*the bible is 100% accurate and literally true, yet life and the earth are billions of years old
*prayers do not work, but we pray anyway hoping they will work
* the talmud says that prayers do not get answered, yet we pray throughout the year for rain, health, victory and good fortune.
* we praise god (even though it doesn't make any sense) but we don't know why
* the Nazis were evil but their actions were good because they were doing god's will. How can doing something good make you evil?
* we are punished out of love even though it kills us and we have no chance to make amends or know why we were punished
* god is just, although he kills children for what they might do in the future, yet they have free will
* we have "free will" yet god controls everything

Your posts are filled with these and more nonsense. On the other hand, atheism answers all of these questions without contradictions or rationalizations.

Unlike your answers, there is not one false or illogical statement on the amputee website. Please find one and I'll address it.

jewish philosopher said...

"the bible is 100% accurate and literally true, yet life and the earth are billions of years old"

Correct, as I've explained.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-i-understand-genesis.html

"prayers do not work, but we pray anyway hoping they will work"

Pretty much.

"we praise god (even though it doesn't make any sense) but we don't know why"

Actually, it's just common sense to thank someone who has given you everything.

"the Nazis were evil but their actions were good because they were doing god's will. How can doing something good make you evil?"

They could have chosen to not kill and in that case the punishment which the Jews deserved would have come about through some other means, such as a plague. Since they chose to kill, they are evil, because God prohibits murder.

"we are punished out of love even though it kills us and we have no chance to make amends or know why we were punished"

If you want to avoid punishment, learn Torah and do it. There're no secrets or surprises.

"god is just, although he kills children for what they might do in the future, yet they have free will"

Yes.

"we have "free will" yet god controls everything"

We only have mental freedom to choose. Whether we can execute our plans is up to God.

I am sorry NC, however unfortunately your "ultimate argument and proof" has been smashed to bits under the hammer blows of my immense wisdom.


Personally, I think these issues pale in comparison to the questions against atheism, which teaches that universe is only apparently created from nothing (the Big Bang theory) but is actually eternal (the multiverse theory), that the universe appears to be fine tuned for life and life appears to be endlessly complex and purposeful however in reality it's all the result of infinite blind chance, and furthermore all humans are actually zombies and animals, we are in no way exceptional in comparison to other animals or even other chemicals and we have no soul or free will.

nc said...

"If you want to avoid punishment, learn Torah and do it. There're no secrets or surprises."

Tell that to numerous religious Jews (presumably no less pious than you) who died in the gas chambers. Another lie/contradiction. No surprises, huh?.

"We only have mental freedom to choose. Whether we can execute our plans is up to God."

That is meaningless free will. How can you be held responsible for executing god's plan? If people deserved to die, how is it murder? It is good! If its god's plan, and it is murder, than god is the murderer, since he took out the contract. An executioner who is carrying out a deserved punishment does not deserve to be punished himself. So either god is a mass murderer or the Nazis were good!

You can assert the truth of your dogmas, but you have to admit that they are contrary to reason.

"Personally, I think these issues pale in comparison to the questions against atheism,..."

All of your questions about the origins of the universe can be asked about god himself. Does it not bother you where god came from? The lack of your answers to those questions about god means that they should not bother you about the universe, either.

Nathan, are you an atheist yet? Did you read the web site?

" we are in no way exceptional in comparison to other animals or even other chemicals and we have no soul or free will."

Yea, so?

jewish philosopher said...

"Tell that to numerous religious Jews (presumably no less pious than you) who died in the gas chambers."

Even the righteous suffer due to the small sins they have committed. However of course those few moments of pain are infinitesimal in comparison to the agony reserved for the wicked.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/jewish-heretics.html

Just by the way, any statistics on what percentage of holocaust victims were orthodox? I have a feeling it wasn't that many.

"How can you be held responsible for executing god's plan?" 

God said "don't do xyz" and he chose to do it so he is punished. But as far as the victim is concerned, of course God would have brought about that result some other way.

"Does it not bother you where god came from?"

God, being incorporeal, is not limited by the laws of thermodynamics which make perpetual motion machines impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

And atheism constantly fails the duck test, as I explained, while Judaism doesn't.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/02/lame-duck-why-atheism-fails.html
 
"Yea, so?"

So replace law enforcement with animal control. Works better and a lot cheaper.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/07/animal-house.html 

nc said...

"So replace law enforcement with animal control. Works better and a lot cheaper."

Nonsense. Don't pretend to be so ignorant. Read a little about moral philosophy, JP. I won't spoon feed it to you.

"God, being incorporeal, is not limited by the laws of thermodynamics which make perpetual motion machines impossible."

Don't pretend to understand physics. which you would know nothing about except for the scientists. Your not an authority on the subject.

"Even the righteous suffer due to the small sins they have committed."

So expect your punishment.

"fails the duck test"

Not a law of nature that I know of.

"God said "don't do xyz" and he chose to do it so he is punished."

But you are commanded to punish the wicked. Like an executioner, or a soldier. But either way, god is a mass murderer.

jewish philosopher said...

"Nonsense."

Perfect sense according to atheists. We are not merely "like" animals, we ARE animals.

"Don't pretend to understand physics."

I'd say I've got a good handle on it.

"So expect your punishment."

I've actually had a few bad hair days, however the Talmud Berakoth 60b states "one must receive the evil with gladness".

http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_60.html#PARTb

"Not a law of nature that I know of."

No, just a rational way to make decisions.

"But you are commanded to punish the wicked."

You are commanded to do exactly what the Talmud says you are commanded to do. Maybe read it sometime.

nc said...

"You are commanded to do exactly what the Talmud says you are commanded to do."

The Talmud is man made. Nobody has any obligation to follow it, unless you want to.

"I'd say I've got a good handle on it."

Then submit your arguments to a physicist and see what he says.

I'm waiting for your imminent conversion. You haven't answered the web sites main question. What does god have against amputees?

jewish philosopher said...

"The Talmud is man made."

Nope. Talmudic law is God given as I demonstrate.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/03/jewish-literature-seeing-effects-of.html

"Then submit your arguments to a physicist and see what he says."

I don't need to. I've got wikipedia.

"There is undisputed scientific consensus that perpetual motion would violate either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

That refutes the eternal universe idea.

nc said...

"Talmudic law is God given as I demonstrate."

because of layers? ha ha

The talmud itself makes it abundantly clear that it is man made, only later rabbis made it "torah"

http://www.daatemet.org/articles/article.cfm?article_id=8

If there is something factually incorrect in that essay, tell me.

Considering the dark side yet?

"That refutes the eternal universe idea."

You seem to believe in the laws of nature. Then these laws of physics preclude a god as well. Unless you believe that they are not binding, in which case the universe doesn't have to abide by them either. Either they are binding or they are not.

Well we already proved that god couldn't possibly be what you say he is. He couldn't be a mass murderer and a loving god at the same time, unless your happen to be a psychopath. So that's two strikes. God cannot be good, and he cannot exist.

jewish philosopher said...

"because of layers? ha ha"

Find another explanation for them, other than the Torah having been given at Sinai.

"The talmud itself makes it abundantly clear that it is man made, only later rabbis made it "torah""

Exactly. The Talmud includes human interpretations of God's will, however it is still God's will. You could just as well say science is not based on nature, it's just "man made" and scientists then declare it to be "science". What would that mean exactly?

"Then these laws of physics preclude a god as well."

He authored them. I believe that it is correct to say that the universe in comparison to God is like a human thought in comparison to a physical object. God's reality is on a different plane than ours. We are merely imaginary in comparison to Him.

"He couldn't be a mass murderer and a loving god at the same time,"

Who is mass murdering? Man sinned, bringing upon himself death. Genesis 2:17

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm#17

You sound like a child who cannot or will not accept that actions have consequences and therefore the police, teachers, parents etc are all abusive pigs who are constantly hassling you.

Regarding suffering in general, I explain that here.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/08/kindness-of-suffering.html

Nc said...

"Find another explanation for them, other than the Torah having been given at Sinai."

The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

"The Talmud includes human interpretations of God's will, however it is still God's will."

The same could be said for the Koran and Shakespear.

The daat emet website documents the historical development, including the inaccuracies and errors of the bible and Talmud, including statements admitting that they make things up.

Anybody who reads the information in these two sites most likely becomes an instant apikores. The documentation in them is all from sources familiar to you, so you can check them yourself.

jewish philosopher said...

"The burden of proof is yours, not mine."

And I have successfully provided proof.

"including the inaccuracies and errors of the bible and Talmud"

The rabbis never claimed infallibility and in fact there is a section of the Talmud, Masechet Horayot, which deals with mistakes made by Jewish courts and by Jewish leaders.

http://www.ou.org/shabbat_shalom/article/masechet_horayot_intro/

I'm not sure what "stuff" was "made up" which you're referring to.

jewish philosopher said...

NC, since you're basically just throwing links at me today, why don't you try one.

http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php?title=Response_to_Daat_Emet_publications

natschuster said...

NC:

The most common phrase in the Talmud is "mino hani mili." Where does this come from? Evertyhing the Rabbis said had to have basis in the Torah.

Now, how exactly do the laws of physics preclude G-d? What they do preclude is a universe popping into existance by itself.

And the laws of physics do seem to indicate a lot of planning to accomodate life. For example, the proton and the electron have charges that are exactly equal and opposite. But the proton is bigger than the electron by 39 orders of magnitude. This makes no sense. But if this wasn't the case, if the charges were of only slightly, or the masses a little bit biggere or smaller, the universe would be a very different place, and no life would be possible.

natschuster said...

I recall reading on the Daat Emet website that the camel wasn't domesticated in the time of the Avos. But it was found that the camel was domesiticated before the Avos. So I'm sure how accurate or current the Daat Emet website is. Recently, some archaeologists said that Kind David wasn't a powerful king. Then they found his name ona rock on the far north of the ecountry. The archaeologists also said that Shlomo Hamelech didn't exist. But recently they found a huge wall in Jerusalem datin from the time fo Shlomo Hamelech. It could have only been built by a rich, powerful king, like Shlomo. So when it comes to archaeology versus the Torah, I wouldn't bet on archaeology.

natschuster said...

I recall reading on the Daat Emet website that the camel wasn't domesticated in the time of the Avos. But it was found that the camel was domesiticated before the Avos. So I'm sure how accurate or current the Daat Emet website is.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Recently, some archaeologists said that Kind David wasn't a powerful king. Then they found his name ona rock on the far north of the country. So he had an extensive kingdom. The archaeologists also said that Shlomo Hamelech didn't exist. But recently they found a huge wall in Jerusalem datin from the time fo Shlomo Hamelech. It could have only been built by a rich, powerful king, like Shlomo. So when it comes to archaeology versus the Torah, I wouldn't bet on archaeology.

NC said...

"http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php?title=Response_to_Daat_Emet_publications"

Rabbi Stein's response is intelligent and considered, but is basically philosphical apologetics to smooth over the fundamental conflict between the religious world outlook and that of the modern western world. He basically concedes that religious practice and outlook as we now know it is a human endeavor- even if it strives to determine what "god's will" is. As such there is no reason we should subject ourselves to it more than any other man made system, just because the former claims to be doing "god's will".

Need I remind you that every one of the thousands of religions that have ever existed also try to figure out "god's will"-- with interesting results.

I have no problem with people like you or anybody else who wish to accept religious law upon themselves, as long as it is not forced upon others or used as an excuse to harm other people. Religion has a way of doing that.

I don't deny that god can be used as a useful illusion. It makes you feel better upon uncertainty and mortality. It helps unite you against enemies. And it gives you some explanation (even if incorrect) about things you can't understand. It gives meaning to suffering.

But when you recognize that it is just a man made construct, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. You say to yourself, "why am I putting these leather boxes on my head and arm, or waving this branch around?" and you answer yourself, "because some rabbis from 2000 years ago thought I should".

Nathan, I'm not going to address your amateur biology and physics. I leave that to real experts.

jewish philosopher said...

NC (what the heck does that stand for anyway?), yesterday I allowed you to submit your "ultimate argument and proof" against Judaism,  which apparently is the following:  

How do we know, for sure, that God does not answer prayers? As described in section 1, we simply pray and watch what happens. What we find is that nothing happens. No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincerely they pray, no matter how worthy the prayer, nothing ever happens. If we pray for anything that is impossible -- for example, regenerating an amputated limb or moving Mt. Everest to Newark, NJ -- it never happens. We all know that. If we pray for anything that is possible, the results of the prayer will unfold in exact accord with the normal laws of probability. In every situation where we statistically analyze the effects of prayers, looking at both the success AND the failure of prayer, we find that prayer has zero effect. Prayers for amputees never work. Medical prayers never work. Prayers for "good people" never work. Battlefield prayers never work. That happens, always, because God is imaginary. Every time a Christian says, "The Lord answered my prayer," what we are seeing instead is a simple coincidence or the natural effects of self-talk. Christians never discuss failed prayers, but if we look at all the prayers that fail as well as the prayers that work, a statistical analysis proves that God does not answer prayers. See section 1 for details.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/summary.htm

I explained to you that, even if in fact true, this does not contradict Judaism since the Talmud states:

R. Eleazar said: Since the destruction of the Temple, the gates of prayer are locked, for it is written, Also when I cry out, he shutteth out my prayer. 
Baba Mezi'a 59a

http://www.come-and-hear.com/babamezia/babamezia_59.html

So this  "ultimate argument" against Judaism actually confirms the Talmudic teaching.

Now ultimate means "final" or "last".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ultimate

Therefore you should have logically conceded that you have no further arguments against Judaism.

But no. You continue chattering away, rehashing all kinds of issues which have been discussed already.

I think we're getting into the troll category pretty deeply here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Sorry, but I'm deleting further comments.

natschuster said...

NC:

Do you consider Stephen Hawking an expert. In his latestt book, he says thatwith his new theory, he can explain the universe without coming on to G-d. That means without his theory, we do have to come on to G-d. The problem is that it is really hard to get an idea of what his theory is.

And it was scientists who first noticed the fact that the universe is exqusitely fine tuned to accomodate life.

Expert biologists say that the RNA first abiogenesis apporach won't work. They like metabolism first. But the RNA people, experts don't like meatbolsim first. I"m listening to the experts.


and the experts keep on getting the archaeology wrong.

Anonymous said...

"he says that with his new theory, he can explain the universe without coming on to G-d. That means without his theory, we do have to come on to G-d."

Incorrect. Without his theory we have to come to another theory. We do not have to come to God necessarily.

The theories of Hawking and others are testable. The theories of Judaism are not.

natschuster said...

Hawking didn't say anothere theory. He said G-d.

And if the theories of Judaism aren't testable, how come so many people e.g.you, say that they fail the test?

natschuster said...

Oh, and Hawkings new theory is basedon string theory, which many physicists find distastful because it is not testable.