Showing posts with label GodolHaDor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GodolHaDor. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

IT'S SO ANNOYING WHEN YOU LOP OFF ARCHIVES AND ONLY LEAVE ONE POST UP!

On Sunday October 22nd the XGH wrote:


My dear readers

Some of you seem confused, and maybe it's my fault. So let me be clear: I am not interested in debating whether religion is true, or whether Torah is min Hashamayim (unless I explicitly post about something like that). I have no doubt that it might all be very true, as might many other things. I also have no doubt that there is no way anyone can prove it true, and that given all currently available evidence to the contrary, a rational objective assessment can only conclude that it most likely isn't very true at all. Of course you can always have faith; rational objective assesments based on currently available evidence have been known to be wrong from time to time. Just not very often. Hence there's no point at all in debating it. I'll let you know if I change my mind.


Thanks.


Upon reading this, I realized that HaRav HaGaon XGH shlita was having yet another crisis of apikorsus - which means that bloggo-destructive behavior shortly follows. He's like that. Petulant.

Other Hhasidim get crumbs from the tish, or chap a tapuach at simches-toireh eppel-varfing, what we get from this rebbe is a fire-bombing of the entire reference-library, and a cheerful "Think for yourselves, tayere talmidim, think for yourselves, even though you're all wrong - the excercise will be good for you".


Then another several hundred postings go poof, along with ALL! OF!! THE!!! COMMENTS!!!
All we're left with, at that point, is a mental process-map of how the debate progressed, but of the actual landscape naught remains.


To coin a phrase, XGH borei olamos u machrivam.

This is very irritating. Don't you think so?


Fortunately, in addition to the post quoted in full above, I copied the following three posts:

The truth, the partial truth, and everything but the truth
(Another nutty theory from Avodah)
New: The ultimate answer to Science & Torah conflicts!!!
(Guaranteed to work, or your money back!)
Danger ahead - there are good reasons why God created atheists
(God created everything for a purpose)


If you want the full four, plus most of the comments (I was asleep by the time he torched the reading-room, so I didn't get all of them), just send a request to me by e-mail to:
northbeachlizard@yahoo.com.


--------------------------------------------
COMMENTS

XGH: Sorry, but it's SO annoying when you lop off archives and only leave one post up.


Jameel @ The Muqata Homepage <http://muqata.blogspot.com/> 10.24.06 - 9:16 am


--------------------------------------------


>XGH: Sorry, but it's SO annoying when you lop off archives and only leave one post up.

It was predicted by BOTH.

LONG LIVE KING BOTH!!


Anonymous 10.24.06 - 9:30 am

=======================


Wow. My very own Hhasid. I am not worthy. ;-D


I am, however, planning to copy down other Exgodolhadoric posts as I run across them, plus the comments. I shall sporadically post a list. This just in case the good man goes major pyro and burns the entire yeshiva down to the ground. Again.

I advise you to do the same.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

A PROVEN SYSTEM WHICH WORKS WELL AND IS WITHIN THE REALM OF PLAUSIBILITY

What follows is an out and out theft from a recent posting by the Godol Hador (aka Not The Godol Hador aka XGH).

I lifted these passages from the post (here: http://extremegh.blogspot.com/2006/09/you-must-read-this-post.html ) where he relates what "a senior Orthodox Rabbi" said to him in a recent discussion. This is most-marvelously mechazek my emunah (in the same way that the GodolHador himself is mechazek my skepticism).


Now then. Selective cut-and-paste.

ON RELIGIONS:
"...Judaism is unique as compared to Islam & Christianity. Both Islam and Xtianity believe that their prophet and their revelation are the exclusive truth, and that you must convert to their religion. Chazal never felt like that. Chazal were perfectly comfortable with other religions being also true, and other prophets having revelations (Bilaam is even in the Torah!), and even other texts being holy and ‘written’ by God. The only promise in this area is that for Jews, no prophet will ever replace Moshe. But Goyim can have prophets, texts and other paths to God. Chazal did not encourage gerim for that reason: other religions might be true too. The Rishonim also took this position, and there is even a baal tosafos who thinks that Zoroastrianism might be true, and many Rishonim who held that Islam might be true too (except for the parts which claims to have superceded Judaism of course)."


ON JUDAISM:

"...Judaism is a proven system. Its 2,000 years old at least, and has never been guilty of any major injustice. Of course its not perfect, but compared to Islam & Xtianity we come off way better. Secularism doesn’t have a good track record, especially in the last century (2 world wars, Nazis, communist Russia etc). Judaism has maintained a very good moral touchstone (in general), and builds good, successful communities with low crime rates, divorce rates, etc etc."
"...Other alternatives don’t give you such a moral foundation and framework. Agnosticism is dangerous because people are too good at self-rationalizing and there is a danger they could ‘flip out’. Judaism seems to do well (in general) with not ‘flipping out’."
"...In other words, there are multiple paths to God. The only reason we have to be Jewish is because we were born Jewish, and those are the rules of the community."

ON ORTHODOXY:
"...There's not any other system or ideology out there which is significantly better, or possible even equal, over the long term, so it's worth a shot to try and create a rational Orthodoxy."


ON LITERALISM:
"...Firstly, there’s no problem at all in viewing the narrative portions of the Torah as mythological or allegorical (or just plain exaggerated for effect I guess). Chazal clearly viewed early Breishis as allegorical. It’s not a problem. As for the DH, he looked into that in depth but never found it particularly convincing. And anyway, he has no problem with a looser definition of Torah MiSinai. Maybe some bits were added later, some were added earlier (the avos wrote Breishis) etc. "

"...Chazal were always comfortable in allegorizing parts of the Torah."

ON PLAUSIBILITY:
"...The basic concept of Divine Revelation is within the realm of plausibility. Judaism works well and is a good moral system, it has withstood the test of time. You are not required by Judaism to believe in it 100%, (the) Rambam’s ikkarim are not the ikkarim, so there really is no problem!"


Applicable afterthought - XGH's own words, from a different posting (see here: http://extremegh.blogspot.com/2006/09/i-hate-skepticism.html ):
People need a framework. People need life rituals. People need community. People need moral and ethical rules which they can have confidence in. People need meaning. People need to have something bigger than themselves to believe in.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

THE QUESTION IS WHAT?

The Exgodolhador has a question.

[Which can be read here: http://extremegh.blogspot.com/2006/09/kuzari-proof-it-works.html]

In the posting linked above, the XGH brings up the Kuzari proof and the counter arguments.


The Kuzari proof is, according to Wikipedia:
"that a story such as that of the Sinai revelation must have originated with a real event or have been introduced at some later moment. In the latter case, the population will have been able to infer its falsehood merely from their lack of prior knowledge of the claim. Therefore, according to this logic, the story can only have been introduced at a time when the population knew it to be true from their own observation." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuzari]


XGH formulates it thusly:
"The story of Sinai is so huge - 600,000 males (approx 2.5 million people) all experiencing God’s revelation (in some fashion)- that it could not have been made up and then accepted by the public -- a further argument for this proof is that no other religion has such an origin story. All the other religions start with a revelation to a small group of people, or just one ‘prophet’. If a mass revelation story is easy to fabricate, then why didn’t every other religion start such a story? The fact that there are no parallels shows that such a story could not be ‘sold’ unless it was actually true."


It is evident from his subsequent text that XGH veers towards a rejection of the Kuzari proof as an argument for Torah mi Sinai.


To quote again: "On my previous blog I came to the conclusion that since there was no way to know any of this for sure, the only possible option is ‘shev ve’al taaseh’ (*). But this just leads to paralysis, and isn’t very practical when your kids are about to start 15+ years of Jewish education. So, we have to come up with something.
The question is, what?
"


That's a good question.


In many ways it is the question that informs most of the J-blogs I read, and it partially explains both how I discovered the Judeo blogs and why I blog.


The answer I left in the comments on his posting is this:
"There is truth in Judaism. It is up to you to find it. It will take your entire life to do so. Start now. You may not succeed - there are no guarantees. You will be a better person for trying - which is probably the point of the tradition in the first place. You need not finish the task, neither may you abstain."


[I'll define Judaism in this context as Abrahamic monotheism, neither Gnostic nor Trinitarian, with as key documents Torah, Nach, Mishna, Gemara, and with shtarke denkers from Chazal through the Geonim, Rishonim, Acharonim, et al.]


Readers, I would like your thoughts.

Please discuss, debate, dispute, and above all comment - comment - comment.





Feel free to be mechazek my emunah (b'ezras Hashem if so), or not (equally b'ezras Hashem).

-----------------------------------

(*) Shev ve al taaseh = sitting and not doing; abstaining from a course of action.


LO TELECH RACHIL B'AMEICHA

['Do not go as a talebearer among your people' - Seifer Vayikra, Parshas Kedoshim, Psook 19;16]


Sometime in February, the Godolhador wrote on his blog: " I also expect that most mature people realize that when I call someone a 'raving lunatic' I mean it in the best possible way, with oodles and oodles of love and kisses and hugs and affirmation and empathy etc. OK, maybe one or two times there was the slightest hint of a speculation of a teensy weensy bit of annoyance on my part. For that I sincerely apologize, and I promise never ever to do it again until next time."


Very well then. I do not want leprosy.


So let me clarify that when in my previous posting I referred to Anja Meulenbelt and Greta Duisenberg as "neurotic swamp-trull gorgons", I meant it positively, in the best possible way, with sheer bucket-loads of supportive love and respect for their points of view. Really. I fully support their rights to be anti-Semitic harpies if it makes them finally feel good about themselves. Yes.


Also, when I wrote that Anja Meulenbelt "is monumentally frustrated that not everyone worships her gand, so she's getting rid of her bile in the only way she can - by squawking and scratching", this was entirely speculative.

There is actually no conclusive evidence.

It seems a reasonable supposition

But it may not be her gand that itches. It could be another part of her anatomy.

Friday, September 01, 2006

XGH - NEW BLOG - CHUMASH

This will be baffling if you haven't been paying attention.


The GodolHador is back (http://extremegh.blogspot.com/), he admits that he is married to Dovbear(http://dovbear.blogspot.com/), and he needs to go on vacation (see http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2006/04/jelly-fruit-and-coconut-macaroons.html and http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2006/04/eighty-degrees-leather-and-too-many.html).


Mazzel tov on your marriage, you two. You were meant for each other.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

CHAZALIC INDIGESTION -- REALLY, I HAD NO IDEA WHAT ELSE TO CALL THIS POST!

The Godol Hador has an interesting posting here:
http://godolhador.blogspot.com/#115134043716276584
["Is Orthodox Judaism bad for you?"]


One of the questions he poses is how to justify the seemingly unethical parts of Orthodoxy to a non-Orthodox person?

And by extension, how do you justify the statements in the Talmud which are derogatory of Goyim?



I'm afraid that both of these questions presume that there is a simple justification for each of those problems. So of course the Godol Hador says that it is impossible.

Which is true.

But also, wrong.


Here's paragraph five of his post:

5. Unethical Teachings in the Talmud & Elsewhere
The anti-semites (and some skeptics) make a big deal about many seemingly unethical comments in the Talmud, which are derogatory about goyim or whatever. Mostly they probably have a point, though I think they overstate it. Nowadays we have all these PC answers (e.g. Sheloh asani goy is not derogatory but merely reflects our happiness at being given extra responsibility or some such fluff) but the statements remain, and of course nobody OJ is going to say Chazal were a bit racist. Even the Rambam calls negroes less than human in the Moreh, and basically says that stupid people can be killed.


Permit me to discuss.

"The anti-semites (and some skeptics) make a big deal about many seemingly unethical comments in the Talmud, which are derogatory about goyim or whatever. "

-----Those unethical or derogatory statements are taken out of context, and presented on their own. The anti-semites do not ever quote the ethical statements, or even give any indication that they have read more than that which they wanted to find in the Talmud (and many of them simply lift the data from other anti-semites directly, and add their own commentary).

The pro-goyim statements are never quoted. The statements which contradict the anti-goyim statements are never quoted. The openminded and outrageously liberal statements are never quoted.

In the same way that one can take statements in the Talmud to prove that Jews are racist bigots, one can take statements in the Talmud to prove the exact opposite.

The Talmud is not a coherent document, but a collection of discourses. The methodology is reasonably coherent, the discourse veers all over the map. And clearly includes much spleen.

I think I can probably find proof in the Talmud that acid indigestion was a major influence on talmudic thought. They should've had Pepso Bishmol.




"Mostly they probably have a point, though I think they overstate it. Nowadays we have all these PC answers (e.g. Sheloh asani goy is not derogatory but merely reflects our happiness at being given extra responsibility or some such fluff) ..."

-----The correct answer to 'shelo asani goy' is 'she asani goy'. A goy should not be grateful for having been created? Obviously a goy cannot say 'shelo asani goy'! Should a goy say nothing?



" ...but the statements remain, and of course nobody OJ is going to say Chazal were a bit racist. Even the Rambam calls negroes less than human in the Moreh, and basically says that stupid people can be killed."

-----And the Rambam reflects his time and place. Certainly a physician to the sultan did not live 'separate from the nations'; more to the point, he was drenched in the nations (and their attitudes). He was, in fact, a very Arabian gentleman.

The Ba'al ha Tanya says goyish souls are animalistic and evil - I too have irrational preconceptions and biases about Russians and Ukrainians.
We are coloured by our environment.

Our environment is, for many of us today, a much more complex place than people a century or more ago knew. Chazal, Maimonides, and Der Alter were indeed racists, by our standards. Not by theirs, and they had NO reason to know better - arguably, every reason to NOT know better.

--- --- --- --- --------- --------- --- --- --- ---

AFTERTHOUGHT: Why is it that some folks believe that a cursory whack-through of the Talmud is enough to prove their preconceptions about the beast? It isn't that the Talmud is even particularly difficult, just that there is an awful lot of it. The combination of Mishna, Gemara, commentaries, and cross-referencing, taken together, is sufficiently massive that much more reading is required than the typical light readers are capable of (especially as the brain needs to be kicked into gear for this). And there is more to Talmud than just Talmud - there is also everything since the Talmud - that too is Talmud.


Wednesday, May 31, 2006

ODD AND ETHNIC - DUTCH REFORMED

What do you call one Dutchman? -- A believer.

What do you call two Dutchmen? -- A church.

What do you call three Dutchmen? -- A schism.


The Godol Hador (http://godolhador.blogspot.com/) writes: "There are about 20 ‘major’ world religions currently extant, which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones too. 34,000 separate Christian groups alone have been identified in the world. Also, if you include all the different religious traditions that ever were, you get about 12,000 faiths. "
[See remainder of his post here: http://godolhador.blogspot.com/ ]


Well, the Godol Hador and his readers have already mentioned Mormonism in many details (including special Mormon undergarments, for illustration of which a zesty picture was provided), but one religion they have not mentioned is Dutch Reformed Christianity. Perhaps because it is goofy.

[Lest you jump all over me for dissin' someone else's belief system, I make haste to mention that unlike you, I am entitled to diss all over Dutch Reformed. From the sixth generation after the black death through the thirteenth generation, ancestors of mine have been Dutch Reformed - seven generations of pissy Protestants, of which five were in the new world. That's on my father's side. On my mother's side it's severe Scots-Irish Presbyterians mixed with even more Dutch Reformed. Even though the last three generations on either side have not been pissy Protestants (being instead rather sceptical of and casual about religion), I've got Dutch Reformed coming out the ears. In part this is also because I lived in the Netherlands (for sixteen years, from my second to my eighteenth year), which, of course, is more or less the great elephant burial ground of Dutch Reformed. So, I'll diss Dutch Reformed all I darn well want.]



I shall not delve into the arcane mysteries of Dutch Reformed belief, primarily because you, the reader, do not really need to know these things.
If you are Jewish, it would be too much information about something you normally think of as avodah zara.
If you are Dutch Reformed yourself, you are probably already twisted as all git-out.
And if you are something else, you would not understand anyway because it is more intense and complicated than anything in your own simple-minded denomination.


I shall instead somewhat superficially describe the chain of events whereby the one became the many, and the many ended up picking fights with each other.


The whole ghastly mess starts with the Frenchman Jean Cauvin (John Calvin, 1509 - 1564), a theology and law student at Paris, whose strident call for reforms in the Church resulted in him fleeing for his life in 1533, eventually ending up in Geneva in 1536. His thought was influenced by much of the theological ferment then current in Europe, including Lutheranism and Anabaptism.

There are also indications that much of his thought was influenced by headaches, gout, indigestion, kidney stones, and rheumatism, and many other aches and pains. This is significant - Calvinism is rigid and unyielding, and very tolerant of pain.

Two of the basic themes that he developed further were Biblical authority (as opposed to Church authority) in matters of the faith, and predestinationism (which more or less means that if you ain't one of the select, it doesn't really matter what you do in your life, you're hosed anyway).


He was a voluminous writer, publishing several volumes of commentary on both the Tanach and the Christian Subsequentia (N.T.).
[Lest you ask, I must add that his Bible commentaries are not comparable to Rashi, Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, Sforno, et al - don't ask.]


Two major ethno-denominational groupings eventually formed that were based on Calvin's thought: Scotch Presbyterianism, and Dutch Reform.
[And both of those ethno-denominational identitities come with "baggage" and "issues". Hmmph.]


At the same time as Calvin was stirring up a mess in the Alps, Netherlandish cities and nobles were getting steamed over Philip the Spaniard's attempts to unify the Netherlands into one coherent legal and administrative system.

The Netherlands which Philip had inherited were a loosely unified mess of conflicting law codes and civic privileges, sporadically called to order by a grand meeting of the States General in Brussels. While all territories were represented in the States General, not all played along with its decisions, and even fewer had any intention of doing so in any consistent manner. Other than in name, their unity lay in resisting Philip and disagreeing with each other.

The Dutch have always been a quarrelsome bunch of stubborn pissants. Which, at that time, was also evident in the various re-interpretations of Christianity gaining currency in the Netherlands - yet another situation that contributed to Philip's ire.


The situation exploded in 1567 when Philip sent the Duke of Alva (may his name be erased!) into the Netherlands to eradicate dissent and destroy heresy. In 1568 Alva had two of the grande seigneurs of the Netherlands, (counts Egmont and Hoorne), executed in the Grande Place in Brussels. Their crime was not disloyalty or treason, but that they had been too permissive of Protestantism, even though they themselves had remained Catholic.

The executions may have been pointless. But they did serve as tinder.


For the next four years, Alva savagely suppressed all dissent, political and religious, throughout the Netherlands, painting a swath of blood and murder across all the provinces. The tide turned in 1572 when the Sea Beggars captured Briel in 1572, gaining a foothold along the coast. Within the next few years the rebellion gained strength and territory, eventually unifying all of the northern provinces. Protestants, who faced certain death in the south, fled north in large numbers, and contributed their skills and their lives to the cause of the rebel republic .


[Among the refugees from the Spanish terror were two ancestors of mine, Willem van Deursen (b. 1542) and his son Peter Jansen van Deursen (b. 1575), who left Brabant and ended up in the city of Haarlem, where in 1607 Abraham Pietersen van Deursen was born (1607 - 1678?), who would subsequently emigrate to New Amsterdam.]


The war between Spain and the Dutch lasted until 1648, by which time Protestantism, in it's rather severe Calvinist form, had become entrenched in the north. Thenceforth Dutch quarrelsomeness would have the perfect medium in which to manifest itself - religion. Not until twentieth century politics would another so perfect vehicle for petty dispute and despicion come along (and how the Dutch enthusiastically jumped on that bandwagon is another story).


Among the first actions that the Calvinists theocrats took was the banning of Catholicism in Protestant cities. Thereafter they started fighting among themselves.

Not only in the Netherlands.

The first Dutch Reformed church in the new world was established in New Amsterdam in 1628 (about six years before my first American-born ancestor, Isaac Abrahamsen van Deursen (b. 1635) saw the light), and the first church was built in 1633 on what is now Pearl Street in Manhattan. The Brits eventually seized the property for military purposes, and a new church was built in 1693 on Exchange Place. By the end of the century Dutch Reformed congregations had arisen all over New York and New Jersey, including areas which are now Hareidi strongholds such as Brooklyn, Flatbush, Hempstead, Monsey, Paramus, etcetera.


By 1792 the Dutch American churches split off from the Dutch churches, at which time they already consisted of various splinter groups on both sides of the Atlantic.


In 1816 Dutch government meddling created even more splinter groups, all disunited in opposition to the official approved Dutch Reformed denomination. In 1822 more seceders split off from the Reformed Church in America to form the True Dutch Reformed Church, while in 1834 dissidents left the Reformed Church in the Netherlands to form two new denominations, the Christelijk Afgescheiden Kerk (Christian Separatist Church - CAK) and the Gereformeerde Kerk onder het kruis (Reformed Church under the cross, aka the Cross Churches).


That's not the end of it. Did I mention that the Dutch are a stubborn bunch of quarrelsome pissants? I really should have.


In 1841 pastor Ledeboer and his group in the Netherlands bailed out and set up shop separately, along with others (forming the Ledeboerian faction). A number of these people headed for the U.S. in 1846 under the leadership of Pastor Albert Van Raalte, becoming the second group of people to immigrate to North America to get away from religious freedom (the Puritans having been the first). They established the settlement of Holland, Michigan (gosh what an imaginative name for a settlement of Dutchmen!). By 1850 they had more or less united with the Reformed Church in America.


Shortly thereafter, a group of dissenters split off from the Second Reformed Church (in Grand Rapids) and the Fourth Reformed Church (in Pella) to form the Christian Reformed Church. The True Dutch Reformed Church joined with the Christian Reformed Church in 1890, forming their own classis within the movement - classis Hackensack. In 1908 most of classis Hackensack withdrew from the Christian Reformed Church in a dispute over the faithful joining civic lodges or fraternal organizations.


Please note that 'Second Christian Reformed' is USUALLY a term for split-offs from the Fourth Christian Reformed church (Pella), which itself is a split-off variant of Dutch Reformed.

Second Christian Reformed should not be confused with Third Christian Reformed or First Christian Reformed, even though most Christian Reformed Churches adhere to the same source documents: The Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort.

Many Christian Reformed Churches, when they still worshipped in Dutch (in some places up until the nineteen-seventies or eighties!) still held to the Psalter of Petrus Datheen (1531 - 1588) (though note that some "Reformed" Churches held instead to the Psalter of Marnix Van St. Aldegonde (Philip van Marnix, lord of St. Aldegonde, 1538 - 1598), and a few deviants had long since switched to either the first or second Statenberijming, which dates from governmental meddling in church affairs starting in 1816 under William I).

Meanwhile, back in the swamp..., errm, I mean the Netherlands, several of the congregations of the Christelijk Afgescheiden Kerk and the Cross Churches combined to form another denomination - the Christelijk Gereformeerde Kerk (Christian Reformed Church, but not the same as the Christian Reformed Church in the American Midwest. In 1886 Doctor Abraham Kuyper and his followers split off from the official Dutch Reformed Church to unite with Christelijk Gereformeerde Kerk.


The Ledeboerian churches in the Netherlands joined with the remaining Cross Churches in 1907, forming a denomination which called itself the Gereformeerde Gemeenten (Reformed Congregations).


The remaining Ledeboerians in America had meanwhile formed the Netherlands Reformed Church in Michigan (in 1877), but, inevitably, there were more schisms to come.


In 1924, Reverend Herman Hoeksema of the Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids refused to agree to the teaching of the doctrines of common grace and presumptive regeneration, and left the church with most of his own congregation, plus a congregation in Kalamazoo, and other dissidents. In 1926 they organized the Protestant Reformed Churches. Their unity lasted for less than thirty years, nearly half of the members splitting off in 1954 to form the Orthodox Protestant Reformed Churches - which came in out of the cold in 1961, when they joined up with the Christian Reformed Church in 1961.


During WWII the Dutch showed that unity in hard times is hard - and a new denomination resulted: Gereformeerde Kerk Nederland - Vrijgemaakt (Reformed Church Netherlands - disassociated). By the nineteen fifties, this new denomination was also present in the U.S. and Canada.


Meanwhile, back in the swamp.....

A group seceded from the Gereformeerde Gemeenten (Reformed Congregations) over a doctrinal point that is totally incomprehensible, and became the Gereformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland (Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands). Their American branch is called the Reformed Congregations in North America.


Things have not been static since the nineteen sixties. In fact, far from it - since then the following dissenting North American denominations have been formed: Alliance of Reformed Churches, Christian Presbyterian, Orthodox Christian Reformed, United Reformed. And there are others.


The recent mega-merger in the Netherlands of the Nederlandsch Hervormde Kerk, the Gereformeerde Kerk Nederland, and the Dutch Lutheran Church has of course resulted in even more break-aways.


Well, you know what they say - you can't split rotten wood.




--- - --- - --- - --- - -


Addendum: In some ways, the events described above explain my own spiritual journey. Clearly an inherited propensity toward dissidence has found its end expression in a wholesale rejection of everything connected to the Christian Subsequentia (otherwise known, for some inexplicable reason, as 'New Testament'). But, having in a sustained fit of scepticism chucked out two thousand years of Roman cultic belief, I do not find myself with any greater conviction jumping into another religious derech. Instead I prefer to somewhat cynically, somewhat critically, explore a branch of monotheism that in its origins is close to what my grandparents knew (and paid scant attention to).

One could ask why I don't explore Buddhism or Islam (or other cults).


In what way do either of these speak to the pissant Dutchman within?



Both are foreign, both reject fundaments that are part of the subconscious western intellectual inheritance, fundaments which resonate with truth. Neither expresses the weltanschaung that we cannot know for certain, and may never know for certain. And neither have the same understanding of mercy and personal growth that is part of the tradition of both Rabbinic Judaism and it's crazy cousin Christianity.

Neither Islam nor Buddhism present a road through the same appealing scenery - only in their Hieronymus Boschian vistas do they even look familiar.


I cannot under any circumstances imagine myself EVER reciting the Muslim credo.

The magic syllable 'um', the mantra of which that is a part ("um money podmey um"), and my own lovely navel, will never be the triple nexus of my faith.


But 'Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai echad' has a ring to it.


Friday, April 21, 2006

EIGHTY DEGREES, LEATHER, AND TOO MANY JEWS!!!

Remember that post from the Godol Hador which I copy-pasted last week?
The one in which he was happily looking forward to eight days of food, rest, tea rooms, and a BIG BOWL OF JELLY FRUIT AND COCONUT MACAROONS?


[Here: http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2006/04/jelly-fruit-and-coconut-macaroons.html]

It was his last posting before leaving town for Peysach.
For over ten days he was away, and the bloggosphere was the quieter for it.

But, baruch Hashem, he's back. And he has written about his vacation.
[Here: http://godolhador.blogspot.com/#114564806810341219]

And he ain't happy!!!

------ ------ ------ ------ ------

This is his posting - it is an object lesson! Read it!






Friday, April 21, 2006

Pesach (Hotel) is BOGUS!
(Totally swamped at work after being away for a week, will have to write shorthand. )


15 minute walk from our room to the dining hall!!! And we only brought along the cheapo Target travel strollers, and not our mega expensive, all terrain Bugaboo Baby Urban Jogger thingy. Also I forgot my shoes and had to spend Yom Tov wearing a pair of $12.99 Wal Mart plastic specials. No fair! Why didn’t you tell us this bit of important info in the brochure???? You call yourself Pesach Tours? You should rename yourself to Pesach Walking Tours I think. Jeez. A 15 minute hike to the dining room in 80 degree heat with 2 crappy strollers and a pair of Wal-Mart shoes is not my idea of a luxury vacation.


Also way too many Jews, especially Jews from Brooklyn (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Luckily they were mostly MO Jews. But still! Who wants to be around Jews on vacation?


Also, why was I the only sruggy in shul? Don’t MO Jews wear sruggies anymore? What’s with all the black leather kippot? Is this a religious statement, that they’re too frum for sruggies? (But not too frum to spend yom tov afternoon ‘by’ the pool). Or is it just a fashion statement, i.e. my Lexus is leather, my sofa is leather, my ipod case is leather, so my kippa should be leather too?!


Also, what’s with all these Artscroll Hagadas: Hagadah of the Baalei Mussar, Haggadah of the Roshei Yeshivos? My theory is that the secret nobody wants to admit to is that Seder is BORING for anyone over 12 years old, so they keep coming out with new Hagados to keep it fresh. What next?


Coming soon from Artscroll: The Hagadah of the Gedolei HaKanoim – due for release Pesach 2007

Contributors: Rabbi Leib Pinter – due for release Pesach 2025 (ba-da-boom!)


Also, if you’re gonna advertise a ‘Grand Finale Pesach Dinner’ for the last afternoon of Yom Tov, don’t go and serve some freakin pareve crap and a plate of cheese, unless you want to get trashed all over the blogosphere, you Pesach hotel dummies!!!! Sheesh.

And your Tea Room SUCKED. Way too much Junk Food. And don’t go telling me that I can’t get into the Dining Hall at 10:20am to feed my kids breakfast cos you need to setup for fleishig lunch (and then lunch turns out to be milchiks anyway) and that I should feed my kids in the Team Room instead. Who feeds their kids coconut macaroons and jelly fruit for breakfast???? Are you nuts????!!!!!!

Needless to say we shall not be attending your bogus Pesach Hotel program next year.
[The GH divinely posted this at 3:33 PM today.]


------ ------ ------ ------ ------

One of the best godolhadoric rants ever. And all of that written on his first day at the office, between getting back to the city and heading home for shabbes. Truly, he is one of the gedolei ha dor.


And you should read him. More than you do.
Click here: http://godolhador.blogspot.com/


On a personal note, I hope that next Peysach more than makes up for the heartache of this Peysach.

On a blogger note, I hope otherwise - this is some seriously good stuff!

I'm conflicted; talk among yourselves.

------ ------ ------ ------ ------

Other fine gedolic posts which you really should read:
http://godolhador.blogspot.com/2005/03/weird-wacky-theory.html

http://godolhador.blogspot.com/2005/08/skeptical-of-selective-skepticism.html

http://godolhador.blogspot.com/2005/08/mis-nagid-is-mechazek-emunah.html

http://godolhador.blogspot.com/2005/07/zohar-kabala-ari-i-told-you-so.html

http://godolhador.blogspot.com/2005/04/chareidi-ideology-science-bad-pagan.html

There are many others. Embark on your own voyage of discovery. And let him know you visited.



Friday, April 14, 2006

JELLY FRUIT AND COCONUT MACAROONS

The Gadol Hador (http://godolhador.blogspot.com/) posted the entry below, just before leaving for the week.

I think the post is charming. It deserves a wider audience (his blog readers are usually NOT gentiles - I suspect that many gentiles are scared of stuff that they don't recognize - just like folks from the plains states distrust all fish that ain't tuna-inna-can).


There are some expressions you might not understand without help.
These are (in order of appearance):

Yom Tov = Holiday, religious festival.
Shver, shverre = Father in law.
Bnai Yisrael = The Jews.
Halachah = Talmudic laws and legal code.
Gedolim = The plural of Gadol. A great Talmudic mind.
Mussar = Meaningful godranting, moral message harangue.
Shmoozen = Intimate discussions, often by a rebbe to his devotees. Talks.
Yetziat Mitzraim = The getting-the-heck-out-of-Egypt.
Eretz Zovas Chalav uDvash = A land (eretz) flowing (zovas) with milk (chalav) and honey (devash).
Kollel guys = Married men still studying for a year or two after getting hitched.
Seforim = Books.
Chumras = Restrictions, more severe practises.
Mekayem = To adhere to, cleave to, be obedient to (as in the phrase "Tzaddik gozer ve Hakadosh Baruch Hu mekayem - the Tzaddik implores, and G-d gives in).
Hiddur mitzvah = Santifying the commandment; making the commandment beautiful.
Maykil = Lenient.
Moshiach = The messiah.


The GH's entry:

Monday, April 10, 2006
Pesach Hotel!!!


Well folks, it’s that time of the year again. All the MO (Monied Orthodox) go off to spend Pesach at fancy shmancy hotels, leaving all the complainers like Marvin Shtick to complain about how this isn’t in the spirit of Yom Tov. I’m not one of the Monied Orthodox, but I do have a generous shverre (thanks FIL!), so I shall be joining the ranks of the wealthy and will be stuffing my face for 8 days straight, morning noon and night, and often in between too.


But why are these people complaining? I thought Pesach was all about liberation from slavery? Leaving my day job to go spend 8 days in a luxury resort seems quite liberating to me! I think it’s exactly in the spirit of Pesach, especially if the generous shverre is paying. Kinda like God supplying the Bnai Yisrael with Manna.


Just wait, in 500 years I bet it will become the accepted Halachah that you MUST go to a Hotel for Pesach. Gedolim will give inspiring mussar shmoozen about how the only proper way to symbolize Yetziat Mitzrayim to Eretz Zovas Chalav uDvash is to perform our own personal Yetziat Mitzrayim and go to a hotel, Eretz Zovas Jelly Fruits and Coconut Macaroons.


Kollel guys looking for extra income will write seforim on Pesach Hotel Chumras, that to be really mekayem hiddur mitzvah you should go to a 5 star hotel. (MO will be maykil on 4 star). I also expect chumras and halachos on the minimum number of times to visit the Tea Room between meals, and the proper attire for the pool on Yom Tov afternoon. The MO and the UO will argue about the proper destinations, the MO will say it has to be in Israel, the UO will say Florida is fine until Moshiach comes.


Anyways, I shall be leaving shortly to somewhere warm, near a body of water. Could be Israel, could be Florida, could be Spain. Maybe I will see some of you there? I'll be the guy reading Torah Min HaShamayim by Heschel (possibly with a fake dustjacket depending on the crowd), and also I still have to finish 'The Emergence of Ethical Man' (and about 200 other books). I'll also have a big bowl of jelly fruit and coconut macaroons. Yumm.


--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

For some seriously good stuff (or absolute kefirah, depending on your background and how little you've managed to escape from it), please visit the Gadol Hador at: http://godolhador.blogspot.com/

Do read the comments underneath his posting. That's often where the meat of the matter is hashed out. And mostly that's even better than listening to a questions and answer session, or reading the transcripts of lectures. Halfway between flow of consciousness ranting and brilliant debate.
Learning is not a project with a defined end-point, but a continuous process (and sometimes, learning is also happily reading the angry objections and snarky comments. But it is never dull).


--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---


Another very worthwhile lecture hall in the internet Yeshiva can be visited here:
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/
It too provides great stimulation.
If you are a republican (chosvechollilleh), it might give you bile. In which case I definitely recommend it.

Monday, April 03, 2006

HASKAFIC MISCELLANY: FAITH VERSUS REASON

The Godol Hador has posted a short piece about faith versus reason, in which he imagines a possible exchange between Avraham and his kinfolk over idols. The point which GH makes is that reason must best faith.

This of course also brought up the Akeidah, which several of the commenters on GH's blog hash back and forth, using it for different examples and postulating different meanings.

The post, plus the comments, can be seen here:
http://godolhador.blogspot.com/#114409568599455279


--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

I also took part in the discussion. Now bear in mind that, as always on a Monday, I have not had enough sleep, and am wired to the eye-brows on cheap caffeine. So I may not be entirely compos-mentis. Certainly my perspective is affected by my state.


My comments are below - the bold part is what I commented on, the regular text underneath is what I wrote.
Feedback will be appreciated.


'The fundamentalists hold that Faith must win over Reason.'
[Note: this was said by GH]

Shouldn't faith and reason be in a state of permanent conflict? How else can one exercise choice? If one side loses out, the other side is not an alternative but an only answer - and then there is no choice (and man becomes irrelevant).


'Where most religions go wrong is the idea that priests must be fed.'
[This was one of my comments. In re-reading it, it sounds like glib snark.]

I was actually thinking of non-Jewish priests here. Hence the plural (religions). The position of kohanim is more a caste than a vocation, and as we know it now, they cannot be seen as priests in fact, but more like priests in potential.


'Blind obedience... G-d didn't really want him to kill Yitzchak... a G-d who doesnt want human sacrifice'
[This is a composite of three different writers commenting.]

A monumental game of chicken. Will G-d insist? Will Avraham rebel? Will Yitzhak flee?

If Avraham does NOT hope (not assume, but hope) that G-d will demur, then Avraham is not a fit father of a multitude. If G-d does NOT demur, there is no righteousness, and existence is merely brutal pandering to force. If Yitzhak does NOT trust completely in both of them, the multitude to whom Avraham will be a father is going to be marked by disobedience and dissension.

Yitzhak in this equation has stands in for the Jewish people, whose fate and future are being fought out between G-d and Avraham.

But can we really know what went on? Wouldn't coming to an agreed upon interpretation of this event be defining that which we cannot define? Perhaps one of the points of this episode is that we cannot ever know precisely what it means, and how it played out in the minds and emotions of Avraham and Yitzhak.


'Right. Thats why he put up a post on Sefas Emes.'
[Lakewoodyid said this, in reference to my previous blog-post, response to a remark.]

The Sfas Emes is a sehr shtarke denker with an intelligent approach to re-thinking the meaning of the texts (while he does not challenge the need to take their truth for granted). I appreciate the process while often doubting the premise.[Or, to put it differently, it is good to find meaning, while not necessarily being convinced that there is meaning.]


'BoTH is not jewish? then why does he know hebrew and what the hell is he doing talking hashkafa with us??? I've got to admit, i'm shocked.'
[Written by maamin ben maamin]

Who else's hashkofo discussions am I going to listen to?


--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Note: Mis-nagid wrote: "Apparently you don't know BotH. You think I'm an apikores? He's a bigger one--and goy to boot!"

I don't deny either assertion - that I'm an Apikores and that I'm goyish.

But to whose faith am I an Apikores?

Several generations ago, on both sides, the family tree was sodden with Calvinists. In more recent times we've flown in under the radar as very casual Anglicans, and in at least the last three generations we've kept far from priests and congregations.
So perhaps a better term is heretic - apikores suggests someone who picks and chooses (the subconscious implication of the original Greek term - 'epicure'), whereas heretic has a nice smell of burning faggots and unreconstructed dissidents, who with their dying breaths spit upon the priest.


I have rejected a large part of the Judeo-Christian tradition (a circumcision as it were, having lopped off the later accretions), but that does not mean that I have thrown it all out the door - just the Christian part.

That part was the natural stompin' ground of loonies anyhow. Some mighty strange fish in that there swamp (just imagine the three-eyed fish in the river into which the nuclear plant empties its waste on the Simpsons).


The Judaic component of the "Judeo-Christian" tradition has not nearly been stressed enough. There is much there that stimulates far more than the strange messianic and end-of-times fantasies of crazed saints and bigoted martyrs (although the Book of Revelations is an absolute hoot, on par with 'Howl' and 'Naked Lunch').


An eighty-year old friend, of impeccable Italian Catholic background, says that the Romans did not kill nearly enough Christians.

Given how many of them there are, you would think they'd stop playing the poor little oppressed lambs already.


I am much too much a sceptic however to unquestioningly accept the parts of the tradition that I have not rejected. I insist on being 'disagreeable'.

Chazal may have, as some aver, "been a bunch of ruddy geniuses the like of which our unworthy generations have never seen, we should be ever so grateful for the tiny lights of lomdus that flicker among the greats of our age, bla bla and bla", but I refuse to take that for granted. And neither should you. Faith is not possible unless there is doubt.
[You have a brain, your brain was built for inquiry and curiosity, fercrapssakes use it. It atrophies if you don't. A head should not be a rusty bucket!]


As to why I cannot believe that weird Messianic stuff, there are many reasons, not least of which is that no faith will be possible post-Messiah, and clearly certainty at present is impossible - ergo this is not the post-Messianic age.

He has not come yet. We hope he will come soon and in our days, but untill that happens we will be patient.

Monday, March 06, 2006

ON BEING

Bereishis, psook 41:9 "vayedaber sar hamashkim et-Paro, lemor 'et-chata'ai ani mazkir hayom'" (then spoke the chief steward to Pharaoh, saying 'I make mention of my sins today...').


In 1999, when I was in England, I had a glass of beer at a pub (that being something many visitors to England do).

While there, I overheard another patron with a very plummy uppercrustian way of speaking and an authoritative 'I-know-what-I'm-talking-about manner' say the following "Oh, Americans..., Americans have no taste whatsoever".

It struck me as odd at the time, because the gentleman in question was wearing a sportscoat with a plaid pattern loud enough and ghastly enough that even Ronald Reagan would not have been caught dead wearing it - and Ronnie was no stranger to bad clothing, you will recall.

There was a disconnect between the coat and the accent. As I said, VERY uppercrustian.

A while later I ended up in conversation with him, and when, after talking for nearly half an hour he found out that I was American, he said "Oh but you can't be an American! You talk like a civilized person!".

From his point of view, that was probably a compliment.

[The same thing happens in the Netherlands..., because I speak Dutch with a nice civilized Den Haag accent. It flabberghasts people when they find out I lived in North Brabant (home to goofy dialects and odd accents), and am not even a Dutchman to begin with.]


I mention this for a particular reason. And that is, that without giving it much thought, I may have been guilty of both supressio veri and suggestio falsi.

Specifically, you may have jumped to the conclusion that I am Jewish.


Which is not the case.
I was not born Jewish, I have not converted, and I do not intend to convert.


Conversion might make some sense if there was something to convert away from, such as Christianity or daemon-worship (and no, they're not quite the same).
But I do not belong to any creed or cultic grouping, and am perfectly happy not joining up with anybody, as I am not social enough to feel comfortable within a community of the faithful.
I am also too much of a cynic to fully believe in anything.

I see the constant tension between wanting desperately to believe, and refusing to be convinced, as the one thing absolutely necessary for religious faith. The very act of converting would demand that I trade faith for certainty.

Or, if you will, exchange hope for gnosticism (and a warm, gooshy feeling).


The GodolHador says "Unlike DovBear, a practicing Christian, I do believe in Judaism and Torah Min Hashmayim, though I think some of the details are a little murky."
[from : Torah Min Hashamayim, again! http://godolhador.blogspot.com/#114165449333838552 ]

Disregarding the snarky comment about DovBear, I find myself emunah-wise in between DovBear and GodolHador - but with a generous measure of Mis-nagid's point-of-view.

Please note that none of these three is a Bahble-thumpin' Baptist, and draw your own conclusions.


I'll be glad to attempt to answer any questions you might have, but as I never considered non-affiliation to be my most significant characteristic, or even particularly important (I do not define myself by my religion or lack thereof, even though I am seriously glad that I am not a Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Mormon, or Muslim), I am rather hoping that you won't make a big-deal of it.



[There should be a bracha: "Baruch Ata Adonai Eloheinu Melech ha olam, shelo asani Catholic, ve lo asani Lutheran, Calvinist, Mormon, Muslim.... ]

--- - --- - ---


Why didn't I mention this before?

Well, I didn't think it was that important, as I am not in the habit of qualifying my statements with a reference to my beliefs, personal philosophy, or ethnicity - either what I say stands on its own merit, or fails and falls by its own inherent goofiness.

Also, I kinda thought it obvious that I was a heretic.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

NOT STRICTLY REALITY BASED EMUNAH

[Actually, if it makes you feel better, you may call it 'meta-reality based emunah'.]


Back in early January, when I said that I cruised through the various shtarke denker blogs for material to steal, Mis-naged smilingly called me a "polite thief".

Which is a complement.


So, continuing that tradition of polite stealing, I am lifting some good stuff from the Godolhador ( http://godolhador.blogspot.com/ ) and pasting it below.

But remember, the Godolhador wrote it, and deserves the credit.

And I am very grateful that he wrote it, and posted it somewhere where I could grab it and paste it. Thank you. You are one of my daily reads, by the way.


It's from 'Ten Levels of Torah MinHashamayim Pop Quiz ', which was Divinely Inspired today. http://godolhador.blogspot.com/#114131950817001880

He posed it as a quiz, I'm posting it as an easy (though incomplete) reference to "not strictly reality based" Judaism.



NINE KINDS OF 'NOT-STRICTLY-REALITY-BASED EMUNAH'
[I invite Mis-naged to pose an alternative name.]

Kaarite
Everything in the Torah is literally true, and was dictated by God to Moshe word for word.


RW Ultra Orthodox
Everything in the Torah is literally true, except when darshened otherwise by Pharisse Rabbis, and was dictated by God to Moshe word for word.


LW Ultra Orthodox
Everything in the Torah is literally true, except when darshened otherwise by Pharisse Rabbis, or when it conflicts with Science and reason, in which case it can be darshened a little bit not literally, but only if famous Rishonim or Acharonim or Gedolim of previous eras said so, and it was dictated by God to Moshe word for word.


RW Modern Orthodox
Everything in the Torah is literally true, except when darshened otherwise by Pharisse Rabbis, or when it conflicts with Science and reason, in which case it can be darshened a little bit not literally, but only if famous Rishonim or Acharonim or Gedolim of previous eras said so, or if MO Gedolim of this era say so, and it was dictated by God to Moshe word for word, though some of it could have also been previously written in scrolls by the Avos and then included by God.


LW Modern Orthodox
Everything in the Torah is literally true, except when darshened otherwise by Pharisse Rabbis, or when it conflicts with Science, History and reason, in which case it can be darshened not literally, but only if famous Rishonim or Acharonim or Gedolim of previous eras said so, or even if MO Gedolim of this era say so, or even if non Orthodox scholars say so, but only if it doesn’t destroy any fundamental values of Judaism, also it was dictated by God to Moshe word for word, though some of it could have also been previously written in scrolls by the Avos.


RW Conservative
Everything in the Torah is literally true, except when darshened otherwise by Pharisse Rabbis, or when it conflicts with Science, History, Archeology and reason, in which case it can be darshened not literally, but only if famous Rishonim or Acharonim or Gedolim of previous eras said so, or even if MO Gedolim of this era say so, or even if non Orthodox scholars say so, but only if it doesn’t destroy any fundamental values of Judaism, also it was dictated by God to Moshe word for word, though some of it could have also been previously written in scrolls by the Avos, and some of it could have gotten messed up since so that what we have today isn’t really the original.


LW Conservative
The Torah is man’s account of Divine Revelation. Where the stories are plausible, they happened. Where they are not plausible, they probably didn’t. Or else they are exaggerated. Sinai happened, since there’s no evidence to say it didn’t. But everything else is debatable.


Reform
The bible was written by man. It is sacred, but mythical literature. Sinai probably didn’t happen, nor did many of the other stories. But it is a great document none the less, and represents mans striving for the infinite.


Skeptic
The bible is mythological literature. No different than any other ANE text such as the enumah elish. Worth studying though as it contains some influential ideas.Level 10 - Militant AtheistThe bible is immoral and worse. One of the most dangerous books ever produced. A load of superstitious bunk.


--- - --- - --- - --- - ---

Anyway, I encourage y'all to cruise into the Godolhador's blog, for some interesting stuff about religion, emunah, modern day Judaism, theology, and the occasional heated argument with (among many others) Dovbear and Mis-naged. Sometimes sparks fly. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Godolhador: http://godolhador.blogspot.com/
Dovbear:http://dovbear.blogspot.com/
Mis-naged: No blog at present. But, imirtzeshem.....

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

THAT'S SO SWEET!!!

.
.
.
The Godol Hador (http://godolhador.blogspot.com/) said this today:

"I also expect that most mature people realize that when I call someone a 'raving lunatic' I mean it in the best possible way, with oodles and oodles of love and kisses and hugs and affirmation and empathy etc. OK, maybe one or two times there was the slightest hint of a speculation of a teensy weensy bit of annoyance on my part. For that I sincerely apologize, and I promise never ever to do it again ...."


Snnnf snnnf.... that's so sweet!!!!

It's the nicest thing anyone's said in years!

I'm touched. No, really.



For the rest of his post, go here:
http://godolhador.blogspot.com/#114056138082328371
.
.
.
----- ------------------ -----

As a conversational gambit in a bar or at the office Christmas party, apologizing for calling someone a 'Raving Lunatic™' is probably without equal.

Just remember to answer the inevitable question with "What! You mean they never said anything?".

Then answer all further queries with "never mind". Or "I guess it doesn't matter".

Thursday, February 16, 2006

LIKUTEI BLOGGOS

Respondingtojblogs, whose picture looks so much like Butters from Southpark that they could be twins, except that one of them isn't real, raises some interesting points, eloquently, in a recent posting (http://respondingtojblogs.blogspot.com/2006/02/lone-and-level-sands-stretch-far-away.html).


Regarding his discomfort with demands that Judaism makes on his worldview, he writes:
"The first and most obvious is the conflict between Torah and Science. I’ve seen cute ways of getting around this problem, from linguistic gymnastics to typical “kiruv klown” attacks on established scientific theory. I am not going to debate the contours of this conflict. Suffice it to say that the Torah, read literally, makes stark assertions of fact (e.g., six days of creation, existence of firmament, geocentrism, young universe, global flood, etc.) that are at odds with any modern understanding of the world. "

[Oh dear. Am I to take this as meaning that Intelligent Design isn't going to find favour with him? A pity. ]


But more to the point, "Far more disturbing then outright conflict with physical law, however, is the assumption that Judaism somehow transcends the law of time."

He clarifies what he means by saying: "My point, however, is that time does more than shape our physical surroundings. It changes culture as well. Every culture develops myths, complex social interactions, economic markets, religion, and political systems. These institutions in turn feedback on themselves and their complexity grows over time. Political and economic systems grow more complex. Some myths are forgotten, while some gain central importance to the culture. "


In short, the Judaism of today is not the Judaism of the past. So it is ridiculous to act as if it were.

To those who have rejected religion, this is so obvious as to be self-evident, but it is perhaps surprising how many people of only moderate intelligence in this world are unable to see how their own creed has changed over time - consider the Muslims who look back on a golden past, fantasizing about the companions of the prophet and the caliphate, or the Hindus who insist that the cow has been sacred for as long as there have been Hindus, or Protestants who are convinced that Luther somehow got the real deal on Christianity despite centuries of Catholic thought forming the Western Christian worldview.


Judaism today would be unthinkable without Rashi, the Rambam, and the GRA.
Yet two thousand years ago, they would have been unthinkable, and their thoughts would not have been thunk.


More to the point, while at every stage the faithful have made changes to the belief system, knowledge has increased and shattered some of the once firm bedrock on which much dogma was built. So much so for instance that one is unable nowadays to believe that the earth is flat, or this globe is the center of the universe - and these were once unassailable facts.

Science and faith are at odds. It was not science that picked this fight, and given how little of anybody's sacred scripture can be proven or is scientifically verifiable, science often seems happily unaware of the contradiction.


Not so the religious world. As is proven by the comments appended to a recent posting by the Gadol Hador (Noach Lo Hoyoh Veloh Yihyeh http://godolhador.blogspot.com/#114006908489895990 ).

Regarding the great flood, the Gadol protests "When are you guys going to get it?! - From a rational perspective, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN."

He concludes his posting with the words "Personally, I would say it's just as logical to claim that Zoboomafoo planted all the evidence. But if you want to have faith in a bizzarre set of miracles then go right ahead. But at least admit it's all faith. There's no reason anywhere to be found."


With the entire post some of his readers take issue. There are already over two hundred comments.

Some of them argue that a local flood is consistent with midrash - but not with Torah.

Others daringly go out on a ledge.

A very high ledge.

And jump.

Such as Lakewood Yid, who said: "what about dinosaurs? In my opinion, they existed just they didn't survive the mabul."

Note that this posits that there were dinosaurs running around five thousand years ago, before the flood (mabul). Never mind that the geologic evidence that proves their existence places dinosaurs a distance from our own time of millions of years (and never mind that the Republican Party only dates from the nineteenth century).


Happywithhislot (http://happywithhislot.blogspot.com/) spotted the contradiction, and after hinting at the sheer ancientness involved, asked "By the way, lakewood yid, are you admitting there were dinosaurs? Dont you know that is kefirah in some circles?"

S. (http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/) asked: "Dinosaurs lived 5000 years ago?"

To which Lakewood Yid responded: "Prove it that they didn't."


At this point I dropped my coffee cup, I was laughing so hard.

For which I apologize.

It isn't nice to make fun of someone else's lack of knowledge.

Especially as having already met us half-way (by acknowledging the existence of dinosaurs), he very likely may come further along this path, over time, and accept several other fundaments of modern knowledge - such as evolution, big bang, trilobites, and gravity.


S. responded to the demand for proof that dinosaurs did not exist five thousand years ago by writing: "Whatever. It's an accident of birth that you don't believe that Jesus died for you or that Moloch wants your first born as steak."

Which prompted an unknown whom we all know and love to come out of the woodwork under the name Moloch and say "Feed me your babies, lakewood yid! I know you have very many!"


Shortly thereafter, Lakewood Yid posted what is essentially his haskafa:

"Not only here in Lakewood but also the entire orthodox jewry who firmly believe that the ENTIRE torah was given to Moshe at Har sinai. All of us stand up and say SHUT UP to a person who doesn't believe in even one part of Torah Shb'csav. You are even worse than the Tzedokim. They, at least believed in Torah Shb'csav.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a born and bred lakewooder and if I were to meet you face to face, I would sit down with you and have a nice polite mentchliche discussion with you.

But anonymously on the web I sayKEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

Is there evidence that the red sea split???????

Is there evidence that all the water in egypt turned into blood????

Is there evidence that a mountain was uprooted and held over the jews heads at sinai?????

Is there evidence that avrohom avinu walked into the fire (kivshin ha'eish) and survived????????I could go on & on & on....Sure you may question if Noach existed. But not to declare that it never happened."


Amazing!


How can emunah even exists if doubt is removed from the picture? Faith lives only when one can doubt but finds a reason to suspend that doubt. Doubt is essential to the process.

Isn't such absolute certainty, within the context of an ethical belief system, a form of heresy?
Doesn't doubt have a validity for faith that absolute certainty lacks?

Perhaps equally valid is the question whether there is any way of combining two seemingly contradictory worlds.


In arguing Torah, the real world must be set aside, and in discussing the real world, the Torah must fade into the background. It is the confusing of these two mostly contradictory realms (scripture vs evidence) that bulgars up most of the public debate.


One either takes the mythos, or one takes the facts. Each approach turns the other into an intellectual construct, but neither approach allows for great flexibility in interpretation. There are parameters which limit the options.


For me, it isn't a question of trying to prove one right and the other wrong, but of logical rigidity. Specifically of applying the rules of the game exactly. And for me, being both anally retentive AND neurotic, it is also a matter of great fascination.



In reality, the flood never happened.

In the Torah, history and geology do not exist.


There is a time and a place for reality, and there is a worth and a purpose for the Torah.




--- --- --- --- --- --- ---



On an entirely different subject, I have just discovered the most amazing blogger! Yehupitz!

His blog (here:
http://yehupitz.baltiblogs.com/) is, like only a few other blogs, devoted entirely to his own gentle tongue in cheek attempt to make people think.

In a posting dated December 27 ('Dovbear: no sense of decency'), the Yehupitzer writes: "...this Dov animal has no decency. His unwarranted attacks on good people he disagrees with, such as Rabbi Emanuel Feldman and Toby Katz"

Toby Katz, you will recall, is the name of a hatemonger who writes for Der Sturme...., I mean Crosscurrents (a neo-Christian apologist blog which carefully screens the comments people post, and then selects which ones not to publish).

He writes further "That this sheigetz deserves condemnation is nothing new. What is newly deserving of condemnation is Gil's benign tolerance of such scum."

As heaven forfend I would not want to assume that der Yehupitzer redt lashon horo, it is clear that he meant this in jest.
http://yehupitz.baltiblogs.com/archives/2005_12.html


If it weren't for Dovbear, der Yehupitzer would not exist.



Surely he is grateful to this creator?




---------------------------------------------


Blogs mentioned in this post:

[He often makes good points, and his blog is well worth cruising into.]
...
Not The Gadol Hador:
http://godolhador.blogspot.com/
[Despite his disclaimer, he very well may be the Gadol Hador. One of the greats.]
...
[A sense of humour. A realist.]
...
S. (Mississippi Fred MacDowell):
http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/
[One of the stellar team of Maven Yayin (http://mavenyavin.blogspot.com/).
A good writer on his own as well as a member of an excellent collective effort.]
...
Lakewood Yid does not have a blog. Yet.
...
The unknown whom we all know and love, aka Moloch, wishes to remain anonymous - and if we blow his cover, a sting operation that took several years to engineer will be blown, and the TeoChew gangs will waste him. And you will have blood on your hands. Don't ask.
...
Oh, and you already know who Dovbear is, and where to find him. I read him on a daily basis. It's good for the circulation. http://dovbear.blogspot.com/
[Warning: Dovbear may cause dyspepsia for some of you Republicans, but you'll be better for it, as you had better! realize. Yes, you may thank me.]
...

Friday, October 21, 2005

Not an ape in the bunch!

HaRav Moshe Sternbuch, shlita, has authored a most marvelous letter (which you can read in its entirety here: http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/RavSternbuchEnglish.pdf) in which he seems to argue that scientists have tried to hold their science up to the Torah, that science has failed the PROOF of Torah, and that science is therefore incorrect.


What an utterly refreshing point of view!

Many people have been irritated for a long time that their dearly held beliefs were demonstrably scientifically wrong.
Now they may celebrate, because it is actually the OTHER WAY AROUND: science is religiously wrong.
And scientists have desperately been trying to find proofs of their scientific "theories" in the Torah.


To quote: "Scientists (...) rush to find isolated statements of our sages, rabbis, and commentaries that seem consistent with contemporary scientific view". These same scientists "are fully aware of the astounding details of G-d's wisdom in creating the world".

But, according to Rav Chaim Brisker, as quoted by HaRav Moshe Sternbuch, "G-d knew that there would always be heretics who would cite verses in the Torah to try and prove the validity of their deviant thoughts", and therefore He "wrote the Torah without concern whether the verses would be misused to justify heresy".

Further on, HaRav Moshe states, based on a decision by the Sanhedrion and the affirmation of the Rambam (Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon), that "surely the accepted view of the age of the universe can not be disregarded. This required acceptance of the traditional age of the universe is all the more obvious since every man and woman and child knows that the world was created 5765 years ago. An additional reason why we must accept the traditional age of the universe is that the calendar system is based on this fact. Consequently, a person who casts doubts on this accepted tradition -- even if he is (a) widely respected person by the Jewish people -- must be carefully investigated. This is because (it) is possible that he might have doubts concerning the foundation principles of faith -- like the academic scholars."


Well now.Accepted views are often wrong - truth is not a matter of acceptance or a vote (where it so, minority opinions would be anathema).

In Maimonides day, every man, woman, and child knew that the world was flat, and several other things that have since been proven to be utter balderdash. Even today men, women, and children know things that are patently false.

The calendar system is based on a postulated date - that does not mean that the date in question was the beginning of the calendar system, and accepting a calendar does not mean necessarily accepting the beginning date of that calendar as having a significance beyond it's being day or year one.
The Roman calendar was based on a mythological event - surely one can accept that such and such are the dates in the Roman calendar when Caesar was killed, Gaul was conquered, Nero died - without accepting that Romulus and Remus ever existed?
I accept the common era calendar, yet I refuse to accept one iota of the claptrap on which it is based.
A calendar is a tool, not an article of faith, nor a basis for a system of belief.

And as for academic scholars, there are plenty of them who accept, without any other basis than what their parents taught them and their faith tells them, any number of religious ideas. Just like there are religious authorities who accept no science whatsoever. None of this proves or disproves science, academic studies, or faith, though it does suggest that ignorance affects critical thinking.


HaRav Sternbuch also states"the obvious truth is that the order and nature of creation is concealed."

Which means exactly what, as far as proving any statement about the origins of the universe?
Though the assertion that it is concealed is tantamount to admitting that what is revealed is unacceptable. Including the very first parsha in Bereishis, and much subsequent material in the five books.

[The obvious is concealed - I like that; 'that which is clear is hidden, that which is incomprehensible is universally known, and so, clearly, the universe is six thousand years old.' Omeyn.]


There's much more in the letter, yet also very little else. In essence, the letter argues that science is wrong when it contradicts scripture, and often wrong in any case, evolution is impossible, we share no common ancestry or biology with other creatures (and certainly not with monkeys!), the world is only 6000 years old, scientists are desperate heretics, and anybody who believes otherwise is an apikoros if not an outright heathen. And should be looked at with extreme disfavour, at the very best.


He concludes with what amounts to a psak against scientific literature, saying that "having scientific writings in your house that are incompatible with the Torah, violates the prohibition (Deuteronomy 4:26): "Do not bring disgusting things in your house.", and "having such heretical scientific books in the home causes much troubles to those who possess them and it is obligated to get rid of them. Furthermore the author of such unacceptable scientific writings must retract such views and subordinate himself to the authority of contemporary rabbinical authorities".


If one were to strip this letter of identifying Judaic markings, and all other clues that the author is a rabbi, then one would have something that, except for the fact that it uses difficult words, might very well have been written by a fundamentalist Southern preacher.
Or a moron from Texas.


It reminds me of a decision made years ago by Hindu fundamentalist politicians to cease teaching algebra in a province where they had won an election, because all worthwhile knowledge was in the Vedas, and goodness gracious, something invented by Muslims couldn't possibly be of any use to anybody, and would probably poison precious little Hindu minds!


The problem with stuff like this is that it cherrypicks among the ideas the author wants to accept, and the scientific facts and proofs that the author is willing to trust, and discards everything else, irrespective of whether the author actually understands, or is even familiar with the field of learning in question. Archeology, geology, biology, physics - all of these, if they do not prove every word of scripture right, are to be seen as wrong and dangerous.


With all due respect for his learning (and his ability to turn the Rambam into a dunce), I would hope that HaRav Sternbuch would realize that science may not be his field of expertise. Adding to the sum total of ignorance in the world is also heresy.


So please, tayere rav, shut up!

- - - - - - - - -
PS. I gratefully acknowledge 'Not The Godol HaDor', at http://godolhador.blogspot.com/ for leading me to this letter ("Relationship of Science to Torah") by HaRav Moshe Sternbuch, shlita. I have printed out a copy of the letter, and shall read and reread it many times.
- - - - - - - - -

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Healthy young things

"Healthy young animals are the future of your business. That's why it's crucial to choose a nutritious milk replacer. "


A few days ago, Dov Bear mentioned a number of blogs he visits regularly. So I checked 'em out. Several are more than interesting (and I haven't checked all of them, so these are not the ONLY interesting ones):
Godol Hador <http://godolhador.blogspot.com/> ,
Hirhurim <http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/> ,
RenReb <http://www.renegaderebbetzin.blogspot.com/> ,
Velveteen <http://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/> ,
PsychoToddler <http://www.psychotoddler.blogspot.com/> ,
YitzhakEyezik <http://www.yitzhakeyezik.blogspot.com/> ,
Amshinover <http://amshinover.blogspot.com/> .

Dov Bear himself is at: http://dovbear.blogspot.com/
Read Dov Bear's blog. You won't regret it. Unless you voted for Bush, in which case you should call a priest and have that daemon cast out. Seriously. Get help.

Another favourite blog is Mar Gabriel,
http://margavriel.blogspot.com/2005/09/rosh-hdhesh-qiddush.html
Mar Gabriel fascinates because he writes, often with great charm, about a lifestyle almost mediaeval - the obsessive scholarly interests, the almost frantic pursuit of talmedish shabbesdikke involvement (trying to answer the eternal question: what and where am I eating this shabbes, and how will this shabbes differ from the ones that went before), and the habitus of a lomdishe olam.
All rather reminiscent of either the scholar at Oxenforde from Chaucer, or clerks at the University of Paris in the late middle-ages.
It is also refreshing to find writing that, almost obsessively, employs diacritical markings.

And if you visit Mar Gabriel, also visit Steg (dos iz nit der šteg) at http://www.boroparkpyro.blogspot.com/
Just be carefull not to ask him about his lesson plans.

Search This Blog

GRITS AND TOFU

Like most Americans, I have a list of people who should be peacefully retired from public service and thereafter kept away from their desks,...