Monday, May 21, 2012

How Many Hasidic Rebels Are There?

[what losers]

The ultra-Orthodox gathering concerning the Internet in New York City last night attracted 60,000 attendees. The New York Times reported "several opponents" of the rally gathered outside the stadium.

Of course this doesn't necessarily prove anything. The other Hasidic Rebels may just have been too drunk or stoned to make it.

185 comments:

Yedid Nefesh said...

I dont see why you'd call them losers. They have a point. This whole thing is ridiculous but if you want to talk about loser, maybe start by looking around at who is really missing the point here?

jewish philosopher said...

Reading blogs you might get the impression that the overwhelming majority of orthodox Jews are either drop outs, secret drop outs or just about to drop out. However the reality is a little bit different.

Anonymous said...

Not everybody there was OTD. It is ironic that you are standing up for an anti-Internet conference, seeing as how you love to use the internet to harass people both sexually and emotionally. Are you a proponent of this Asifa because you have problems with self-control?

Yedid Nefesh said...

being one of those, i know that. Im just wondering what is your point...

Dave said...

Protesting the internet is like protesting the existence of the sun.

Its a losing battle, they know it, otherwise they would not be so concerned.

No longer can they shield their followers from heretical ideas and the outside world.

jewish philosopher said...

"Not everybody there was OTD."

The counter-rally was made up mostly of former-Haredi.

http://nypress.com/what-happens-when-40000-orthodox-jewish-men-take-over-citi-field/

Ari Mandel, 29 years old, organized the counterprotest. He left the ultra-Orthodox community about six years ago, joined the Army and recently returned to civilian life.

http://www.vosizneias.com/106144/2012/05/11/new-york-wall-street-journal-report-stadium-seating-for-internet-morals-speakers-will-recommend-jews-to-block-social-media/

They're losers because for all the hot air they waste, desperately hoping to discredit the rabbis as perverts in the same way that Catholic priests were exposed in 2002, they really amount to nothing. They're a bunch of sex addicts and in general irresponsible, immature lowlifes.

jewish philosopher said...

"Its a losing battle, they know it, otherwise they would not be so concerned."

Keep dreaming. From the point of view of antisemites, Judaism has been "just about, almost" dead for 3,000 years.

Anonymous said...

Ari Mandel is married with a kid. His wife left OJ after him and they reunited. He has an interesting audio interview at “Life After Faith” – a website. Google it.

His frum cousin was molested and he put up a Facebook page to see if anyone was interested in a counter-protest. Something like four thousand people responded. Looks like many fewer showed up. Some wrote him they wanted to show support but did not feel they could show up because they would have trouble in the frum community.

Tuvia

jewish philosopher said...

"Ari Mandel is married with a kid. His wife left OJ after him and they reunited. He has an interesting audio interview at “Life After Faith” – a website. Google it."

I didn't listen to the interview, however I used to read his blog. He's the only guy I know of who I suspect left not for sex, but for a job. His best employment option seemed to be the military and in the US Army you can't be Sabbath observant.

"His frum cousin was molested"

And the perpetrator was convicted?

Anonymous said...

It’s actually a very good interview. He is (for a guy who came late to secular education) a very articulate guy, and honest about how hard it was for him to leave the community. He actually did not leave for a job – but he did leave after feeling that his questions about Torah were not being answered to his satisfaction.

The process of losing his religion was very hard on him. Leaving his wife and kid (both of whom he cared about then and is reunited with now) was actually easier than losing his religion. But it all sounds brutal on the interview.

The army came later. And he turned out to find the army pretty lame. He left that gladly too. He’s also repaired his relationship with his family.

You probably won’t listen, but – it’s a different story than you seem to believe.

Tuvia

jewish philosopher said...

Sometimes memoirs can be very creative.

http://deborah-feldman-exposed.blogspot.com/

I just recall my impression of Mandel from commenting back and forth with him a few years ago on his then anonymous blog. He made an impression of being a guy too unintelligent to find a decent job (even before the 2008 crisis) and therefore jumped out of Judaism and into the army. I didn't know who he was, but he made an impression on me as being the only guy I had met whose apostasy was not sex based but rather money based.

jewish philosopher said...

Just a couple of excerpts from this recent article:

Mandel attended the Nikelsburger yeshiva, but as a 13-year-old he was sent to a sleepaway yeshiva, Darchei Torah, which had a better academic reputation and more structure. He would spend a semester in Israel and learn Torah in the Borough Park section of Brooklyn.

I'm single, looking for adventure, I have to earn a living, want to go to college. Why not join the Army?

Most soldiers are promoted during their military service, but Mandel never achieved a rank beyond private because he was deemed overweight.

As he begins his studies at Hunter College, Mandel says he will continue to blog,

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/02/26/3091847/soldier-boychik-disenchanted-chasid-turns-to-the-military

So it kind of sounds like he did not do well in yeshiva, then joined the army because he couldn't get a civilian job and that was his real break with Judaism. In the army he was a screw up. Now he still has no job and is entering a fairly good but budget priced college. Let's see how that goes.

David said...

The internet is the best place, and the worst place, the largest place, and the smallest place. It contains some horrible things, and some beautiful things. For example, my friends and I learn Talmud and Hayad Hahazaka Online. This "ultra-Orthodox gathering concerning the Internet" - did it look to stop Jews from using the Internet completely or just be careful about which sites they visit?

Also, why does it matter why Jews left Judaism? whether it be for sex or for work?

jewish philosopher said...

“did it look to stop Jews from using the Internet completely or just be careful about which sites they visit?”

Honestly, I don’t know because I wasn’t there.

"Also, why does it matter why Jews left Judaism? whether it be for sex or for work?"

Why does it matter why the plane crashed? whether a bomb went off or the engine malfunctioned?

Basically, because learning the cause can help prevent recurrences of a tragedy.

Dave said...

JP-

So intelligence has something to to with religiousity or lack thereof? There are no bums or screw-ups in the Hassidic community?

Besides, Mandel was deprived of a secular education during his formative years, living around Hasidim, which easily explains why he is not the most articulate in English.

"Basically, because learning the cause can help prevent recurrences of a tragedy."

As though you can figure out the key to complex human behavior and motivations, and change them.

I don't think that Ari sees his liberation as a "tragedy"...

PinnyGold said...

Mr. JP:
Assuming ALL your premises are true and all those go OTD it's because of sex, and Ari did it for job and the reason matters because you want to avoid it in the future.
ASSUME the above is true.
Now, what are you doing to avoid the next OTD? Improve sexual activities in the frum world so no one needs a reason to leave? How about sex ed? Some sexual awareness? Sexuality education? Go for it.
Maybe you're doing something to improve the the working levels in the frum world? They need some Help in Israel with that. Maybe open some workshops? Maybe teach them some trades? Send them to college?
Go for it, dude! Practice what YOU preach.



P.S. I happen to disagree with every one of your premises, but I'm just trying to make a point.

Anonymous said...

The Gadol Hador Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner has delcared the internet Assur for everything including blogging.

As a true torah jew follower of the Gedolim will you follow his orders.

He made it his business to speak to the asifa from Israel at about 5am (Israel time) because it was so important.

jewish philosopher said...

"I don't think that Ari sees his liberation as a "tragedy"..."

He will when he ends up in hell forever, as I demonstrate here.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/01/why-weshould-beorthodox.html

"Now, what are you doing to avoid the next OTD?"

We cannot eliminate people's free will and make choices for them. However I have got a plan to minimize these tragedies.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/11/atheism-guide-to-prevention.html

Ari Mandel said...

I was an Atheist before I left Monsey, well before joining the army ever crossed my mind. I was making a good living before I left, and gave it up because I lo longer believed in the fairy tale. Leaving the community I grew up in was excruciating, and no amount of money would've made it worthwhile. It wasn't about the money.
Three Yeshivas over the span of six years is by no means a stretch, I was a good student, and was never thrown out of Yeshiva.
For the most part, the Forward got my story right, but she spoke to someone who knew me three years before I got out of the Army, and what he didn't know is that I eventually was promoted, was very successful in my time there, and was begged not to leave. In fact I get phone calls and emails every day from army career counselors begging me to re-enlist. If I hadn't been promoted, I would've been thrown out, according to army regulations, if you don't get promoted, after a certain point you get kicked out, same goes for weight, if you're overweight for too long, they throw you out. I served my time, and got out with an honorable discharge. I left because I disagreed with the current wars we are fighting.
The only reason I chose Hunter is because of timing. I got out in November, and CUNY was the only place I could enroll in that late. I've applied to more prestigious schools for next year, and I'm fairly confident I will be accepted. I have the GI Bill, which means tuition is not an issue. As for my current job, I work for the federal government, I enjoy my job, and I'm well compensated.
And finally, "when he ends up in hell forever", I guess none of us will ever know that for a fact.

Dave said...

"He will when he ends up in hell forever, as I demonstrate here."

That's very laughable, JP. You show not even an inkling of understanding of human nature and what motivates people.

Your "plan", besides being unworkable in an open society, would do nothing to prevent departure from the frum community. Don't you think all of this has been tried?

PinnyGold said...

First you said:
"Basically, because learning the cause can help prevent recurrences of a tragedy."
Then you said:
"We cannot eliminate people's free will and make choices for them. However I have got a plan to minimize these tragedies."

So which is it?
In other words, are you admitting that you DON'T have a way of preventing it even after you know the cause?

jewish philosopher said...

" I lo longer believed in the fairy tale"

How do you know it's a fairy tale?

Actually, I've proven that evolution is a fairy tale.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/02/not-by-chance.html

"You show not even an inkling of understanding of human nature and what motivates people. "

Enlighten me.

"Don't you think all of this has been tried? "

Sure. And it works. Which is why you saw about 1,000 times more ultra-orthodox than anti- orthodox at Citi Field. But we can always do a little better.

"In other words, are you admitting that you DON'T have a way of preventing it even after you know the cause? "

The FAA will not prevent all plane crashes, however they try to reduce them.

jewish philosopher said...

"As a true torah jew follower of the Gedolim will you follow his orders."

So how are you reading this?

PinnyGold said...

So you went from "preventing" to "minimizing" to "reducing".
Yet, you haven't answered the question I posed to you: "How?"

Ari Mandel said...

I'm not gonna debate evolution with you Jacob, if you think you know better than 99% of all scientists, then good for you.

jewish philosopher said...

"So you went from "preventing" to "minimizing" to "reducing"."

I think I wrote "help prevent recurrences".

"I'm not gonna debate evolution with you Jacob"

Of course not. Because you don't care about truth, you care about $$$$.

PinnyGold said...

Jacob, you have no proof that the anonymous commenter (As a true torah jew follower of the Gedolim will you follow his orders?*) is a religious Jew and claims to follow Orthodox rabbis. For all you know, he could be a Noahide.
Either way, deflecting the question back without responding does not constitute an answer. In other words, you talk so much about Jews listening to the Torah, yet you don't do the same.
Again, practice what you preach!

Anonymous said...

I am not a not a true torah jew.

But a True Torah jew as yourself was REQUIRED to be at the Asifa. The Gedolim said so, did you not read the fliers

Yet you were not there and you do not heed the words of the Skullner Rav who called the internet the Chochma of Behamoth .

Rav Epharim Wachsman said anyone who uses the internet shall be excommunicated from the community

And I forgot which Gadol said the Internet is the tumah of Mitzraim

Do you Belive in these Gadolim?

Will you heed their words?

PinnyGold said...

"I think I wrote "help prevent recurrences"."

You STILL didn't answer my question.

Are you evading it?

jewish philosopher said...

"Do you Belive in these Gadolim?
Will you heed their words?"

I will when you do. 

"You STILL didn't answer my question."

I can't help someone who is learning disabled.

PinnyGold said...

"I will when you do. "
Why don't you use that excuse for the rest of the mitzvos you have taken upon yourself when you converted?
You talk so much about saving people from Hell that will for sure come upon them, not listening to the Gedolim isn't punishable by Hell?
You have proven yourself to by a hypocrite. At least I'm consistent with my beliefs, whether they're true or not.

"I can't help someone who is learning disabled."

Dude, I didn't ask for help. I asked you to show YOU that you're a hypocrite, contradicting yourself constantly and wouldn't put the money where your mouth is.

Once again, practice what you preach!

jewish philosopher said...

I'm sure that we are all aware that there are dozens of very Orthodox websites on the Internet. So this little joke about "How can you use the Internet! The Torah prohibits it!" is a little bit stale.

Yes, drop outs, I know my blogging is really a buzz kill. Too bad! Lol!

OTD chick said...

First off, Jewish Philosopher, you're an idiot that you think most people go off for sex. There's tons of Jews out there faking Orthodoxy and sleeping around. No one has to leave for that. Since you care WHY people go off... I can tell you that some of us became BT only to find that we were treating like garbage. The comments made to us during shidduchim... we'd be fools to stick around to continue being abused.

Also, "too bad" does little to support your previous comments. As Pinny said, either one thing or another.. if it's both and "too bad," well it seems that you have lost this argument. I'm sure not sold on your side.

People can be on top and leave. I think you need to realize that frum life is stifling and people arent interested. FYI, I've met a lot of OTDs and they are wicked smart. FFBs, on the other hand, are nasty and make stupid comments.

Dave said...

With Ari's last comment he demonstrated that he is a far wiser than you are. In fact he is wiser than must of us skeptics, too, since we keep getting sucked in to debating your dumb pseudoscientific arguments and quote mining.

He simply dismisses you for what you are: a crackpot promoting crackpot ideas.

jewish philosopher said...

"I can tell you that some of us became BT only to find that we were treating like garbage."

Going to hell forever isn't going to be a picnic.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/04/someones-going-to-pay.html

"since we keep getting sucked in to debating your dumb pseudoscientific arguments and quote mining"

Debates you can't win because you're wrong.

How is this different than Jews who will argue "Real Jews don't have any questions. We don't waste time with such nonsense. We trust the Rabbis. Do you think some lowlife, gentile professor is smarter than the Brisker Rov, the Chazon Ish, the Gaon of Vilna, Maimonides?"

So the drop out Jew just substitutes his blind faith in the rabbis for blind faith in the scientists, blocks any Orthodox Jewish comments from his blog, hides in his exclusive drop out Facebook group, makes fun of anyone disagreeing with him and is happy that he's right and everyone else is wrong.

PinnyGold said...

"Do you think some lowlife, gentile professor is smarter than the Brisker Rov, the Chazon Ish, the Gaon of Vilna, Maimonides?"
I would love to answer that question, but before that, what do you suggest should be the objective measure of figuring it out?

If you want to dismiss OTDers as "dropouts," well, so be it. Oh, and you also consider "atheism" as a religion.
Then how about we dismiss you as an "atheist lowlife dropout who couldn't find anything better than fall for orthodox Judaism.... Poor man, he got Hell on this world"
Are we even now?

And for the record, I never bought anything from a single scientist just because they said so. I accept what scientists say because THEY EXPLAIN how they reach those conclusions and when you go into a lab you get the same results.
Rabbis' conclusions are just that, conclusions, without rational explanations, can't be duplicated, can't be tested, or those that can be tested have been tested and found to be false.
Should I quote:

גזירה היא מלפני ואין לך רשות להרהר אחריה.
הלכה למשה מסיני
The 13 ani-maamins have no objective reasoning behind them.
Testimony without criticism (Mount Sinai), something that any בית דין would do to interrogate witnesses, if you know what דרישה וחקירה are all about.

Here is the real difference between science and theology:
In science it goes: "here are the facts, what can we conclude from it?"
In theology it goes: "here are the conclusions, what facts can support it?"
And you have been demonstrating all along how beautifully you do the latter.

BUSTED!!!!!

PinnyGold said...

And for heaven's sake, social groups are there for a reason, to socialize.
Those who want to engage in argument have the right place to do so. Such as arguing with you here and showing the world how unreasonable, fallacious, irrational your arguments are. And we, OTD, are the ones who actually KNOW that you lie and are in denial. Wake up, the truth is not where you are, get over it....

BTW, you want cock?

jewish philosopher said...

"I accept what scientists say because THEY EXPLAIN how they reach those conclusions and when you go into a lab you get the same results."

Explain it to me.

"showing the world how unreasonable, fallacious, irrational your arguments are."

Show me.

PinnyGold said...

"Explain it to me."

I will. Which part would you like to start with?

"Show me."

Look above and read the comments.

I just did once again.

jewish philosopher said...

"I will. Which part would you like to start with?"

Anywhere is fine.

"Look above and read the comments."

You mean:

"The 13 ani-maamins have no objective reasoning behind them."

What about this:

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/01/why-weshould-beorthodox.html

Click on that. Then click on the links in that post. Click on the links in following posts. Keep going. Looks like plenty of reasoning to me.

PinnyGold said...

WOW! What a surprise!
The first line starts with a false, unfounded premise:
"Believing, observant Jews are going to eternal paradise according to the Talmud"

How did you establish there exists a thing eternity?
How did you establish there exists something called paradise?
How did you establish there is a thing called "eternal paradise"?

The fact that some 2000 year old book wrote it? How did they know it? Can I reach the same conclusion?
Was it done in a lab? An experiment? A hypothesis? Evidence? Anything?


I PROMISE YOU RIGHT NOW THAT I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE WITH YOU UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS DIRECTLY!!!!

jewish philosopher said...

Click on the links in that post. Click on the links in following posts. Keep going.

That's why it's called the World Wide Web. Articles are linked to other articles which link to other articles. Like a sort of web. Cool, right?

PinnyGold said...

I did not find ONE answer to ANY of those questions I just posed to you!


Waiting to get an answer.

jewish philosopher said...

I demonstrate the truth of the Torah and fallacy of the anti-Torah arguments. Once we've established that, then we know about God, the soul, the afterlife, etc. It's all in the Bible and Talmud.

I'm not going to rewrite it all here. I wrote it once. Then you click on the links. Remember: WWW, like a web.

PinnyGold said...

I clicked on all the links and not ONE of them answered ONE of the questions I just posed to you.

Admit it! You don't have an answer!

There is none!

Eternity, spirituality, god, paradise, hell, heaven, etc. are all unfounded inventions!
Unfounded!

jewish philosopher said...

Which of my statements do you find erroneous and why?

PinnyGold said...

"Which of my statements do you find erroneous and why?"

HERE:

The first line starts with a false, unfounded premise:
"Believing, observant Jews are going to eternal paradise according to the Talmud"

How did you establish there exists a thing eternity?
How did you establish there exists something called paradise?
How did you establish there is a thing called "eternal paradise"?

The fact that some 2000 year old book wrote it? How did they know it? Can I reach the same conclusion?
Was it done in a lab? An experiment? A hypothesis? Evidence? Anything?

Start by answering ANY of the above questions and we'll take it from there...

jewish philosopher said...

"The first line starts with a false, unfounded premise"

That's the conclusion not the premise.

Far from false, it's actually unquestionably accurate.

I demonstrate the truth of the Torah and fallacy of the anti-Torah arguments. Once we've established that, then we know about God, the soul, the afterlife, etc which are all in the Bible and Talmud.

Just click on this:

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/01/why-weshould-beorthodox.html

Then click on the links in that post. Click on the links in following posts.

I'm not going to rewrite it all here. I wrote it once. Remember: WWW, like a web.

If you have any specific questions or find any specific errors, go ahead and let me know.

natschuster said...

PinnyGold:

Actually, the scientists have not explained how the universe started. That is still a mystery. The best explanantion for the apparent fine tuning of the universe to accomodate life is the multiverse theory. But that really isn't an explanation, it just gets around the problem of impropabilities by pushing the question back one step. The origin of life is still a mystery. And there are lots of other things science can't explain, like why closely related species have different DNA, all those missing transitional fossils, the origin of the mind, human morality, etc, etc, etc. What toy really should be dong is reading the actual scientific literature, not the stuff they publish for public consumption and the stuff they put in high school textbooks. Oh, and watch out for all the scientific fraud out there, too.

Dave said...

JP,

Before you go ahead and block PinnyGold's comments, consider redirecting the discussion to that of the post--Hassidic Jew's fear of the internet.

Getting into one of your endless loop debates about the "truth" of the Torah, or evolution is pointless.

Let's discuss why the Haredim are so afraid of the internet.

jewish philosopher said...

"Before you go ahead and block PinnyGold's comments"

I honestly wish he would say something which made sense.

Imagine that someone were on trial for murder. The prosecution spends days carefully presenting testimony, forensic evidence and circumstantial evidence demonstrating the defendant's guilt. The defense attorney then simply faces the jury and states:

"How do they know my client is guilty? Can I reach the same conclusion? Was it done in a lab? An experiment? A hypothesis? Evidence? Anything? Admit it! They don't have an answer! There is none! My client's guilt is all an unfounded invention! Unfounded!"

I don't think even a pretty white girl like Casey Anthony would get an acquittal with a "there is no evidence exclamation point case closed" defense.

"Let's discuss why the Haredim are so afraid of the internet."

Porn is causing people, especially young men, to convert to atheism as I explain here.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/07/jewish-skeptics-and-sex.html

Theoretically, if the government were to remove all porn from the Internet in same way it removes child pornography, I don't think you'd see much fuss being made over the Internet. Some people would use it, some people wouldn't, as is the case with public libraries. The Internet is basically just your local public library on your desktop, PLUS PORN.

Besides "prudish" monotheists, even real live secularists are worrying about Internet porn. Society is already a mess, all we need is one more addiction.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201107/porn-induced-sexual-dysfunction-is-growing-problem

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/27/family.internet

Dave said...

I think we could use an internet without porn, too. The problem is where does the filtering/censoring end? Since the internet is world-wide, cooperation of governments around the world would be necessary. Then you get into the question as to exactly which material is objectionable. Is an R-rated movie "porn"? How about a legitimate sex therapy site? Once government beaurocracies start censoring, it can turn into a very problematic thing. Plus, the sheer task of enforcement would be staggering.

I think that another internet threat to the Heredi community is "heretical" information. Somebody grows up thinking one thing, then suddenly he finds out on the internet that it isn't so. (No intention to get into a theological debate here) They found out about other "apostates", both non-Jewish and Jewish, who asked questions, then jettisoned their most cherished beliefs. They can learn about other religions, archeology, etc.

HCS said...

Porn is not the only reason the rabbis are trying to ban the internet. Another reason is that ignorance means blind faith. That is the reason the Catholic Church made a banned books list. However, what makes the Catholic Church different from these rabbis is, that the Catholic Church realized by 1966 that they lost the fight to control people's knowledge and stopped banning books. The reason that they want us to be ignorant is because they do not want us to believe that Jews are regular people as well. They claim that news sites are Lashon Hara. They are in denial that Jews, like gentiles, can be crooks, rapist, and molesters, and yes even murderers!

Here are a few VIN articles to show how many Jews react towards frum people being accused, by that I mean, look at the comments. Oh, I would suggest that you look at the comments by the Martin Grossman article since that was the most egregious of all, my high school had us pray for the guy. And the article of when Balkany was sentenced censored comments and was plagiarized, I know because I was censored. By Martin Rubashkin, Balkany, Grossman and Kolko, the Jewish community rallied behind them. So yes, while the criminals are rallied behind, what happens to the victim?

1-Balkany http://www.vosizneias.com/76637/2011/02/18/new-york-noted-brooklyn-educator-sentenced-to-four-years-in-prison-zev-brenner-sad-day/

2-Balkany
http://www.vosizneias.com/49718/2010/02/18/borough-park-ny-rabbi-balkany-accusation-of-extorting-charitable-donations/

3-Rubashkin
http://www.vosizneias.com/58388/2010/06/21/postville-ia-rubashkin-sentenced-27-years/

4- Martin Grossman
http://www.vosizneias.com/49520/2010/02/16/florida-jewish-inmate-martin-grossman-excuted/

5-Kolko
http://www.vosizneias.com/15192/2008/04/14/flatbush-ny-rabbi-kolko-pleads-guilty/#comments


If a person wants porn they can go to a convenience store and buy Playboy, and I have heard plenty of stories of Hasidic men: going to prostitutes and porn shops and that is without the internet. Also I have seen quite a few Hasidic people in the 5th Avenue Apple Store, so ha nice try Rabbis! I doubt that the rabbis will send spies because it could tempt the spies to use the internet as well.

ksil said...

nat, you are right. and there is nothing wrong with not having every answer to every question. there will always be theories, some with more evidence than others, and over time they may have a pretty good theory on the origin of life. i am sure when we do come up with an answer or theory based on facts and evidence, you will apologize your way out of that too - just like guys like slifkin do with evolution and other scientific facts.

even so, even if you are granted that some God made us billions of years ago, they rest of it is so absurd, to accept it is literally embarrassing. the bible stories, this God writing a book and giving it to some nomads in the desert, keeping 99% of the earth in the dark about it - its just bizare, ancient irrelevant BS

PinnyGold said...

"That's the conclusion not the premise."
Then, again, HOW did you reach that conclusion?
I looked all over, clicked on all the links and didn't find ONE answer to this.
Answer that and we can move on.
Saying "since everything Book X says is true and it also says that there is an afterlife" is a fallacy.

"I honestly wish he would say something which made sense."
I just asked a few questions and all you did is send me to places where you claim countless unfounded facts, premises, and conclusions. Once again, answer one of the questions and we'll move on.

""How do they know my client is guilty? Can I reach the same conclusion? Was it done in a lab? An experiment? A hypothesis? Evidence? Anything? Admit it! They don't have an answer! There is none! My client's guilt is all an unfounded invention! Unfounded!"

I don't think even a pretty white girl like Casey Anthony would get an acquittal with a "there is no evidence exclamation point case closed" defense."

Funny that you mention that recent case. The prosecution did bring in lab workers who actually explained what they did and how they did it. Apparently, that wasn't enough because the jury wasn't convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she actually killed her.
And if you really want to go into details you will find that even in that case that's pretty much what the defense's argument actually was: the prosecution didn't have evidence "that she did it". They had plenty of evidence, plenty of lab work that proved various things, but not that.

I'm not using a "there is no evidence exclamation point case closed" defense."
I mean, if you had such a lousy prosecution like you I would probably end up with an easy acquittal.
What I do expect is:
Defense: "there is no evidence"
Prosecution: "here is the evidence"
Defense: "How do you know my client is guilty"
Prosecution: "Here is how I know my client is guilty"
Defense: "Was it done in a lab?"
Prosecution: "Yes, it was, and here are all the facts, evidence, data. If it's duplicated in a lab you will find the same results as we did"

That's what you call a strong prosecution.
However, if you indeed don't answer those questions, evade them and send me to countless links that don't include an answer to any of my question, the defense will indeed get an acquittal.
I'm using a "there is no evidence and the prosecution hasn't provided us with none therefore we ask the court to close the case" argument and then you see the prosecution just sit there and do nothing, what do you think the judge would do in such a case?
What Casey's jury did after less than 11 hours of deliberation.


natschuster:
"the scientists have not explained how the universe started. That is still a mystery. The best explanantion for the apparent fine tuning of the universe to accomodate life is the multiverse theory."

First, I did not say that they have explained EVERYTHING. But what they do explain is done via d9emonstration of proof, evidence, facts, etc.
Not just "since everything it says in this book is true and it says that dinosaurs existed therefore dinosaurs existed."
Second, the fact that you know all that demonstrates my argument. They tell you WHY and HOW they reach those hypotheses so you can see if they contradict known facts or logic.
Third, the fact that scientists don't know doesn't mean that someone who claims to know does know.

PINNYG2 said...

"Theoretically, if the government were to remove all porn from the Internet in same way it removes child pornography, I don't think you'd see much fuss being made over the Internet. Some people would use it, some people wouldn't, as is the case with public libraries. The Internet is basically just your local public library on your desktop, PLUS PORN."

Wanna see how easy I can disprove what you just said? Watch.

Fact: libraries have public computers. Fact, people use those internet to surf the web.
Your theory about the relationship of internet use and porn has just been debunked.

Next, millions of people use the internet to access Facebook. Facebook is not a library nor porn.
Millions of people use the internet to access Twitter. Twitter is not a library nor porn.
Millions of people use the internet to access Youtube. Youtube is not a library nor porn. (I will admit that there are "some" pornographic videos, which are removed once reported but that's such a small percentage. Look at the millions and millions of views that many, many, clips have - they might be silly, stupid, cheap, etc. but it's definitely not porn).
Millions of people use the internet to access Google. Google is not a library nor porn.
Millions of people use the internet to access News websites. News websites are not a library nor porn.
Millions of people use the internet to access blogs (including this foolish one). Blogs are not a library nor porn.

BUSTED2
(I'm the same commenter known as Pinny Gold but this is my way of keeping my promise of staying on topic with you)

jewish philosopher said...

"The problem is where does the filtering/censoring end?"

Theoretically, you could just do the same thing with all pornography what is being done now with child pornography. I've never tried, nor do I intend to because being in prison doesn't appeal to me, however I think it's pretty difficult to access child porn on the web.

"I think that another internet threat to the Heredi community is "heretical" information. "

That's no different than any public library. 

"They can learn about other religions, archeology, etc. "

To pass the New York State 9th grade history regents,  you have to study all religions.

"So yes, while the criminals are rallied behind, what happens to the victim?"

Regarding Kolko, it seems to be questionable if there was a victim. Regarding the other examples, I think it's fairly common for a convicted criminal to have people ask for leniency in sentencing on his behalf.  In the Grossman execution, apparently even the Vatican put in a good word.

"If a person wants porn they can go to a convenience store and buy Playboy"

High speed home Internet access has been common since about 2002, and since then porn addiction has become far more common

http://www.askmen.com/dating/love_tip_400/404_love_tip.html

And, JUST BY COINCIDENCE in that same time frame we find a wave of Orthodox drop outs flourishing like mushrooms.

"I just asked a few questions and all you did is send me to places where you claim countless unfounded facts, premises, and conclusions. "

Such as?

"Facebook is not a library nor porn."

That's why I said "basically".

HCS said...

These people were, not asking for leniency they were (wrongly) blaming anti-Semitism on these people's accusations, convictions, and sentences. Not only were they doing that they also called these people tzadikim and rallied on their behalf. In high school my teacher told me not to believe what they said about Rubashkin because he was a tzadik. Also many people blamed Grossman's execution on anti-Semitism. I sense a pattern. Also look at the Jersey Sting in Deal, New Jersey the list goes on, and on. Point is that while the internet does have porn, they don't want their followers to have internet for other reasons as well. Including their fellow Jews making a chilul Hashem, to put it in their terms.

PS. While Balkany was given leniency in his sentencing by the judge, many people were STILL unhappy with the sentence.

jewish philosopher said...

And when a black is convicted how many blacks will say it's racism.

Anyway, without Internet, all this crime stuff would be in the papers.

HCS said...

That is why secular newspapers are banned, because of their Sunday porn section, seriously? Is it because the internet might give a person access to information that is not approved by the Gedolim? So, yes while the Gedolim try unsuccessfully to control the information we get, they also try to control what goes on inside out own homes.So Mr. JP quit saying that porn is the problem. It is also the fact that it is easy to interact with the outside world if people have the internet!

PinnyGold said...

"I just asked a few questions and all you did is send me to places where you claim countless unfounded facts, premises, and conclusions. "

Such as?

"Believing, observant Jews are going to eternal paradise according to the Talmud"
Your false, unfounded premise is that there exist eternity, paradise, and eternal paradise. So long as you don't prove that, your wrong.

jewish philosopher said...

"That is why secular newspapers are banned, because of their Sunday porn section, seriously?"

I didn't hear newspapers are banned. Source please.

" So long as you don't prove that, your wrong. "

Click here:

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/01/why-weshould-beorthodox.html

Start reading where it says: "The evidence supporting this"

PINNYG2 said...

"That's why I said "basically"."

WOW! Such a genius. You have been proven wrong and you can't admit it.

How about this: "the internet is for communication, entertainment, your local library, your local market, your phone, your movie theater, your concert, your social networking, your university, your office, your mall, your information guide, your global map, your classroom, PLUS PORN"
Does that sound a bit more accurate? Because that's closer to the truth.

"To pass the New York State 9th grade history regents, you have to study all religions."
Is that the reason so many religious schools don't pass the regents even though it's the law?
Is that the reason that the schools who do teach these things censor out words and pages?
BUSTED!3

jewish philosopher said...

"How about this: "the internet is for communication"

You can borrow DVDs and CDs at a library too. You can even give or listen to lectures, study with people and make friends. 

So I think I'll stick with "basically" - plus porn. That libraries haven't got.

PinnyGold said...

"Start reading where it says: "The evidence supporting this""
"The evidence supporting this is clear beyond any reasonable doubt.
The Torah is validated by nature and history
by the descending levels of Jewish literature
by the wisdom of the Torah
by the honesty of the Torah
and by the Holocaust."

Here is my premise:
"If a book (or any piece of literature) includes 1000 true facts, one of which is false, the false fact doesn't become true just because it is included in it."

Do you agree with this premise?

PINNYG2 said...

I didn't hear newspapers are banned. Source please.

Here:

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/maamar.asp?id=124

BUSTED4

PinnyGold said...

"How about this: "the internet is for communication"

You can borrow DVDs and CDs at a library too. You can even give or listen to lectures, study with people and make friends.

So I think I'll stick with "basically" - plus porn. That libraries haven't got."

You can't communicate instantly with the world in the library, you can't network with an entire country in the library, you can listen to a very limited number of lectures in the library. Show me a library that offers an amount lectures anywhere close to what TED has. Show me a library that you can listen to lectures 24/7.
You can borrow a very limited number of books, DVDs, and CDs in any given library but on the internet that number is virtually endless.
You can't buy books from around the world in your library.
You can't share documents, business reports, etc. etc. in your local library. Of course you can actually mail it, drive there, etc. but online it's done instantly and from your home.
You can't take college courses in your library. Online you can be anywhere in the world, travel, etc. and be registered in any college you want (the many who have online programs), learn a trade. That's not something you can do in your local public library.
You can "make friends" in your library. True. But is that anywhere near the accessibility and abundance you have on the web?
Give me a break.

Seriously, YOU wouldn't have had audience if the internet were used just as a library PLUS PORN.
The only reason you have this audience, the only reason so many people know that you're a fool is because of the internet.
If not the internet you'd surely gotten bored. Don't you think so?

ksil said...

why is porn bad? objectively....dont give me BS about some ancient book that you believe is from some magic man in the sky....

jewish philosopher said...

"one of which is false"

How do you know it's false?

"Here"

I think that's basically secular Israeli newspapers, which even when I lived in Israel included some full frontal nude photos. I haven't seen any big anti-newspaper rallies.

"You can't communicate instantly with the world in the library"

I think you're getting a little carried away. The library's actually pretty awesome. Check in sometime instead of sitting in your mom's basement.

"why is porn bad? "

Why don't you google that? I'm not your answer desk.

ksil said...

you think its bad for people to look at porn. i am wondering why you think that. you bring it up all the time. you use the word porn, when no one else is using it. you are obssessed with it. why do you think its bad?

jewish philosopher said...

You specified a secular reason why porn is bad, not as you obnoxiously put it "some magic BS"

By the way, if you want magic BS, read Darwin. Worms became people. The Nordic race will exterminate the primitive blacks.

ROTFLMAO!!!

natschuster said...

Pinnygold:

If you actually read what scientists write about origins and evolution and such, you will see that much of the evidence is based on theology or metaphysics, not the actual evidence. They things like saying, "G-d did it" is cheating. or they say that G-d wouldn;t do things that way, etc. It isn't about the evidence.

natschuster said...

It isn't only porn that is bad. Many people get caught up in social media, and forget they have real people in their lives.

Ksil:

Do you think that children should have access to porn? A clever pre-teen can find ways around filters and such. Isn't that a bad thing, objectively speaking?

Dave said...

Newspapers and libraries are not as threatening as the Internet, which is interactive, and can be accessed anywhere and privately.

But I agree that someone who is determined to access heretical materials or porn can get to it other ways, too. As they did before the Internet.

PinnyGold said...

natschuster:

"If you actually read what scientists write about origins and evolution and such, you will see that much of the evidence is based on theology or metaphysics, not the actual evidence. They things like saying, "G-d did it" is cheating. or they say that G-d wouldn;t do things that way, etc. It isn't about the evidence."

I read "The Blind Watchmaker" and didn't see any reference to theology or metaphysics, would you please enlighten me what's wrong with that book then?

Also, can you please explain what you meant by "They* things like saying, "G-d did it" is cheating."

jewish philosopher said...

If you would walked into a library and take a volume of Darwin or Wellhausen no one would notice.

The fact is, "heretical ideas" are really tough to find on the Internet, beyond what you'd see in any encyclopedia at the library. Reading anti-orthodox blogs for years, basically I keep seeing a few things: the Torah is politically incorrect by contemporary western standards (so?), there is no reason to believe in it (there sure is), I don't like orthodox people (although I'm probably still living with them).

It was after blogging for about two years that it began dawning on how totally irrational these people are. Their answer for everything is "lol".

PINNYG2 said...

"a volume of Darwin or Wellhausen"
Dude, forget about Darwin or Wellhausen, let's see what happens when a frum person goes into the library and takes out fiction, prose, or any non-Jewish non-fiction.
Let me tell you a secret, in the frum world you're surrounded with people who know what you read. Show me a frum person who would approve of their child/spouse reading non-Jewish literature of ANY kind, let alone Darwin/evolution/science.
For heaven's sake, your blog would probably be banned by most frum filters...

jewish philosopher said...

About Dawkins, I refute that.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

PinnyGold said...

Reminder:
I'm still waiting to hear an answer as to whether you agree with my premise:

"If a book (or any piece of literature) includes 1000 true facts, one of which is false, the false fact doesn't become true just because it is included in it."

jewish philosopher said...

"Dude, forget about Darwin or Wellhausen,"

You see what I am trying to explain is that clearly the main issue orthodox rabbis (and actually a lot of people) have with the Internet is porn.

My proof to that is that from a religious point of view there is almost no difference between the information in the local public library and the information on the Internet. In fact, the library is probably a much better source of information for a serious student. And if anyone cares to visit the library closest to Monsey, the Finkelstein Library,

http://www.finkelsteinlibrary.org/

he will find it packed with Orthodox visitors. (Ironically, as I'm writing this my wife and daughter just went to the library.) I think even a couple of the staff are Orthodox. Yet there has never been any giant gathering organized about libraries. Of course many rabbis believe that ideally Jews should read only books authored by Orthodox Jews, however there hasn't been any great hysteria about this.

The reason why the Internet is different is because of pornography.

Apparently around 10% of Internet use is porn.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/julieruvolo/2011/09/07/how-much-of-the-internet-is-actually-for-porn/

If we consider only adult males it's probably 20%.

So if your husband or teenage son is on the Internet two hours a day and maybe 30 minutes of that is sex videos, that is considered to be a major emergency in Orthodox Judaism.

"I'm still waiting to hear an answer as to whether you agree with my premise:"

You see the problem is that apparently you heard someone like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens say "There is no reason to believe in God." and this idea is stuck in your head because you love it so much. I don't think anything is going to get past that fixed idea and I can't waste more time on you.

natschuster said...

Quote PinneyGold:

"I read "The Blind Watchmaker" and didn't see any reference to theology or metaphysics, would you please enlighten me what's wrong with that book then?"

If my memory serves correctly, "The Blind Watchmaker" is primarily an explanation for how evolution could have happened, not evidence that it did happen.

The evidence that Darwin used was things like biogeography, the nested hierarchy, vestigal structures , etc. The arguments are primarily that G-d didn't have to do it that way. The direct evidence that evolution actually happened pretty much wasn't there, and it still isn't.

ksil said...

nat, i happen to think its perfectly normal and natural for a curious pre teen to take a peek at his father's playboy stash. but it does not matter what i think.

i asked a question, and i am still waiting for an answer.

jewish philosopher said...

Here is my premise:
"If a book (or any piece of literature) includes 1000 true facts, one of which is false, the false fact doesn't become true just because it is included in it."

Do you agree with this premise?

I do, however I think that you have to have some very solid evidence to support that.  For example, if I buy a car and the manual  says you have to change the oil every 3,000 miles it would be pretty foolish to decide that although I agree that this book was written by experts, however I don't feel like bothering with oil changes so I'm just not going to do them. After a year you probably will no longer have a drivable car.

ksil said...

amateurs seriously debating a scietific theory that is accepted by 99% of the scietific community?

priceless. (And worthless)

you want to believe in made up shit, go right ahead. but to annoy, prod and poke those that have used their reason and rational thought to come to the same conclusion as the majority of the modern world is bazarre.

you guys are like the flat-earthers....still yelling and screaming that the earth is flat. have fun with that! LOL

jewish philosopher said...

Let me try to explain it to you like this.

Let's say your child was crippled and could not walk. You bring him to a doctor and the doctor recommends a new miracle drug. He claims this medication will gradually bring about significant motor improvements and he adds that all pediatric neurologists are endorsing it. You go home and start researching. You discover that while it is true that most pediatric neurologists approve of the drug, others have done careful long term studies and determined that the drug is useless and may even be fatal. There are rumors that doctors are being paid handsome commissions for prescribing it. 

When you ask your doctor his opinion about these articles, he tells you to either trust him or find a new doctor.

What would you do? 99% of doctors approve, but none can or will answer your questions. Would you give it to your kid?

That's how I feel about teaching my kids evolution.

natschuster said...

Ksil:

Okay, how about these?

1. Feminists have claimed that pornography objectifies women.

2. Lots of men wnat to believe that all women wnat ot have sex with them all the time. They behave accordingly. That's why we have sexual harrassment in the workplace, date rape, etc. ("she really wanted it."). I do believe that pornography encourages this mind set in some people.

3. Women get jealous when their husbands or boyfriends get involved with porn.

Dave said...

"What would you do? 99% of doctors approve, but none can or will answer your questions."

While the doctor owes you an answer, it may very well be that you are not qualified to understand the medical literature and put it in perspective with a professional critical eye. The scenario you describe is totally absurd, anyway. I can't imagine a situation where 99% of doctors agree on a certain issue, while the literature, PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, would say the opposite.

This really gets down to the question, why do we need highly trained experts in any field? If every Jo Schmo such as yourself, could just do an internet search, and read, understand, and exercise judgement himself, why bother training people?

A doctor goes through at least 14 years of college and training to get his license, it makes little sense to say that all of that is unnecessary, and that all you need is google to decide for yourself.

BTW I think that this is true for Jewish Law, too. People who practice halacha based on books or internet searches are fools. A trained and experienced rabbi, on the other hand, has the breadth of knowledge, perspective and experience to give a more appropriate ruling.

Anonymous said...

Let's say your child was crippled and could not walk. You bring him to a doctor and the doctor recommends a new miracle drug. He claims this medication will gradually bring about significant motor improvements and he adds that all pediatric neurologists are endorsing it. You go home and start researching. You discover that while it is true that most pediatric neurologists approve of the drug, others have done careful long term studies and determined that the drug is useless and may even be fatal. There are rumors that doctors are being paid handsome commissions for prescribing it.

I would like to consult someone who has first hand experience with that stuff and has tried it h**self.

If the results are positive, I would ask my child. If s/he would like to try it, I'd give it a go.

After all, being a cripple is a social dead end anyway. No chances for a family or decent sex life. There is very little to lose for trying. The situation cannot get any worse.

jewish philosopher said...

"I can't imagine a situation where 99% of doctors agree on a certain issue, while the literature, PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, would say the opposite."

I think you may be a little naive. Why do you think that doctors or scientists are any more honest than businessmen or politicians? Just to pick a random example, varicoceletomies were a very popular treatment for low sperm counts about 30 years ago. Today we know that they were mainly "treating" the bank account balances of urologists.

http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/1/70.full.pdf

"that all you need is google to decide for yourself"

Like Ronald Reagan used to say "Trust but verify".

PinnyGold said...

(Funny that you finally responded to my question even after not posting them - if I'm not mistaken, you haven't published 3 of my comments so far)

"Do you agree with this premise?
I do"
Therefore, sir, the fact that "The Torah is validated by nature and history, by the descending levels of Jewish literature, by the wisdom of the Torah, by the honesty of the Torah and by the Holocaust." does not mean that "Believing, observant Jews are going to eternal paradise according to the Talmud".
And that is if one were to assume that the things you said are true. Because in order for me to refute that I will need to either find ONE thing in which the Torah doesn't show wisdom, ONE thing in which the Torah says something that turns out to be false, OR ONE thing that nature INVALIDATES the Torah and your entire argument is DEBUNKED!
"however I think that you have to have some very solid evidence to support that. "
To support what?

Now, you did add some interesting explanation to your "I do". You added an example of a car manual example.
First of all, it's a very poor analogy, because the fact that "you will no longer have a drivable car" is not because the book says so but because you can actually try it and see it for yourself. Second, that has nothing to do with your argument. Your argument says "because A, B and C are true and are in Book X therefore D is true too just because it's in the same book." I would like to hear an explanation as to how that follows logic.
Your argument is fallacious for so many reasons!

jewish philosopher said...

"because you can actually try it and see it for yourself"

Go ahead, and you'll find yourself in hell forever.

PinnyGold said...

While I went back to your post with those refuted, debunked, fallacious arguments, I was surprised that nobody pointed out the nice story that is mentioned in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and I was wondering what kind of apologeticism you were using for that:
" וַיֹּאמֶר חִלְקִיָּהוּ הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל, עַל-שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר, סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה מָצָאתִי, בְּבֵית יְהוָה...
כִּי-גְדוֹלָה חֲמַת יְהוָה, אֲשֶׁר-הִיא נִצְּתָה בָנוּ, עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא-שָׁמְעוּ אֲבֹתֵינוּ עַל-דִּבְרֵי הַסֵּפֶר הַזֶּה, לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכָל-הַכָּתוּב עָלֵינוּ....
ג וַיַּעֲמֹד הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל-הָעַמּוּד וַיִּכְרֹת אֶת-הַבְּרִית לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, לָלֶכֶת אַחַר יְהוָה וְלִשְׁמֹר מִצְו‍ֹתָיו וְאֶת-עֵדְו‍ֹתָיו וְאֶת-חֻקֹּתָיו בְּכָל-לֵב וּבְכָל-נֶפֶשׁ, לְהָקִים אֶת-דִּבְרֵי הַבְּרִית הַזֹּאת, הַכְּתֻבִים עַל-הַסֵּפֶר הַזֶּה; וַיַּעֲמֹד כָּל-הָעָם, בַּבְּרִית. ד וַיְצַו הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת-חִלְקִיָּהוּ הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל וְאֶת-כֹּהֲנֵי הַמִּשְׁנֶה, וְאֶת-שֹׁמְרֵי הַסַּף, לְהוֹצִיא מֵהֵיכַל יְהוָה, אֵת כָּל-הַכֵּלִים הָעֲשׂוּיִם לַבַּעַל וְלָאֲשֵׁרָה וּלְכֹל צְבָא הַשָּׁמָיִם; וַיִּשְׂרְפֵם מִחוּץ לִירוּשָׁלִַם, בְּשַׁדְמוֹת קִדְרוֹן, וְנָשָׂא אֶת-עֲפָרָם, בֵּית-אֵל....
וַיְצַו הַמֶּלֶךְ, אֶת-כָּל-הָעָם לֵאמֹר, עֲשׂוּ פֶסַח, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם--כַּכָּתוּב, עַל סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית הַזֶּה. כב כִּי לֹא נַעֲשָׂה, כַּפֶּסַח הַזֶּה, מִימֵי הַשֹּׁפְטִים, אֲשֶׁר שָׁפְטוּ אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְכֹל, יְמֵי מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--וּמַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה....
לְמַעַן הָקִים אֶת-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה, הַכְּתֻבִים עַל-הַסֵּפֶר, אֲשֶׁר מָצָא חִלְקִיָּהוּ הַכֹּהֵן

You said: "It would have been impossible at any time in the past to engineer a conspiracy whereby all Jews unanimously would tell their children “My parents taught me that our forefathers were slaves in Egypt and were redeemed with ten miraculous plagues, etc.” when in fact their parents had said no such thing."

Here, I just found you perfect point in history where it happened. Try explaining that they found Deuteronomy. Try, please.

jewish philosopher said...

It seems unlikely that Josiah authored the Torah.

Josiah was a failure. He was killed 13 years later at age 39. His Temple was destroyed and all his subjects went into Babylonian slavery a mere 23 years after that. Rather than remaining devoted forever to his monotheistic ideals, the Jews should have concluded that the old Canaanite gods were obviously angry about being rejected and were taking well deserved revenge. They should have reverted to the religion of their parents and grandparents, not remained fanatically devoted to Josiah's phony Torah.

It seems incredible that Josiah would not have mentioned his capital and holy city Jerusalem even once in the Torah.

It also seems incredible that had Josiah invented Judaism, he would be such a little known figure in Jewish history. According to your theory, he would be the Jewish equivalent of Joseph Smith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith#Revelations

Another problem is the Samaritans, who although they converted to Judaism long before Josiah and were not part of his kingdom, nevertheless accept the Torah.

Rather this passage merely refers to the rediscovery of the original Torah scroll written by Moses.

Dave said...

"Rather this passage merely refers to the rediscovery of the original Torah scroll written by Moses."

Who wrote it, is not the point. The point is, as PinnyGold aptly pointed out, is a story that explicitly spells out a situation, whereby somebody comes along with a book (with which they were unfamiliar), convinces the powers to be that the book is authentic, and it is accepted.

So you and Nathan can make your silly Kuzari argument a thousand times and claim that people would ask ,"why didn't our fathers tell us this", and yet the text itself describes that very scenario!

jewish philosopher said...

It doesn't say anything about a new book. There is no indication that this was a "Joseph Smith moment" where someone just pulled a new religion out of a hat.

natschuster said...

The posuk says "Sefer Hatorah," a book of The law. This means that they were familiar with the law contents of the book. If it was an entirely new book, thye would have said, Sefer Torah. And it is obvious from the context that they were familiar the contents of the book.

Dave said...

So why did it change everything if they knew of it?
Why did josiah send chelkiya to the prophet?

It's obvious fromtheir aim meaning that the book was "rediscovered", new or not, and the people believed OT because the prophet told them so.

jewish philosopher said...

The discovery of the original manuscript written by Moses was taken as a sign that there was an urgent need to repent.

Dave said...

You can put whatever spin that you want on something that happened 3000 years ago.

That doesnt take away from the plain meaning of the story

jewish philosopher said...

The book of the Law was found in the house of the LORD.

The king then declared 'Go ye, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.'

Which seems to imply that "our fathers" knew about "this book", read it but ignored it and therefore we're in deep trouble.

natschuster said...

Dave:

It didn't change everything. It just enocraged the people to do tshuva. And the story in Divrei Hayomim II says that they found a Sefer Torahs Hashme B'yad Moshe. They knew it was written by Moshe.

harediandproud said...

JP Said:
"Reading blogs you might get the impression that the overwhelming majority of orthodox Jews are either drop outs, secret drop outs or just about to drop out. However the reality is a little bit different."

Could not agree more. My thoughts on the subject. The Echo Chamber That Is The Internet

ah-pee-chorus said...

nice try...

21 And the king commanded all the people, saying: 'Keep the passover unto the LORD your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant.'
כב כִּי לֹא נַעֲשָׂה, כַּפֶּסַח הַזֶּה, מִימֵי הַשֹּׁפְטִים, אֲשֶׁר שָׁפְטוּ אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְכֹל, יְמֵי מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--וּמַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה. 22 For there was not kept such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah;
כג כִּי, אִם-בִּשְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה, לַמֶּלֶךְ, יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ: נַעֲשָׂה הַפֶּסַח הַזֶּה, לַיהוָה--בִּירוּשָׁלִָם. 23 but in the eighteenth year of king Josiah was this passover kept to the LORD in Jerusalem.


this wasnt a specific torah which was found. the story would make no sense. the king cried when he HEARD it. he didnt cry because he realized it was a great copy of the torah. and then he was worried that all would be killed for not having kept the rules contained therein. once again it doesnt fit with your apologetics. he openly admits that they hadnt followed the torah for hundreds of years.
oops!!! unbroken chain debunked.
and oops!! the perfect opportunity for a little fraudster king to introduce a book to his liking while being able to claim divine authorship. its the old " i found a book trick" .
and it worked so well that ezra did the same thing in nehemiah 8.
another break in the chain and another admission that the jews knew nothing about succot for hundreds of years.
both kings 2:22 and nehemiah 8 also prove that any claim to a torah sheb'al peh with a mesorah from sinai is a lies.

Dave said...

You lack 'theory of mind', JP.

You are confusing what the different actors in the story know-- the priest, the king, the people, and the narrator.

The king makes the claim that it is a long lost and previously known book-- precisely to persuade people to accept it. They are told that they forgot the book but he found it. [obviously he could not or would not claim that he wrote it]

The narrator of the story, of course, speaks from the point of view of the book being old and authentic.

The text clearly implies that the text was unknown to the people of the time. If they were familiar with the book there would be no need to rediscover and "remind" them of the existence of a book and suddenly and drastically change policy.

Since the king and the prophet declared the book as authentic word of God, the people had no choice but to be "persuaded".

PinnyGold said...

"It seems unlikely that Josiah authored the Torah."
Why is that?
And even if you're right that he didn't. So he didn't. Maybe the narrator (Jeremiah? According to the Talmud is the one who authored Kings). The point is that the Kuzari argument is down just because it COULD HAVE been right there.

"Josiah was a failure."
That's completely irrelevant. Besides for the fact that if you call someone who was a king for 31 years since the age of 8, maybe we have different definitions and measurements about "success" vs. "failure" but that's again completely irrelevant.

"It seems incredible that Josiah would not have mentioned his capital and holy city Jerusalem even once in the Torah."

Why would he? He's (again, either himself or the narrator) putting in a narrative that supposedly went on years before him.

"It also seems incredible that had Josiah invented Judaism, he would be such a little known figure in Jewish history."
So he was a smartass, so what? He wanted to create something that would sound "bigger than him" and he succeeded. You're living proof that he did.

"Another problem is the Samaritans, who although they converted to Judaism long before Josiah and were not part of his kingdom, nevertheless accept the Torah."
You're ignoring the main argument here. If you want, I'll even concede that neither Josiah nor Jeremiah or any narrator actually WROTE the Bible. Perhaps it was written before but it wasn't as widely accepted by the populace as testimony. Hence they "found" it. (especially once you know that they copied so much from so many Mesopotamian scripture such as Hamourabi, Gilgamesh, etc.) Therefore, again, the Kuzari argument is down
Besides for the fact that you have no proof that they had the version of that Bible before Shafan the Scribe "discovered" it. The fact that this is today their narrative doesn't prove anything.

And finally:
"Rather this passage merely refers to the rediscovery of the original Torah scroll written by Moses."
Seriously??? You're ignoring the entire context from both two chapters (22 & 23) altogether! If it's the "original" and they had the scripture itself then why was that so much of a big deal?
Why did he rip his cloths?
Why did they have to take out all the idols from the Temple? What changed?
Why didn't they celebrate Passover for so many years????
Passover, the very holiday that celebrates the supposed exodus from Egypt wasn't celebrated for so many years!
How on earth can you explain a passage as " כִּי לֹא נַעֲשָׂה, כַּפֶּסַח הַזֶּה, מִימֵי הַשֹּׁפְטִים, אֲשֶׁר שָׁפְטוּ אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְכֹל, יְמֵי מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--וּמַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה" just because they didn't have the "original?"
Even if you're right, this phrase itself already destroys the Kuzari's argument!

PinnyGold said...

"It doesn't say anything about a new book. There is no indication that this was a "Joseph Smith moment" where someone just pulled a new religion out of a hat."

It wasn't a "Joseph Smith moment," it was a "Shaphan the Scribe" moment. Stop with the Straw Man arguments!

natschuster said...
"The posuk says "Sefer Hatorah," a book of The law. This means that they were familiar with the law contents of the book. If it was an entirely new book, thye would have said, Sefer Torah. And it is obvious from the context that they were familiar the contents of the book."

Sir, I don't know how much you know about Hebrew grammar because I don't know you. This form of He Hayediah is very correct instead of "haSefer Torah". Just like Bet Halachmi, Bet Hasefer, etc., Sefer HaTorah is basically instead of "Hasefer Torah", "the book of law"
Again (as I pointed out in my previous comment), the question is not if they were familiar with the existence of said book, the question is what did they know about it? What did they know about its contents?
Why, again, did they not observe the Passover for hundreds of years????
Big Kuzari fail moment right here.

JP:
"The discovery of the original manuscript written by Moses was taken as a sign that there was an urgent need to repent"
Repent or not, the fact is that the Mesorah (if there were any) was cut off right there and that's why Kuzari argument is down. Debunked, Sir!

jewish philosopher said...

No Jews anywhere have ever credited Josiah, or Ezra for that matter, with having discovered a previously unknown text. And, as I explained,

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/05/how-many-hasidic-rebels-are-there.html?showComment=1338290362215#c3514907857619256668

there are a lot of problems with making Josiah the founder of Judaism.

Consider the Citifield gathering.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/nyregion/ultra-orthodox-jews-hold-rally-on-internet-at-citi-field.html

No new Torah was revealed, people were just reminded to observe what we all always knew.

natschuster said...

PinnyGold:

Doesn't it really make a difference? HaSefer means that it was known.

And it says in Divei Hayomim that they found a Torahs Hashem Biyad Moshe.

And it says in Divrei Hayomim that they kept in Chizkiyahus day they Pesach Like they hadn;t done since, the tome of Shlomo. Later it says they Pesach in Josiah's day lie they hadn't since the time of the Shoftim. So it can't mean they didn't keep it at all, becuase they kept it in Hezekaih's day. So it has to mean that they kept it wiht more enthusiasm

natschuster said...

People back where very big on signs and omens. Finding the Sefer Torah was interpreted as such.

Dave said...

"No new Torah was revealed, people were just reminded to observe what we all always knew."

So basically, it would be like you shouting out on the internet, and saying, "hey guys, there's a Torah and you need to observe it" and then everybody, while familiar with the Torah but choosing to ignore it, suddenly hit themselves on the head and become believers.

Makes a lot of sense JP.

jewish philosopher said...

"suddenly hit themselves on the head and become believers."

Rabbis are all the time organizing all kinds of repentance gatherings. No one has ever suggested Josiah innovated anything, as for example Jesus or Mohmamed or Joseph Smith did.

Dave said...

JP , you know that your interpretation is a stretch and not the plain meaning.

And I know that you know it.

And you know that I know that you know it ( if you have theory of mind...)

So let's stop the game, why don't we?

Whether Josiah himself innovated anything is not important. He instituted reforms based on a book he supposedly found, and people went along with these changes. Masses of people totally changing their lives because somebody supposedly discovered a book? Sounds like the thing that Kuzari says doesn't happen.

Because people go along with things like this, especially when a powerful or charismatic leader, like a prophet, tells them to. He tells them, you forgot your heritage, this is what you are supposed to do.

It doesn't matter whether they or their fathers remember it or not.

PinnyGold said...

natschuster said...
"And it says in Divrei Hayomim that they kept in Chizkiyahus day they Pesach Like they hadn;t done since, the time* of Shlomo. Later it says they Pesach in Josiah's day like* they hadn't since the time of the Shoftim. So it can't mean they didn't keep it at all, because* they kept it in Hezekaih's day. So it has to mean that they kept it with* more enthusiasm"

I presume you mean 2 Divrei HaYomim 30.
So, first, all you have proven is point out that there is a contradiction or disagreement between two narrators. Great!
Concluding that the meaning of the other is therefore different is all your own interpretation.

Second, the very fact that we're arguing over this and that all we have is the scripture is once again proof that the Mesorah has been cut off (again, if there ever were one). Otherwise, you (or any Jew who can claim "my father told me that his father told him that his father told him, etc.") would have been able to tell me "my father told me that his father told him that the Passover they kept under Josiah's day was XYZ"
Taking books and explaining them is exactly the opposite of a mesorah that goes from generation to generation.
Third, thanks for pointing out another point in Jewish history in which the Mount Sinai myth could have been planted. I'm sure there are so many more.

"People back where very big on signs and omens. Finding the Sefer Torah was interpreted as such."

signs and opens? I thought it was testimony from father to son....

natschuster said...

People in Biblical times were very big on prophecies, omens, portents etc. etc. It woludn't be at all suprising if they interpreted finding a sefer Torah as something really significant,

jewish philosopher said...

"He instituted reforms based on a book he supposedly found, and people went along with these changes."

Like rabbis today are instituting reforms about Internet use based on books they study.

Doesn't it seem a little incredible that someone in the time of Josiah would have devoted about 10% of the Torah to the Tabernacle, a structure which even if it had existed would have disappeared centuries earlier, and not one word about the all important Temple in Jerusalem?

Dave said...

"Like rabbis today are instituting reforms about Internet use based on books they study."

But not based on newly discovered manuscripts that nobody remembered.

The proper analogy would be if some archeologist discovered an ancient biblical text telling us that Shabbat was on Thursday, then the rabbis adopting it as authentic and telling people, "you guys simply forgot the mesoret", and they accept that.

"and not one word about the all important Temple in Jerusalem?"

That's easy, if you have theory of mind.

If you're presenting a text that is supposed to be authentically ancient it obviously cannot make specific reference to contemporary things. The references to the priests, mishkan and other things in Dvarim were enough to give Josiah's reforms legitimacy. (as you know, some historians say that it was Dvarim that they found)

Again, I am NOT SAYING that the text was invented by Chelkiya or Josiah (although maybe it was). It might very well been a more ancient text. And it was forgotten. And, the people accepted it anyway. They accepted it, perhaps by force, or perhaps because it was consistent with some of their mythology. And perhaps the transition was gradual over many years.

natschuster said...

PinnyGold:


First of all, it is only modern people in recetn times who are denying the Mesorah. Some points have been forgotten. That is why Rebbi wrote the Mishna. But the core mesorah has been intact.

And the simplest intepretation is that Divrei Hayomin and Melachim do not contradict each other. One interprets the other.

The Novi makes it obvious that people were always interpreting things that happened as messages from G-d to do tshuva. That's it. Finding the Sefer Torah was interpreted as just that. The mesorah was always there.

jewish philosopher said...

Where does it say that it was a new book containing things no one remembered?

The discovery of the original Torah manuscript was taken as a omen that repentance was needed.

Dave said...

"The discovery of the original Torah manuscript was taken as a omen that repentance was needed.

First of all, there is no possible way that people of that time had the capability of preserving, restoring and identifying a scroll from a thousand years prior.

Secondly, your explanation defies the plain meaning of the text, which makes no claim regarding the physical origin of the scroll.

jewish philosopher said...

The plain meaning of the text just says that a Torah scroll was found in the Temple and Josiah found this to be extremely frightening and warranted a massive anti-idolatry campaign.

The idea that Josiah, not Moses, was the real founder of Judaism is I think clearly ludicrous. Just walk into any Orthodox synagogue and asking someone "So, what do you think about King Josiah?" You'll almost certainly get a response like "Who? King who?" Hopefully the rabbi and maybe a few congregants will at least know who you're talking about.

natschuster said...

Dave:

It says in Divrei Yomim that they found a Sefer Torah's Hashem BeYad Moshe." They found a Torah scroll they knew to be written by Moshe.

PinnyGold said...

"Like rabbis today are instituting reforms about Internet use based on books they study."

Exactly! That's how religion evolves! Kuzari fail once again!

natschuster:

"First of all, it is only modern people in recetn times who are denying the Mesorah."
What if I do find you that it's not new to modern people? Would you change your mind as per authenticity of the Torah? "Some points have been forgotten."
Exactly, that's why Kuzari fails.
"That is why Rebbi wrote the Mishna. But the core mesorah has been intact"
Another point to show how Judaism is so NOT based on father to son stories.

"The Novi makes it obvious that people were always interpreting things that happened as messages from G-d to do tshuva. That's it. Finding the Sefer Torah was interpreted as just that."

The relevance of how they interpreted it is just to give you clues as to how they would react to someone who came one day and told them their fathers came out of Egypt.
The point is that a group of people did not behave according to a book, found a book and started following it. Period
The mesorah was NOT always there. It was invented.

JP:
"Where does it say that it was a new book containing things no one remembered?"
I quoted above and I'll quote again:
" אֲשֶׁר לֹא-שָׁמְעוּ אֲבֹתֵינוּ עַל-דִּבְרֵי הַסֵּפֶר הַזֶּה"
It can't mean that they didn't "listen" because that would be "el divrei" not "al divrei". And even if that were the case it still shows the cut of the mesorah.

PinnyGold said...

"The idea that Josiah, not Moses, was the real founder of Judaism is I think clearly ludicrous."

Seriously? Like, more ludicrous than a sea being split?
More ludicrous than humans "seeing voices/thunders"?
More ludicrous that 30,000,000 slaves were in Egypt and there is 0 evidence?
Which part of the Torah is NOT ludicrous?
Since when does one's judgment of "ludicrousness" even a factor?

"Just walk into any Orthodox synagogue and asking someone "So, what do you think about King Josiah?" You'll almost certainly get a response like "Who? King who?" "

Nice argument, wrong conclusion. That doesn't prove that Josiah, Shaphan or Chilkiah had anything to do with "rediscovering" the mesorah. If anything, it reinforces that idea: they were so successful that they were able to get people believe their stories that their fathers came out of Egypt.

It does prove, however, that contemporary orthodoxy doesn't teach Na"ch. The reasons for that can be discussed and I would submit that it has to do with certain phrases such as the ones quoted above but there might be many, many more reason; but that would be a great digression.

jewish philosopher said...

"That's how religion evolves!"

Judaism changes, the Torah doesn't.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2009/05/eternal-torah.html

"I quoted above and I'll quote again:"

That translates as:

'Go ye, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.'

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09b22.htm#13

There is no disagreement about this among Bible translators.

http://bible.cc/2_kings/22-13.htm

"Which part of the Torah is NOT ludicrous?"

It's perfectly logical for God to tell us publicly once in history what He wants us to do.

"they were so successful that they were able to get people believe their stories that their fathers came out of Egypt"

Because they really did.

PinnyGold said...

"There is no disagreement about this among Bible translators."

Here is my challenge to you:
For every ONE time you find a translation of "shomea al" as "listened" (or any of its synonyms) I'll show you it means "heard of".

Quoting ANY translation is wrong because we all know that the Septuagint changed a long list of things just to get away with stuff. And that's with stuff they bothered admitting to!

"The idea that Josiah, not Moses, was the real founder of Judaism is I think clearly ludicrous."

Sorry, not "founder of Judaism." "One key member to plant the Mount Sinai myth into the "mesorah".
How ludicrous is that now?

"It's perfectly logical for God to tell us publicly once in history what He wants us to do."
How so?

"Because they really did."

Here, they were so successful that even a convert like you who never heard such a story from his father would claim that a father could never tell his son myths... Pathetic...


Instead of going in circles, why don't you give me a hypothetical scenario in which YOU would agree that if such a story were to happen you would agree that the Mount Sinai story was told to a group of people and convinced that their forefathers came out and we'll take it from there?
Is that fair enough?

jewish philosopher said...

If no one translates it the way you do, then I think you're probably wrong.

And if Josiah wrote the Torah then he really founded Judaism.

I think that if something similar to the Torah would involve not God but space aliens no one would ridicule it, as I point out.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2009/07/ayers-rock-and-mount-sinai.html

There's nothing incredible about it. It's more incredible perhaps that God would just create us and forget us.

Even though many people have immigrated to America since the American Revolution, it doesn't make George Washington a myth. Similarly, many people have converted to Judaism.

"why don't you give me a hypothetical scenario in which YOU would agree that if such a story were to happen you would agree that the Mount Sinai story was told to a group of people"

Well, for example, in Christianity, everything is based on the four evangelists.

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

Of course, they could have, and certainly did, just make a lot of stuff up to make Jesus sound better. The Torah could also have been based on just a few witnesses who witnessed the Sinai revelation and then came to Canaan and told everyone else.

PinnyGold said...

"If no one translates it the way you do, then I think you're probably wrong."
Again, we already know that the Septuagint mistranslated many things ON PURPOSE!!!!

"And if Josiah wrote the Torah then he really founded Judaism."

I do not dispute the fact that a group of people who can be called Jews existed at Josiah's time and even had some form of religion. After all, they had a temple, albeit it was full with idols.
Therefore, I can agree with you that Josiah didn't "found" Judaism. I argue that he is ONE (of many) possibility in which the Mount Sinai myth could have entered the already existing religion.

"I think that if something similar to the Torah would involve not God but space aliens no one would ridicule it, as I point out."
I would ridicule that too just as equally. Another fallacy you just used.

"it doesn't make George Washington a myth. Similarly, many people have converted to Judaism."

Wrong comparison. Nobody believes GW existed just because some witnesses said it without any outside evidence. According to the Kuzari's argument we should believe witnesses that we found only in the book that those witnesses exist.

"Well, for example, in Christianity, everything is based on the four evangelists."

That was not my question, sir. Go back to your Kuzari argument and come up with a more relevant scenario.

jewish philosopher said...

Protestant and of course Jewish translations of the Old Testament are based on the Hebrew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Old_Testament

"I can agree with you that Josiah didn't "found" Judaism"

But there apparently was nothing recognizable as Judaism before Josiah, according to your theory. Or some people might put it as late as Ezra.

"I would ridicule that too just as equally."

The idea of the universe or life being created by space aliens is taken seriously by quite a few secularists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7972538/Are-we-living-in-a-designer-universe.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia#Directed_panspermia

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

I'm sure that many secularists would have no problem accepting a tradition among let's say a tribe of Australian aborigines having experienced a visitation by space aliens, as I explain.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2009/07/ayers-rock-and-mount-sinai.html

It's only when we start talking about God, divine laws, divine judgement, etc that suddenly there is a massive panic of denial.

"According to the Kuzari's argument we should believe witnesses that we found only in the book that those witnesses exist."

Sinai is as well documented as anything in pre-modern history, as I explain.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2009/07/is-history-bunk.html

natschuster said...

PinnyGold:

The core of the Mesorah was always there. Some things were forgotten by some people in the course of centuries. But how does that mean that the whole mesorah fails, or that there never was a mesorah?

And "Shamu" can mean obey. "Lo Shamu" means they didn't obey. How does "el" or "al make a difference? And if it was something completely new, I would expect to say "Lo Yoduu" they didn't know.

""The Novi makes it obvious that people were always interpreting things that happened as messages from G-d to do tshuva. That's it. Finding the Sefer Torah was interpreted as just that."

The relevance of how they interpreted it is just to give you clues as to how they would react to someone who came one day and told them their fathers came out of Egypt.
The point is that a group of people did not behave according to a book, found a book and started following it. Period""

I don't understand your point. If all that happened was that they accepted a new book, I would expect them the be happy with a new revelation, religion,etc. That the expected reaction when people adopt a new religion. The fact that they where unhappy means that they realized that they where sinning by disobeying the Torah. That would seem to indicate that they knew the mesorah. They just woke up because of the portent,

PinnyGold said...

"That’s an interesting point; however it seems to me that applying this standard of evidence would mean that little if anything can be known about pre-modern history.

Bear in mind that prior to the publication of the Gutenberg Bible in the 1450’s, books were almost nonexistent."

Dude, ever heard of "contemporary evidence?" Enough said.
A whole lot can be learned about pre-modern history from using contemporary evidence other than " there must be numerous books, government records, journalistic accounts, diaries and so on attesting to it. One book is not reliable evidence of anything."

Don't shrink your opponent's position and attack that. Straw man argument once again! Busted!

"The idea of the universe or life being created by space aliens is taken seriously by quite a few secularists."

Can you please stop with your straw man arguments?
Seriously!


natschuster:
"Some things were forgotten by some people in the course of centuries." is the very OPPOSITE of mesora. Mesorah is the relaying of history from father to son, from generation to generation. Once it has been forgotten it's gone. GONE, my friend.
Here are quotes from JP's post ( http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html ):
" It is impossible to organize a large group to all tell the same lie and not have at least a significant minority eventually reveal the truth."
"This proves that the miracles recounted in the first half of the book of Exodus must have taken place, since the entire Jewish people unanimously accepted them as fact since time immemorial up until the 19th century.
"
That doesn't sound anything like "some thing were forgotten"...

"How does "el" or "al make a difference?"
One means "to" and the other means "about." Big difference.
Open the Concordance and look at every instant of "SH-M-A al" and every instant of "SH-M-A el" and you'll find that the first means "about" and the latter means "to". Problem solved.

"I would expect to say "Lo Yoduu" they didn't know."
I guess it was even worse. They haven't even heard of it!

"I don't understand your point. If all that happened was that they accepted a new book, I would expect them the be happy with a new revelation, religion,etc. That the expected reaction when people adopt a new religion. The fact that they where unhappy means that they realized that they where sinning by disobeying the Torah. That would seem to indicate that they knew the mesorah. They just woke up because of the portent"
That's what they were told and that's the story that the narrator wants you to believe. The king/scribe/etc. told the nation that it's something that they "found" and it was lost so they accept it rather than TELLING THEM THE TRUTH that they (or some other elites who were before them) actually compiled other works and invented a story.
This is exactly what the Kuzari's argument claims didn't happen and IT DID HAPPEN!

As Dave well said, it's all about "theory of mind".

jewish philosopher said...

"A whole lot can be learned about pre-modern history from using contemporary evidence"

Right. Like the contemporary Jewish tradition validates the Torah.

"Can you please stop with your straw man arguments?"

What's the straw man and what's the real man?

"As Dave well said, it's all about "theory of mind"."

The theory of the mind is that most humans (Christians, Muslims, Jews and others) even today believe that God created the world and gave the Israelites the Torah at Mount Sinai.

PinnyGold said...

"Right. Like the contemporary Jewish tradition validates the Torah."
That's not what "contemporary evidence" means.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_contemporary_evidence
Finding a coin with a king's name is evidence that said king existed and was on his throne (assuming we prove that the age of the coin is so old, etc.), old tablets that mention a king's name are contemporary evidence.
Modern Judaism is NOT contemporary evidence. You're WRONG once again.


What's the straw man and what's the real man?
Well, you used it twice:
First straw man: "there must be numerous books, government records, journalistic accounts, diaries and so on attesting to it."
Real man: look above for definition of "contemporary evidence".

Second straw man: "The idea of the universe or life being created by space aliens is taken seriously by quite a few secularists."
Real man: "I would ridicule that too just as equally"

You're welcome.

"The theory of the mind is that most humans ... even today believe that God created the world and gave the Israelites the Torah at Mount Sinai."
Dude, don't comment on something without knowing its definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
You're welcome once again

jewish philosopher said...

Where's the contemporary evidence for Aristotle or the Peloponnesian War?

For that matter, there are plenty of coins with "Alexander" written on it,

http://www.coinsoftime.com/Articles/Coins_of_Alexander_the_Great.html

however who says that there really was an emperor named Alexander from Macedon who conquered the entire middle east? A few medieval manuscripts, copies of copies which came from who knows where?

PinnyGold said...

So he existed, so what?
So he didn't exist, so what?

If someone tells me "George Washington existed," I'll say "okay."
If someone tells me "George Washington existed and therefore 2X2=5" I'll look at 2 things: whether he really existed and whether that fact actually leads one to logically conclude that 2X2=5.

See the difference?

And I'll give you this much: I agree with you when you say "It's only when we start talking about God, divine laws, divine judgement, etc that suddenly there is a massive panic of denial.".
But not because it's divine or whatever it's because that YOU ATTACH ramifications to your fabricated stories and you impose it on ME.

Get it?

In other words, "Mount Sinai is true and therefore you'll go to Hell if you don't do X, Y, and Z" is equal to "George Washington existed and therefore 2X2=5".
Both of these should equally be scrutinized.

jewish philosopher said...

"But not because it's divine or whatever it's because that YOU ATTACH ramifications to your fabricated stories and you impose it on ME."

Exactly.

"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interefered with out sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust."

Ends and Means by Aldous Huxley page 273

http://www.scribd.com/Vitor_Caruso_3982/d/32712069-Ends-and-Means-Aldous-Huxley

natschuster said...

Pinny:

Maybe I wasn't clear. The core of the Mesorah was not forgetten. The majority of the laws were not forgotten. The concept of a Mesorah was not forgotten. It only a few details.

natschuster said...

The Radak on the Posuk says that "el" and "al" can be used iterchangibly to mean "to." This has always been my understanding.

PinnyGold said...

"The core of the Mesorah was not forgetten. The majority of the laws were not forgotten. The concept of a Mesorah was not forgotten. It only a few details."

First, how did you figure that out?
Second, "a few details?" Like what? Like those that are strong enough to cut the Kuzari's theory of generational continuance?

"The Radak on the Posuk says that "el" and "al" can be used iterchangibly to mean "to." This has always been my understanding."

What makes you think I wouldn't challenge the Radak any more than I challenge you?
Of course he's gonna say something that would be consistent with how he perceived the story.
Once again, find me another place in Tanach in which it's obvious from the context that "SH-M-A al" means "listen" and I shall retract that part of the argument.

natschuster said...

I'm a little confused. The Mesorah says that there has been a continuous transmission since Sinai. The Kuzari arguement is that no one would believe someone if he told them that G-d spoke to their Grandfathers and nobody heard about it. I'm not sure what your point is. As best I understand you, you seem to be saying that the event in Melachim seem to say that nobody heard of the Torah until
Josiah's time, that there was no Mesorah. But that is just your interpretation. The one that fits the context of the Novi best is that they took finding of the Sefer to be a sign that they should do T'shuva. I'm not sure what this has to do with the Kuzari. And it says explicitely in Diveri Hayomim that it was the "Torah Beyad Moshe." And the people where stressed because "lo shomru." That would seem to indicate they knew about it, but didn't observe. The Simplest explanation is that Melachim and Divrei Hayomim agree.


"el" and "al" can be used interchangibly. In the previous posuk it says "al divrei" so this posuk uses "al divrei" as well.

PinnyGold said...

"The Kuzari arguement is that no one would believe someone if he told them that G-d spoke to their Grandfathers and nobody heard about it."
Now, imagine I told you that there is a story in which a scribe found a book and the story tells you that (a) either the people haven't listened/followed that book or haven't heard of it, (b) they have worshiped (a) different god(s), and (c) that they haven't observed the holiday that commemorates Exodus for so many generations, does that sound like it fits with the Kuzari argument?
I can't see that. I see it as a refutation.


" they took finding of the Sefer to be a sign that they should do T'shuva."
Once again, what the narrator tells you of HOW THEY TOOK IT, is completely IRRELEVANT. What's relevant is the main plot and the facts that the narrator claims happened.

The fact that it "could be understood as such" is already ground to debunk the Kuzari's argument...
In a generation-to-generation mesorah you don't see these kinds of stories. You'd expect to hear (at the very least) "documented continuance" that convey that idea unequivocally.

natschuster said...

The posukim about not observing the holidays commemorating exodus are obviously refering to the way they where observed, not whether they where observed. It says in Divrei Hayomim that they observed Pesach in HEzekiah's day liek they hadn;t observed it since the time of Shlomo. Then it says that they observed it in Josiah's day like they hadn't observd it since Shmuel. It can't mean they didn't observe it at all, since they observed it in the time of Hezekai. It can only be refering to the way they observed it.

And the Novi is full of stories of how they people where inspired by events to do Tshuva. This is just another one. The main plot is that they found a sefer torah, and saw that as a sign. It's just like the rest of the Novi. The people knew what the Torah was, and what it said. They just sometimes didn't listen.

PinnyGold said...

"It can only be refering to the way they observed it."
Yeah, like together with Ahera and other idols INSIDE the temple....

"mesorah"... Enough said...

natschuster said...

There were people who worshipped idols and observed the other mitzvas. Ther worse King was Ahab, but he recognized the Torah as the law of the land. The Novi'im criticized people specifically for observing mitzvas and worshiping idols.

jewish philosopher said...

I've got a question:

If the Jewish tradition is bogus, how do you explain the descending levels of Jewish literature?

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2010/03/jewish-literature-seeing-effects-of.html

PinnyGold said...

"I've got a question:"

Before I answer your question, I have a question for you: If I find you one case that contradicts anything you present at that post would you take that down, retract that argument or something?

jewish philosopher said...

Of course!

PinnyGold said...

Of course what?

Be specific, sir.

And put your exceptions before I show you where you're wrong so you don't sound like you're making stuff up as we go.

PinnyGold said...

You say:
"In Judaism, a rabbi living in 1000 CE would never have considered contradicting a rabbi who lived in 100 CE and likewise a rabbi living in 1600 CE would never contradict a rabbi living in 1000 CE."

Where are the cutting lines?
Would it be fair to say that the lines are between the stages you mention above it (i.e. "- The prophets; 1300 BCE to 300 BCE.
- The early rabbis; 300 BCE to 200 CE
- The Talmudic rabbis; 200 CE to 500 CE
- The Talmudic commentaries; 500 CE to 1500 CE
- The commentators on the Talmudic commentaries; 1500 CE to present.")?

jewish philosopher said...

And if you can't disprove my post, then you have to promise to become Orthodox.

jewish philosopher said...

I'm refering to the neviim, tanaim, amoraim, rishonim and achronim. Those five levels.

PinnyGold said...

Let's start:

"רב תנא הוא ופליג"

Does that contradict your assumptions?
If yes, retract.
If not, why not?

jewish philosopher said...

Now just focus on this OK. Just for one minute before your start writing

BUSTED!!!

or something else stupid.

You see my point is this: why are their 5 eras? Why not two: The prophets and commentaries on them. That's how it works with Christians, Muslims, Karaites, Samaritans and everybody else to the best of my knowledge. Mormons think they still have prophets now, so maybe that's just one level.

My answer: because the Jews were really elevated to an incredible spiritual level at Mount Sinai, from which they gradually descended.

PinnyGold said...

Dude, why are you evading my question.

You wrote that someone from a later era would "would never have considered" contradicting a rabbi from a previous era.

I just found you ONE (out of so, so, many, which will come once we're done with this one) case that shows you an Amora who contradicted Tanaim.

Answer my question!
Does that contradict your assumptions?
If yes, retract.
If not, why not?

jewish philosopher said...

Dude, you answer my question or become Orthodox!

You are so busted!!!!

PinnyGold said...

Which question should I answer?

I asked you " If I find you one case that contradicts anything you present at that post would you take that down, retract that argument or something?"

To which you answered "Of course!"

Then I proceeded to show you one example in which your claim fails and you have not responded. Why is that?

jewish philosopher said...

I asked you first:

If the Jewish tradition is bogus, how do you explain the descending levels of Jewish literature?

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2010/03/jewish-literature-seeing-effects-of.html

If you can't answer that first, I have nothing to say. Answer the question.

PinnyGold said...

I started responding to that by showing you that you're claiming something that is utterly false in that post.

One at a time, you will see how that nonsense argument is baseless and based on outright false assumptions.

jewish philosopher said...

So you deny that there are five descending levels in Jewish literature? That's your answer? Well everyone knows that there are. So you have no answer.

PinnyGold said...

Again with your straw arguments?

I found you a case in which an Amora does contradict Tanaim, which you said doesn't happen. Retract that and we can go on.

jewish philosopher said...

Answer my original question. If you have no answer, admit you don't and become orthodox.

I'm waiting for an answer.

PinnyGold said...

My answer is as follows:

You claim: "Judaic literature was written in five primary stages with authors in the later stages never contradicting those in the earlier stages:"

I showed you how that is FALSE in this comment: http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/05/how-many-hasidic-rebels-are-there.html?showComment=1338945707482#c2022836870804005774

BUSTED!!!! (yes, you are, because you're once again ignoring how I proved you wrong)

jewish philosopher said...

Actually it proves just the opposite. If Rav were not considered to be tanna he would not have been permitted to disagree with the tannaim since he would not have been on their extraordinary level. An ordinary amora would not be capable of contradicting a tanna.

Bottom line: You have no answer.

I therefore assume you will now daven maariv and then go ask your rabbi how to atone for your sins and repent.

PinnyGold said...

So you agree that there was a case in which someone who was an Amora (Rav was an Amora) who actually contradicts Tanaim but you won't retract that statement?

"An ordinary amora?" Like, any other case I'll show you (coming...) you'll say "well, he wasn't ordinary"

Seriously, how pathetic can you be?

jewish philosopher said...

According to Orthodox Jewish tradition, scholars in one era within the history of halachic development do not challenge the rulings of previous-era scholars, and hence Acharonim cannot dispute the rulings of rabbis of previous eras unless they find support from other rabbis of previous eras.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharonim#Consequences_for_Halakhic_change

I even found a neat color coded chart demonstrating my point and destroying your entire denial of Torah.

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

So you can't answer my question.

And your confused attempt at an answer was actually an additional proof to my point!

Thank you for admitting that your entire denial of Torah is a baseless fraud.

PinnyGold said...

Are you denying that the Vilner Gaon (GR"A) - clearly an Acharon - constantly disagreed with and contradicted Rishonim?

jewish philosopher said...

You still don't have an answer:

If the Jewish tradition is bogus, how do you explain the descending levels of Jewish literature?

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2010/03/jewish-literature-seeing-effects-of.html

Don't try to wiggle out of it. Throwing red herrings in all directions won't save you now.

I've given you a fair chance. Clearly you don't have an answer. You're just a big fat fake.

PinnyGold said...

"If the Jewish tradition is bogus, how do you explain the descending levels of Jewish literature?"

"Jewish tradition?" "Bogus?"

I didn't claim that. I claimed that the Mt. Sinai and exodus myth could have very easily been "told" to a group of people who probably existed as a group in spite of the Kuzari's supposed claim.
There were various kings/scribes/elites who had control of the scripture (that for all I care "existed" before but wasn't available to the masses).

The "descending order" doesn't disprove that in one bit, since you're mainly focused on post-biblical/post-canonical eras, so even if it is true (which I proved above isn't) that the later generations can't contradict earlier ones it has nothing to do with that.

Even if you couldn't find any such contradictions, don't forget that both the Mishna and Talmud as well as scripture of the following generations were controlled/narrated/compiled by a very small group of people (call them R' Yehuda Hansi etc.) so of course they have an agenda to take out anything and anyone that doesn't fit into their agenda.
It's not like they lived in a world in which dissidents could actually say stuff and it would stay there like we have today.

Here. You got an answer. More than one, in fact.

You're BUSTED once again.

jewish philosopher said...

No answer at all. Just some more confusing stoner drivel.

The Torah is false. But not bogus.

There are distinct levels of Jewish literature, but there aren't.

And a few rabbis, for over three thousand years, conspired to make it look this way. Even though it doesn't look this way anyway.

So answer the question dude:

If the Jewish tradition is bogus, how do you explain the descending levels of Jewish literature?

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2010/03/jewish-literature-seeing-effects-of.html

PinnyGold said...

"No answer at all. Just some more confusing stoner drivel."

Let's clarify:
"The Torah is false. But not bogus."

Some of its stories are true (such as historical facts as existence of some kings, etc. in certain eras), many stories (the miracles/myths) are made up.

"There are distinct levels of Jewish literature, but there aren't."

There are distinct levels of Jewish literature but later sages do contradict and disagree with previous ones as previously demonstrated.
Either way, those levels don't have to do with biblical/canonical accounts and/or their accuracy. It's a Non sequitur!

"And a few rabbis, for over three thousand years, conspired to make it look this way. Even though it doesn't look this way anyway."

First, I don't think they were called rabbis. I said "kings/scribes/elites" etc.

Second, "look this way." Which way? The myths? The miracles? The factual stories? Because they put it in in one bundle doesn't mean it's all or nothing.

Third, the conspiracy happened way before the beginning of the Talmudic era, so that's not three thousand years.
The rabbis who did continue to sell the story sold what they perceived to have been a tradition or mesorah, but that doesn't mean that the mesorah wasn't made up at some point.


"If the Jewish tradition is bogus, how do you explain the descending levels of Jewish literature?"

You got an answer right here:
http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/05/how-many-hasidic-rebels-are-there.html?showComment=1339012496267#c2234838493941203511

jewish philosopher said...

Please, sober up or something.

You're claiming that Jews are no different than other religions such as Christians, Muslims, Karaites and Samaritans, which have simply two levels of sacred literature: the prophet and his disciples; or scripture and commentaries?

And secondly you're claiming that the break between all the levels was arranged somehow centuries in advance by the author of the Mishnah?

Collect your thoughts a little bit and accept the fact that there is really no answer. Time to repent!

jewish philosopher said...

I am going to copy and paste the entire post here. You can't refute this. Read this and tremble with fear of God.

One of the unique features of Judaism is the structure of Judaic literature.

Judaic literature was written in five primary stages with authors in the later stages never contradicting those in the earlier stages:

- The prophets; 1300 BCE to 300 BCE.
- The early rabbis; 300 BCE to 200 CE
- The Talmudic rabbis; 200 CE to 500 CE
- The Talmudic commentaries; 500 CE to 1500 CE
- The commentators on the Talmudic commentaries; 1500 CE to present.

Other religions have two stages – the founder and the commentators on the founder. There is the New Testament and canon law, the Koran and the Sharia, etc. The founder of course has special importance, however after him any great scholar is entitled to offer an opinion. In the Catholic Church, for example, Doctors of the Church continue to be added up to the present.

In Judaism, a rabbi living in 1000 CE would never have considered contradicting a rabbi who lived in 100 CE and likewise a rabbi living in 1600 CE would never contradict a rabbi living in 1000 CE. Needless to say, no one after 300 BCE claimed to have the gift of prophesy. This is why the canon of the Bible was closed. There was universal reverence for the sages of each earlier era. This is in spite of the fact that since the destruction of the First Temple, 2,400 years ago, the Jewish people have not possessed any central authority capable of declaring and enforcing a new era of Judaic literature. These eras seem to have formed spontaneously because of a universal recognition that current leaders did not possess the spiritual and academic greatness of earlier ones.

In my opinion, this is clearly proof of the great spiritual level which the Jewish people were elevated to 3,300 years ago at Mt. Sinai and from which they have been gradually descending ever since.

PinnyGold said...

The straw man has returned!!!!

Show me where I claimed " that Jews are no different than other religions such as Christians, Muslims, Karaites and Samaritans, which have simply two levels of sacred literature: the prophet and his disciples; or scripture and commentaries?"!!!

I'm talking about ONE RELIGION: Judaism.
Different religions develop differently. Some Christian branches start with people who write about a person 300 years after he lived and others with a guy who found tablets in an American desert. Yet other religions follow a scripture that was adopted from various Mesopotamian scriptures (such as Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, etc.).


"And secondly you're claiming that the break between all the levels was arranged somehow centuries in advance by the author of the Mishnah?"

I also didn't say that. The Mishna wasn't written till after its era concluded, and that is even according to the traditional and accepted Orthodox narrative: R' Yehuda Hanasi saw that the Torah was "about to be forgotten" and decided to write it down even though HE WASN'T ALLOWED and he relied on the "Et Laasot LeYHWH Heferu Toratecha" excuse to violate that.
Same thing happened with the Talmud that was written as a commentary to the Mishna and later compiled to the work/s we have now. Again, happened after!
Same thing with Rishonim and Achronim.

Neither of that was foreseen in advance; as you clearly pointed out earlier that there is no mention of Jerusalem in the Pentateuch. That's because they (those who compiled the book that was later "found" in the Temple) didn't know who and where will come after them and they developed it as time passed by.


This is exactly how anyone would expect a religion to develop.

jewish philosopher said...

No other religion developed like this because no other religion originated with the ultimate spiritual pinnacle of a national revelation. Sinai was like the Big Bang and we see the spiritual radiation spreading out and fading after it.

The Sinai revelation is proven. You can't dispute the evidence.

Now go to the synagogue and during prayers throw yourself on the floor and beg the Almighty God for forgiveness.

Eclipse said...

Or maybe the other rebels were watching online broadcasts of the beautiful annular solar eclipse that took place that very same night (day for time zones in it) but was not visible from the New York area. You call someone a "loser" because they rightfully protest this ridiculous spectacle and note that "the Internet never molested me?" Is anyone who disagrees with you a "loser?" That makes a lot of "losers" in this world.

There is so much more to the Internet than pornography. There are amazing web sites that bring the wonders of the universe, such as stars, planets, and galaxies, to kids and adults in ways neither ever experienced before. With so much valuable and educational content online, why such an emphasis on pornography? I've watched many solar and lunar eclipses online over the years but never visited a porn site. And yes, I'm secular.

jewish philosopher said...

You forgot to mention the brightest star in the Internet sky: this blog!

However the people protesting against the rabbis' gathering are losers - stoners, junkies, drunks, perverts, whores and whoremongers. Thank God there seem to be so few of them.

Eclipse said...

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand, you point out how few people there were protesting this rally, demeaning the protestors, but on the other hand, you assume that all who didn't come and protest (and those protesting the rally were not just Hasidic rebels; some were modern Orthodox Jews) were getting drunk or stoned. Did you find that out by looking into your crystal ball, or are you just all knowing?

The real truth is, you have no idea where the "other" rebels or anyone else who wasn't there was doing on that night. Maybe they were all watching the solar eclipse, meaning they were having an educational experience and watching something beautiful at the same time.

You're the "brightest star in the Internet sky?" Well first, you better start protesting against those who want to ban the Internet because if they succeed, you'll be nothing more than a black dwarf. And second, your statement makes it clear: this is all about your ego. You really believe you're the center of the universe.

If you're a star, it's time for an eclipse!

jewish philosopher said...

I can well imagine what these degenerates are up to.

And recognizing my own wisdom is merely being honest and realistic, not self centered.

PinnyGold said...

Enjoy the bursting of your bubble, sir:
http://www.hidabroot.org/ARDetail.asp?BlogID=111358

"לא נערכה "חתימת תקופת הראשונים" כשם שנערכה חתימת התלמוד, ולכן אין גבול ברור ואמיתי בין ראשונים לאחרונים. רבים מחכמי ישראל בתקופת ה"אחרונים" עדיין ראו לנכון לחלוק ולבטל לפעמים מדברי ה"ראשונים", את הבית יוסף אנו מוצאים לפעמים חולק על דברי הראשונים, ובדרך כלל לא גדולי הראשונים. גדולים אחרים לעומת זאת, כדוגמת המהרש"ל, ה"פרי חדש", ה"שאגת אריה", היעב"ץ, הגאון מוילנא, בעל אור החיים, ועוד לא נרתעו מלחלוק אף על גדולי הראשונים והפוסקים, כדוגמת הרי"ף והרמב"ם."

You, on the other hand, say:
"In Judaism, a rabbi living in 1000 CE would never have considered contradicting a rabbi who lived in 100 CE and likewise a rabbi living in 1600 CE would never contradict a rabbi living in 1000 CE."

You're welcome.

jewish philosopher said...

According to Orthodox Jewish tradition, scholars in one era within the history of halachic development do not challenge the rulings of previous-era scholars, and hence Acharonim cannot dispute the rulings of rabbis of previous eras unless they find support from other rabbis of previous eras.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharonim#Consequences_for_Halakhic_change

This is universally known to everyone in the Orthodox community and although there are several exceptions, they are rare not the rule.

So again, don't just deny there's a question, answer the question:

If the Jewish tradition is bogus, how do you explain the descending levels of Jewish literature?

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2010/03/jewish-literature-seeing-effects-of.html

Dave said...

JP, the whole "proof" is stupid.

"Descending levels" as you call them, simply describe the reverance that rabbis had for their predecessors, and their belief in the tradition. How does that prove the truth of tradition itself? Because they believe in it? Isn't that circular reasoning?

jewish philosopher said...

How did these five clearly delineated levels come about? Did Jewish leaders get together in some secret location about 300 BCE, 200 CE, 500 CE and 1500 CE and decide "We have to make this whole 'mass revelation' story really look good, so let's pretend that there has just been a fundamental spiritual decline among the entire Jewish people." I don't think so.

I give here a long list (especially when you drill down into all the links) of irrefutable proofs of Torah from Sinai.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/01/why-weshould-beorthodox.html

People who deny it all are simply addicted to a secular lifestyle and will deny anything.

Dave said...

How did Christians, Muslims and all other religions and cults make up all of their bullshit? Does believability correlate with the number of followers?

In fact, the more unbelievable the story, the more followers there will actually be. Its more miraculous, more supernatural. That proves how true it is!

How do you explain the Messianic Chabadniks?

jewish philosopher said...

"How did Christians, Muslims and all other religions and cults make up all of their bullshit? "

Or atheists as well.

Basically every religion starts with somebody coming along and claiming he had a vision or dream or he has an ancient tradition or has rediscovered a tradition. (I would put Darwin and his fossils in that category). If enough people like whatever is being is being said, you've got a new religion.

Judaism is the one exception, and trying to make Ezra or Josiah our Jesus or Mohammed doesn't work for many reasons.

Dave said...

"Basically every religion starts with somebody coming along and claiming he had a vision or dream"

Pardon me, but don't we have a Abraham, Isaac and Jacob narrative? Is it not claimed that they gained followers and founded the religion? The Hebrews were already a people and religion by the time Moses came along.

jewish philosopher said...

The Sinai revelation, Exodus 20, was a complete game-changer.