The Age of the Sun and Darwinism

635 תגובות

1. I check from time to time.
   No, no, I still haven't received any answers from Machek and A. And this despite repeated promises.
   Yes, I'm still into the broken moral compass that religious believers inherently hold, and are proud of it 🙁

2. Shmulik
   Still you didn't answer me what you are proposing. What are your conditions for party disqualification?
   Disqualify all religious parties?
   It's nice that you say that religious people will be allowed to vote. I was already afraid that it wouldn't be either.
   Will religious people be allowed to run in non-religious parties? Or is everyone suspected of wanting a Halacha state?

   I didn't understand why you think I'm wrong that as a child I lived in the territories. And I don't own anyone's opinions, but I can't be offended that the majority of religious people want to abolish democracy. Just like if you were shown a survey abroad that the majority of Tel Avivians want a Halacha state, you would know that this is not true.
   You have to understand that from the point of view of the religious, their way of interpreting the Halacha is the original (like the Americans say that America was founded on the value of freedom and equality. And that the mentally ill Tea Party members talked about returning to the original values, no one thinks they are calling for a return to slavery) No religious party wants to stonewall anyone. I'm also not sure if you say that out of ignorance or out of desire to slander.

3. idle idle….

4. A',
   First of all, why did you choose to start with the sentence "I know what I will refer to again"? You never once addressed my questions unless you had someone waiting that I missed.
   Secondly, my argument, which consisted of several sections, presents the population's desire for a regime that is clearly not a democratic regime. That's why point 2 is sufficient to discuss the issue of the parties themselves, but all the sections are important to establish the religious mindset in the country and what turns out is that the absolute majority wants a Halacha state. The fact that you lived in a settlement is fine (not in my opinion, but so be it) but it does not give you ownership of the opinions of others as I do not have ownership of the opinions of people in Tel Aviv just because I lived in Tel Aviv. I therefore allow myself to rely on the survey and the platform of the Jewish Home in this discussion. Note that they fit together like a glove. The platform speaks of an original Hebrew Misht. He just says that homosexuals who have sex should be stoned, he says that women will not be able to sing in public (and this is already happening today in Jerusalem and in other places without there being a law on the subject!), he says that women will not be able to testify, he says that we cannot travel on Shabbat... he says countless things that all contradict democracy.
   Third thing, I find that you agree with me, if these are offenses that you think are serious. I didn't go into the precise legal issue, but I am talking about the principle that is important in such loose discussions (since in reality, if anything, I will be blocked and outlawed). My principle says that these parties want to eliminate democracy and therefore they should be outlawed. Do not dismiss the words of the Prime Minister who says about the ultra-Orthodox that they want a halachic state (and they are not at all opposed to this statement), he knows them everyday. My problem is that everyone is indifferent to their desire. For me it is unimaginable

5. Shmulik
   You know what I will address your questions again.
   Let's start from the end
   4. The most correct thing about this section is that only section 2 is required. Not only that, these are also the only ones relevant to the discussion. The sentence "Parties that wish to establish a Halacha regime in Israel should be outlawed, just as Kahane was outlawed. Democracy should not surrender its head to those who seek to destroy it. ” True on the face of it but broken like a sieve. It has two problematic points. One of the meanings of "interested" I remind you that we are talking about denying a right, this must comply with legal instruments. And the second problem is the definition of a Halacha regime. Not every talk about the principles of Hebrew law can be considered a "law system". If a person stands up in the Begetz (obviously it will be decided there) and declares that he supports keeping Israel democratic, it will not be possible to disqualify him. So you can say he might be lying. But the tool of denying the right to be elected must be carefully guarded and be used only in extreme cases, not even any support for an illegal law can be a halo for disqualifying a candidate. Otherwise, every time the Supreme Court rejects a law, a Knesset majority will reject it. (There are other cases that are not directly related to religion, such as racism, which should also be disqualified, but this is not related to the discussion)
   3 Not relevant at all but guess true
   2 I do not agree with the claim. A principle of Hebrew law does not necessarily equal a regime of Halacha. Even if it says Asli (yes, the word original is very worrying and I think there should be a law that the Knesset can demand clarifications on such cases)
   1. Neither agree nor relevant.
   This is simply not true, I know it from my own personal testimony. I lived in a religious settlement, I studied in religious schools and I tell you this is not true.
   Finally, he clarified that even calling for the application of Halacha laws without abolishing democracy can be a halo of disqualification. But each case should be examined on its own merits. A general call to Hebrew law is interpreted differently for everyone (even with the word *the original* because most religious people see every change in the law as original.)
   Also each law in its own right.
   For example: the law "You shall not stand on the blood of your neighbor" does not contradict democracy and is legal and I support it.
   I am against the "Sabbath transport ban" law, but I don't think it can be said that it is illegal. The state has the right to set a day without public transportation.
   The Hametz Law. Not only am I against it, in my opinion it is also illegal and it should be abolished. But it cannot be said to disqualify any party that supports him in its platform.
   If someone says that gays should be stoned or any harm to any population. He should without a doubt be disqualified from serving in the Knesset. Even if he declares that he supports keeping the democratic process.

6. Just a little something about the Jewish home
   http://www.srugim.co.il/107029-%D7%94%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%90-%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%94-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%A6%D7%AA

   And Eli Ohana... we must not forget Eli Ohana and who pressured him to kick him out of there
   http://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/.premium-1.2554208
   http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/elections/.premium-1.2551762
   Another obstacle that Bennett faced was the rabbis who support the party. Rabbi Chaim Druckman, the senior rabbi who supports Bennett, has not yet commented on the matter, but his associates signaled that he is not happy with the move. Rabbi Eli Sadan, head of the "Bnei David" pre-military training school in Baali, said yesterday morning after the prayer that he would call not to vote for Bennet. In response to this, Bennett went to him that night to try to make him change his mind, but Sadan was not convinced.

   The main thing is that there is no council of rabbis...

7. A'
   Good,
   You don't care about anything. Neither facts nor plaster. You are probably right

8. waiting
   I never said Shmulik's fear was unjustified.
   But the way he proposes is not a defensive democracy. She is already an "enlightened dictatorship" and I am not ready for that.
   The Jewish home is not interested in a Halacha state. Believe me I grew up in very extreme places. And the number of people who really want a non-democratic state is very small. I really don't know about the Haredim what the situation is there. But without a doubt when religious people say Hebrew law or state according to Halacha and what Shmulik imagines there is a big gap. I'm the last to say that everything is fine and that there's no need to worry. But among all the things that the state can do, disqualification of all religious parties based solely on the assumption that they want a Halacha state? ! (And no, the section in the platform is not enough, and the fact that Bibi said something is also not enough) I am not interested in polls. I was there and not in the mild part.
   What will be the next step? Will you forbid religious people to form new parties instead of the ones you will outlaw? After all, even today it is not written in their platform to abolish democracy (Mulik will probably say that they are lying and hiding their intentions)
   The only parties that were banned from competing was because of explicit and clear things they said and did not agree to retract.
   And a final point. If the Jewish Home was really so against democracy, why are they conducting primaries even though they are not required by law. Why don't they establish a council of rabbis?

9. A'
   You didn't answer anything. You can talk as aggressively as you want and say you answered everything but you didn't answer anything. I actually messed up and answered yes. I wrote that I think the parties that are trying to destroy democracy should be outlawed and these are the religious parties because they want to maintain a secular regime here. Pay attention to what I wrote and not what you want to understand from my words: the parties and not the voters

   Still, to try to get something out of an eye-rolling juggler like you, I'll try again

   See, there is such a thing as discussion culture. Discussion culture is not only about being polite (by the way, I agree with K. that content is much more important to the discussion culture because it is the discussion!) but also addressing the other side's questions and answering them. You don't do it consistently and just write generic, non-committal comments that don't advance anything. I could not understand from you why you oppose what I write. On what basis are you objecting?

   It is true that I showed that:
   1. The majority of the religious and the absolute majority of the ultra-orthodox want to end democracy and maintain a Halacha regime here
   I brought a survey, I brought quotes from Bibi, Yaakov Naman and a platform from the Jewish Home to substantiate my arguments.
   Do you agree with the claim that the majority of religious people want to have a Halacha state here? If not, necrosis
   2. The existence of a Halacha state contradicts democracy. The requirement to maintain the original Hebrew law in the Jewish Home platform (the word original actually appears in the platform) is a desire to maintain a Halacha regime in Israel.
   Do you agree with this statement? If not, necrosis
   3. The majority of the religious and ultra-Orthodox vote for the Jewish Home and the ultra-orthodox parties
   I based it on research I brought.
   Do you agree with this statement? If not, necrosis

   The argument:
   4. Parties wishing to establish a Halacha regime in Israel should be outlawed, just as Kahane was outlawed. Democracy should not surrender its head to those who seek to destroy it.
   In fact, for this claim, only point 2 is enough for me. The rest was brought to explain where the desire comes from, to give the argument more depth and to demonstrate how serious our situation is.

   Now, are you ready to answer questions? I remember that I also asked you questions about Judaism that you have not yet answered

10. Shmulik, I do not understand politics beyond the level of the ordinary citizen, and in principle do not like the subject, and believe more in education.
    If your fear is justified - I will fight for you. Me and a lot of other nice observant people.
    But, in my view, it is a false fear.
    Most traditional Likud voters. Will they want a Halacha state?
    Most of the Jewish Home voters are people for whom the observance of Halacha is important to a great extent, but in practice they do not observe everything, just walk around a religious society and you will see this. Will they want a Halacha state?
    The way of force will not work - also because of opposition at home, the children of the religious do not like that force is exerted on them. The people in the synagogue have a hard time with the rabbi reminding them to observe a halachic law that they forgot, so they will want a halachic state? There is no version where you are forced to keep Shabbat.

11. What you want is not a defensive democracy but an enlightened dictatorship. So just know that there really is no such thing. But I probably won't be able to explain it to you.
    have a good day.

12. Shmulik
    Don't do favors and answer with you don't want to. But don't set me conditions. I answered each of these questions even if you didn't like the answer.
    When I was part of the religious society (as a teenager) I had many such arguments. It's just that the word religious has mostly been replaced by minorities. The rhetoric was the same, the form of the arguments, and the accusation that I was innocent, etc.
    Yes, there are many people on the religious side with views contrary to democratic values.
    And you know what I was really a little naive then because I thought it was a problem mainly of the sector I was in. But I found out a long time ago that it really isn't.
    If it's not important to you to contradict what I understood from your words, I assume that I understood them correctly (what you also said is very clear. Apart from small nuances such as whether to exclude from the religious only to choose or also to choose. I will probably never know?)

13. Shmulik
    Don't do favors and answer with you don't want to. But don't set me conditions. I answered each of these questions even if you didn't like the answer.
    When I was part of the religious society (as a teenager) I had many such arguments. It's just that the word religious has often been replaced by minorities. The rhetoric was the same, the form of the arguments, and the accusation that I was innocent, etc.
    Yes, there are many people on the religious side with views contrary to democratic values.
    And you know what I was really a little naive then because I thought it was a problem mainly of the sector I was in. But I found out a long time ago that it really isn't.
    If it's not important to you to contradict what I understood from your words, I assume that I understood them correctly (what you also said is very clear. Apart from small nuances such as whether to exclude from the religious only to choose or also to choose. I will probably never know?)
    What you want is not a defensive democracy but an enlightened dictatorship. So just know that there really is no such thing. But I probably won't be able to explain it to you.
    have a good day.

14. The response is awaiting approval

15. Shmulik
    Don't do favors and answer with you don't want to. But don't set me conditions. I answered each of these questions even if you didn't like the answer.
    When I lived when I was part of the religious society I had many such arguments. It's just that the word "religious" was often replaced by B.H., B.M. The rhetoric was the same, the form of the arguments, and the accusation that I was innocent, etc.
    Yes, there are many people on the religious side with views contrary to democratic values.
    And you know what I was really a little naive then because I thought it was a problem mainly of the sector I was in. But I found out a long time ago that it really isn't.
    If it's not important to you to contradict what I understood from your words, I assume that I understood them correctly (what you also said is very clear. Apart from small nuances such as whether to exclude from the religious only to choose or also to choose. I will probably never know?)
    What you want is not a defensive democracy but an enlightened dictatorship. So just know that there really is no such thing. But I probably won't be able to explain it to you.
    have a good day.

16. Shmulik
    Don't do favors and answer with you don't want to. But don't set me conditions. I answered each of these questions even if you didn't like the answer.
    When I lived when I was part of the religious society I had four such arguments. It's just that the word "religious" was often replaced by "bar", "bim". The rhetoric was the same, the form of the arguments, and the accusation that I was innocent, etc.
    Yes, there are many people on the religious side with views contrary to democratic values.
    And you know what I was really a little naive then because I thought it was a problem mainly of the sector I was in. But I found out a long time ago that it really isn't.
    If it's not important to you to contradict what I understood from your words, I assume that I understood them correctly (what you also said is very clear. Apart from small nuances such as whether to exclude from the religious only to choose or also to choose. I will probably never know?)
    What you want is not a defensive democracy but an enlightened dictatorship. So just know that there really is no such thing. But I probably won't be able to explain it to you.
    have a good day.

17. A',
    See, there is such a thing as discussion culture. Discussion culture is not only about being polite (by the way, I agree with K. that you think much more about the discussion culture) but about addressing the other side's questions and answering them. You don't do it consistently but just write generic, non-committal comments that don't advance anything.
    Answer, I will answer. Don't answer, I won't answer

    It is true that I showed that:
    1. The majority of the religious and the absolute majority of the ultra-orthodox want to end democracy and maintain a Halacha regime here
    I brought a survey, I brought quotes from Bibi, Yaakov Naman and a platform from the Jewish Home to substantiate my arguments.
    Do you agree with the claim that the majority of religious people want to have a Halacha state here? If not, necrosis
    2. The existence of a Halacha state contradicts democracy. The requirement to maintain the original Hebrew law in the Jewish Home platform (the word original actually appears in the platform) is a desire to maintain a Halacha regime in Israel.
    Do you agree with this statement? If not, necrosis
    3. The majority of the religious and ultra-Orthodox vote for the Jewish Home and the ultra-orthodox parties
    I based it on research I brought.
    Do you agree with this statement? If not, necrosis

    The argument:
    4. Parties wishing to establish a Halacha regime in Israel should be outlawed, just as Kahane was outlawed. Democracy should not surrender its head to those who seek to destroy it.
    In fact, for this claim, only point 2 is enough for me. The rest was brought to explain where the desire comes from, to give the argument more depth and to demonstrate how serious our situation is.

    Now, are you ready to answer questions? I remember that I also asked you questions about Judaism that you have not yet answered

18. "Then at least read what he represents: not supporters of a certain party, but 69-86 percent of all religious people want the rule of Halacha. What is not clear here?"
    So I understand that you are not in favor of denying the right to be elected from a certain party or from all religions? Or also the right to choose?

19. Shmulik
    I didn't understand, you're saying that you don't have the ability to do what you say, so that makes it legitimate?
    You say that religious people should be denied the right to choose and be chosen or not. What does it matter if you are a majority or not?
    If you are not in favor of denying one of these rights then we have no debate on the matter and it was all a misunderstanding on my part.

20. A',
    First of all, start committing to something: did I present or did I not present that the majority of religious people want a Halacha state here?
    Second thing, my God. Didn't I bring here a critical mass of evidence that the game is addictive? If you don't accept the survey as representative, write, but if it is representative then at least read what it represents: not supporters of a certain party, but 69-86 percent of all religious people want the rule of Halacha. What is unclear here? Does this mean that I have to share democracy with people who in five to ten years, no more than that, will destroy it?

    And by the way, I'm not that innocent. You are the majority and not me. I will never have enough political power to outlaw these parties and if anything, I will be outlawed. How did Bitten McCarthy mark Amsterdamsky (Amsterdam is something in his language. He didn't even bother to learn the name). This is a step before being outlawed.

21. Shmulik
    The fact that there is a survey that supporters of a certain party think a certain thing does not give a right to deny rights.
    Yes democracy is very frustrating sometimes.
    So what do you offer? let's hear
    Deny the ultra-orthodox the right to be elected?
    Or deny the religious the right to choose?
    According to what you say, it is possible to oblige everyone to declare that there is no God before voting (but there is a problem, they may lie. As you say, they lie in the platform they publish), but it is possible to establish a special police force to follow "suspects" of religiosity. It would be quite simple to outwit their lie.

    Did I say no problem?
    Did I say there is no risk?
    I said that your solution is not acceptable.

22. Here, Bibi also thinks that the ultra-orthodox want a Halacha state
    http://m.bhol.co.il/article.aspx?id=111942

23. A',
    Very frustrating to argue with you. You sulk, ignore, roll your eyes dangerously and don't take responsibility for words. For the sake of all lies, what exactly does the sentence mean "for the integration of the original Hebrew law in all legislative and legal systems in the country"?????? You don't understand that it exactly means *not democracy* and I don't mean to repeat the point that democracy is not just the rule of the majority. If you think so, the education system has done a good job of making you an obedient subject. You really don't know who the rabbis are behind the Jewish home? What do you think? Do you really not understand their ultimate goal? What is Rabbi Kook's mishna? where do you live? Did you read the survey I brought? What silly childish trick will you use to get out of this mess? Say that survey is not representative? 69% to 86% of the religious and ultra-Orthodox answered that they want the Halacha to become the official state law. your reply? It's simply unbelievable that you don't realize that the Jewish House is sophisticated and they want to entice secular people to vote for them, so obviously in the platform they won't write that they're going to hand over democracy to their rabbis, but that's what they want to do and are doing. When will you sober up?
    What can I tell you, at least you don't argue that the goal of the ultra-Orthodox is a Halacha state.

    I will repeat again: all the religious parties are playing a addicted game. When they are in the majority, which is actually already today, they will destroy democracy and turn Israel into a fascist theory. It happens before our eyes every day that passes and Benny Begin is another victim of your madness. Such parties do not deserve the rights that democracy grants because they will cancel it

    By the way, do you know who else thinks that the goal of the ultra-orthodox parties is a Halacha state? Bibi.

24. Shmulik
    I understand your anxiety. And like I said, I'm also anxious.
    I guess democracy is a scary thing at its core. Let so many people who think of you vote? Or the logical fear of the misuse of democratic values.
    Or the fear that the majority will decide to abolish democracy (not an unfounded fear, it has already happened in the past.)
    I think that in order to support the idea of ​​democracy at all, a lot of optimism is really needed.
    Not that democracy should not have balancing mechanisms. But these mechanisms are legal and therefore must work with legal tools and legal restrictions.

25. Regarding what the Minister of Justice Yaakov Naman said. Things are more serious. And in such a case, on the flight of freedom of expression, two alternatives must be put before it. Either declare that he retracts his words or fire him immediately.
    And if he was a member of the Knesset, they would also prevent him from running.
    In this particular case I think he retracted his words and said they were taken out of context. ( Maybe I'm wrong )
    So ask why not deny his rights in all this? Because you live in a democracy and the denial of rights must be so basic that it must stand a legal test. That's why Meretz did well to withdraw their petition against the Rabbi (although I'm sure they would have preferred to appoint someone else)

26. The response was accidentally sent in the middle. ..
    I am not speaking as the party's spokesperson and, as I said, I have never voted for it.
    I would have gone against you just as much if you had said to deny rights to the Ar, Beit party (I didn't vote for them either).
    A call for legislation according to the *principles* of Hebrew law is not a call for a Halacha state.
    A country is a democracy or a Halacha country according to the way in which decisions are made. The fact that there is a law prohibiting sour cream for example (a law I oppose) does not make Israel a halachic state. Already today, for example, judges according to the law are supposed to rule (among other things) according to the principles of Hebrew law in the event that there is no clear law on the subject. So according to your opinion Israel is a Halacha state?
    The difference between a Halacha state and a democracy is the nature of the government. Is the control in the hands of the people (and then they are also allowed to choose not to have transportation on Shabbat) or in the hands of a religious authority. And this is not in their platform. (They do not let the rabbis control even their party and determine the list in the primaries)
    Deprivation of rights can only be in an extreme situation and can withstand a legal test.

27. A'.
    Where exactly are the answers? And actually you didn't answer, you copied.
    In general, what did you take from my posts? Did you read the survey? Did you read the platform? conclusions drawn?
    Are you here just to talk without committing? Do you think I made the point clear?

    And I didn't forget: maybe I'm actually wrong. Talk in numbers and you will try to confront the defining book of your life, the one that has all the answers: slavery exists according to Judaism, yes or no? Is it allowed to rape a captive in war, yes or no? Polygamous Judaism, yes or no? Gays who had sex in public, in front of everyone and were warned by two people that it is forbidden, should be stoned, yes or no? No nonsense about Sanhedrin. Suppose there is a Sanhedrin. Need to be stoned, yes or no?

28. "The movement will subvert the law of the State of Israel on the principles of Hebrew law
    and work for its dissemination, study, and integration of the original Hebrew law in all legislative systems
    and the law in the country"
    I am answering you as a person who does not see himself as belonging to a sector

29. Maya,
    I will post this. That the research I sent you to does indeed prove that the majority of religious people vote for the religious parties and Likud (it seems so obvious to me) because otherwise you would have probably corrected me.

    If so, the majority of religious people vote for the religious parties and Likud. Certainly most of the settlers vote for the Jewish Home and an absolute majority of the ultra-Orthodox vote for the ultra-orthodox parties.
    You agreed with me that it is the vote for the party that determines your level of moderation.

    The ultra-orthodox parties and the national house want a Halacha state. In the platform of the Jewish House (for the 18th Knesset) that I brought in the previous post, it is written explicitly about their desire to establish Hebrew law as the basis of the legal system (the movement will aim to disable...on the principles of Hebrew law...and to integrate it into the entire legislative system).

    In the survey I provided in my previous post, the fact becomes clear (which is really quite clear) that the majority of religious people want Halacha to be the official state law.

    Therefore, I established that the majority of religious people want to change the police of the State of Israel by voting for the parties that have engraved on their flag their desire to make such a change.

    Because of this, these parties are playing the addictive game I was talking about and therefore, in my opinion, they do not deserve the protections and rights that democracy grants. They are trying to destroy Israeli democracy.

    By the way, page 167 does not add or subtract from this argument. So what if it doesn't take the top spot?

    You dedicated the lion's share of your response to Likud. I understand that in parentheses I wrote that it is a religious traditional party and therefore religious and therefore falls into the category of the Jewish home and the ultra-Orthodox. So no, but not very weak. Do you know the nationality law of Dichter and Elkin, of the Likud, who refuses to die? This law, which has not yet been passed but is alive and breathing, fundamentally changes the regime in Israel (I did not determine it, but the Knesset's ombudsman) because it puts the Jew before the democratic. Did you hear Miri Regev say that the corporation is worth nothing if they can't control it? On Bitan, under the patronage of the emperor, he accuses everyone who disagrees with him of leftism. I mean, is it possible in fascism?
    So I think that the Likud party still does not want a Halacha state, but in my opinion it is temporary. They are slowly being conquered by the forces of darkness.

    A',
    And I didn't forget: maybe I'm actually wrong. Talk in numbers and you will try to confront the defining book of your life, the one that has all the answers: slavery exists according to Judaism, yes or no? Is it allowed to rape a captive in war, yes or no? Polygamous Judaism, yes or no? Gays who had sex in public, in front of everyone and were warned by two people that it is forbidden, should be stoned, yes or no? No nonsense about Sanhedrin. Suppose there is a Sanhedrin. Need to be stoned, yes or no?

30. Shmulik
    Read the link you sent me to page 167 which summarizes the Knesset election chapter for a religious population. Note that consideration of religion and state is not the first consideration in voting in any of these populations except for the ultra-Orthodox population. Admittedly, there are other worrying data there, but we won't go into that right now.
    By the way, there is no problem, in my opinion, with voting for a religious party. It's okay to vote according to your opinions and your belief set (otherwise what's the point of voting). And to write that the Likud is a "traditional religious" party and thereby disqualify it is also quite flawed in my view. The test is not whether the party is religious or not, the test is whether the party is a democratic party and once it is, it has full legitimacy for me even if I don't agree with any of its other views. In my humble opinion (and I really try not to get involved much in politics, so my opinion is very poor), the Jewish Home, for example, is simply not a democratic party. And the answer is no. The fact that it does not say openly that it is against democracy does not make it a democratic party. Of course she won't say that, but every step she takes and every opinion expressed by one of her members leads to the understanding that she is clearly not a democratic party and clearly wants a halachic state (really, A., who do you work for?) Regarding Likud, I actually do not agree. The fact that Bibi gathered a bunch of idiots around him so that no one would challenge his throne is a serious problem and mainly shows the severe corruption that exists there. Of course, his desperate attempts to fight the media are also, as we said, undemocratic. But at the base of this party and its platform, in my understanding, it is a democratic party. The fact that there are many traditionalists and religious people there and the fact that I do not agree with their views, does not detract from their legitimacy (again, what detracts from their legitimacy is the current conduct, but in my opinion it does not reflect the essence and can still be corrected).
    I think so, but these will be my last words of politics because it's really not a topic I particularly like to talk about.

31. K.
    I think by and large we agree.
    First of all, I wasn't talking about niceness at all. Niceness is really not a top value and in fact, in my opinion, not even necessarily a particularly positive quality (it has a hard tendency to be often clinging to hypocrisy). I have no problem with not being nice in the discussion and that's not what I was talking about at all. I also agree with you about the problem of the deaf discourse and that there should be an agreement on a certain form of discussion and then you have to stick to it (I've certainly had a few such deaf conversations). It's fine. The question is about acceptance.
    I think we agree because I think a. He put it well when he said that the pluralist accepts up to the point where there is no acceptance. In other words, the pluralist accepts the pluralist and only him. This argument solves most of the issues you talked about (obviously pluralism cannot accept neo-Nazism or movements that do not accept homosexual communities for example because those by definition are not pluralistic). This argument does not resolve other issues that you raised, even if indirectly, of disregarding the facts and a particularly good and offensive example of this is the issue of vaccines - should we allow in the public arena statements about vaccines that clearly have no scientific validity and without a doubt harm an entire population that also does not have the tools to protect itself – of babies whose parents do not vaccinate them? So I don't know what the answer is and it is not clear-cut in my opinion, and if you decide not to give legitimacy to this "opinion", the main question, in my opinion, is how to do it. And for that there should be clear rules that I don't understand at the moment (luckily I'm not the one who has to set them...)
    But again, I parallel the discussion to the zero tolerance policy for violence in schools which has failed to eradicate violence compared to open and accepting schools in which there is a real solution to the problem of violence, even though they also do not accept violence as a way. Ultimately, our goal is to eradicate violence - be it neo-Nazi movements or any other incitement against different groups in the population and the question is whether total intolerance and total lack of acceptance is really the most effective way to do this. I think we both agree on the desired result. I'm just not sure I know how to get there.

32. א
    I see there were some things you didn't understand in what I was saying. Probably because I explained them very poorly. So, first of all regarding the rarity of opinions, I'm just saying that I didn't mean to pretend and say how rare these opinions are. I have no idea, I don't live in these communities and to be honest, if I look at my contact list, I can find maybe one religious person and some other believers for some years (and my contact list is not small...) Don't think that I exclude religious people from being in contact with me , but this is what came out. So I really have no idea what the accepted opinions are. My only real interaction with religious people is in forums like this and in such I can tell you that you are in the minority. Is this representative of the general population? I have no idea. I'd bet you really have no idea either. You also only know the population closest to you there, I accept your statement that opinions like yours are widespread.
    Secondly, surely knowledge is power, but what you don't understand is that I am not interested in people defining Judaism however they want and taking a monopoly on Judaism. I have no interest in fighting and arguing with them about it. Judaism is a religion that I do not see myself as a part of. The only thing that bothers me about those people who define Judaism and "take a monopoly on it" as you say is that they, for some reason, put me in the same package. The only thing I would like from those people is that they take me off the hook of this Judaism which does not describe anything that is relevant to my lifetime or that I have an interest in. In a certain sense, absurdly, I think that life in this country is more difficult for those who decided to associate themselves with Judaism against their will than for members of another religion. If I were a Christian, for example, I could at least get married in the country where I was born and raised according to my faith. It's funny that precisely because both my partner and I are Jewish (according to other people's definition and not ours) we had to go to another country to get married. In short, as far as I'm concerned, people will define their religion however they want and argue among themselves about what the correct definition is (the extreme or the moderate), just to get me out of this stupid game that doesn't interest me at all.
    Trust me I don't see Donald Trump as authentic at all. It is absolutely clear that the person is a pathological liar. You can be extreme or moderate and be authentic or not. There is no connection between the two. It is a bit difficult for me to explain this point. I understand what you are saying. I understand that there are many interpretations and that they are all acceptable according to your interpretation of Judaism (by the way, this is not the first time you say the inaccurate thing you said about science, I feel that you see scientists as black and white people. This is absolutely not the case. There are results of experiments, you It is assumed to be true because it is assumed that the person who did the experiment did not cheat and reports correct results, but these results can be interpreted in many ways and people argue about the correctness of the interpretations. The main difference, apparently, is that the debate does not remain at the theory level, but simply builds another experimental system that can be disproved or to support a certain hypothesis and then these results can also be interpreted in several ways, etc., etc., so the view of no right and wrong is really not new to me). The problem is that there are several interpretations as you say and who decides? Who said that the interpretation of the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem according to which homosexuality requires death is less legitimate than your interpretation? He also has support. And not just any support - from the book from the Creator of the world in his own honor. So sages said it was there so that we could hide it? So they said. Sages are just people. This book was written by the creator of the world. Perhaps the chief rabbi of Jerusalem thinks that it is precisely the clause of "thou shalt not kill" that requires the human explanation? What prevents him from thinking like this? I think by and large that's what Sek is. asking you who is the boss? How do you know what he wants? And this is the fundamental difference between a theistic approach and a humanistic approach. In the humanistic approach you are the boss. By definition. In the theistic approach (and it's nice that people I talk to who happen to be Jewish and believe in the Jewish religion try to single out Judaism but in practice there is nothing fundamentally different about it from other religions) there is another boss. who is what does he want? And more importantly how can we know? How is your argument that he wants pluralism and humanism better than the argument of the chief rabbi of Jerusalem?
    You are welcome to read more in the link of my name
    I may not have answered everything, but these are the main points.

33. A.
    It is impossible to refer to the idea of ​​changing the laws of nature, because any change will change the world in a way that we cannot understand. For example: the law of conservation of energy is actually the result of another law (Nether's law) and there is no way to understand what would happen in the world without this law.
    I mean simple things. For example - why can't we predict earthquakes today? In the future we will probably be able to, so there is no change in the laws of nature here. Wouldn't that make the world a better place?

34. א
    Unfortunately you misunderstood. What you attributed to me is definitely not what I suggested. Nonsensical expression in itself is not problematic. The problem begins when, down the road, as a result of such statements, people are harmed in a way that we are not ready to accept as proportional harm. So it is clear that there are cases in which it is difficult to determine when and to what extent it is correct to limit expressions, but the fact that there are such unclear cases does not lead to a conclusion of this kind - anything goes. Beside those borderline cases there are many very clear cases. A statement that implies bloodshed or even a call for violent injury, as happens quite a few by religious leaders while relying on the distorted moral values ​​that appear in black and white in the most sacred sources of the Jewish religion, is tantamount to incitement to violence, and it must not be accepted as legitimate. The fact that large parts of the public (and not only religious ones) adopt the things as their language and further attribute a high truth value to it because divine authority is involved here, is an example, one of many, of the moral distortion built into religion and the intolerable ease with which "divine" authority can be misused , to spread hatred, and most importantly - to increase the chance of violent acts of violence.

    Regarding your answers:
    A. I would like to draw attention to religious people's misuse of concepts such as axiom or postulate. An axiom expresses an assumption of a self-evident principle. It is not for nothing that the use of this concept in the field of mathematics includes something almost trivial that reflects such a broad agreement that for the purpose of the matter it can be assumed to be true. A postulate, on the other hand, reflects an assumption that has a clear grip on reality and is usually supported by experiments and is seen as true as long as there are no experiments that contradict it. The assumption you are making (that God is a good and benevolent being, which just to mention is completely separate from the assumption of his very existence) is both very non-trivial and inconsistent with observed reality. If the opposite is true, the facts around us indicate no less, and in my opinion much more, at least the arbitrariness and indifference to the fate of the creatures on earth, and in the event that we accept the even more non-trivial assumption regarding the existence of a divine being, then it is much more logical (in light of the facts) that Al is sadistic and evil. Overwhelming support for the correctness of the latter possibility can be found in abundance regarding the very same god in the autobiography he supposedly handed down to us. I would expect that such a large and significant chunk of belief in the essence of your existence has some basis a little more stable than - let's imagine it is so. You can of course say that, but I find it hard to believe that there aren't reasons behind this statement (perhaps even good ones) that lead to such a far-reaching assumption that, at least apparently, it has no grip on reality or logical justification. And yet, since this is an assumption, it is possible that this assumption is wrong. I asked you, how will you know if the cut is wrong? You can certainly imagine, even theoretically, a scenario so monstrous that in such a case it would be appropriate to reject the assumption that God is good and benevolent. Can you tell about such a red line?
    B. Maybe you wrote a lot about it but you ignore what was written back to you in response to your words. If it seems to you that a good and benevolent being, who is stronger and knows much more than the humans for whom she is responsible and wishes to maintain a positive and sustainable relationship with them, is unable/wishes to give good tools to her protégés, then she is almost certainly either impotent or indifferent. And in the analogy of parenting, where adults bring a child into the world, and similar relationships exist both in terms of power relations and in terms of responsibility for the children's development, there is no good reason to accept that good behavior is behavior that drops clearly immoral basic laws and expects the children to develop moral values ​​themselves, and not only that, but that they are expected to develop better moral laws than those established by the parents at the time, and have not been updated by them since then. Such conduct indicates criminal neglect which should have led to the intervention of welfare officials and this for the benefit of the weaker party. Note that even in families where the parents behave in such an immoral manner, and even when they intentionally harm their children, including harming the innocent of any wrongdoing, there are still children who will protect their parents and zealously claim (whether out of fear or because of material or mental dependence) that they are good parents. It takes extraordinary courage to connect the dots, to look directly at the monster and call it the name it deserves.
    third. You don't have an answer, I'll trust others who claim to have answers, although I've never received an explanation that can even be considered a pressing justification, but I have heard "explanations" that I don't see how they can be considered moral by someone who has a proper moral compass (as in a "bigger" account The rape of a baby is a positive thing, the stomach turns just from the thought that there are people who are really willing to contain this horror). I don't have the tools that I can use to imagine any possibility of managing the world, and yet I say that an all-powerful and all-knowing divine being would not allow at least the rape of babies. If the God you believe in allows it, this is an evil monster like no other. This is a fundamental difference between us, with you it passes without turning on any deafening warning siren and with me it is what sets a minimum standard for morality. I don't care so much if someone prefers to believe in an imaginary being, the problem is when the meaning derived from that belief is a severe disruption of the internal moral compass, because unlike God who may only be a figment of the imagination, believers are completely real, and believers who are capable of containing clear moral distortions such as murder and rape Innocent, I believe that a day will come and someone will convince them that for the benefit of a "greater" account, such actions are justified and even necessary, and there will be nothing to protect me and others from such believers who have given up an internal moral compass.

35. waiting
    Father, I would appreciate it if you would release the response as soon as possible. There are some facts there that are important for me to show A.

36. A',
    Where did I get high?
    http://en.idi.org.il/media/386652/הבית%20היהודי.pdf
    This is the platform of the Jewish Home party for the 18th Knesset. Please explain to me section D, religious legislation. Explain to me what subsection 2 means.
    This is a faithful Jubilee, in premature ejaculation
    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3816710,00.html

    A survey conducted in 2016
    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4774790,00.html
    When asked if Halacha should be made the official state law for Jews in Israel, the majority of the ultra-Orthodox (86%) and the religious (69%) said they support such a change. On the other hand, the majority of the traditionalists (57%) and the overwhelming majority of the secularists (90%) are opposed to making Halacha the law of the state for Jews in Israel.

    Well, it seems to me that one side of the debate is bringing facts and the other side is dumbfounded and rolling their eyes in such a way that you should go to the emergency room and be urgently examined by an ophthalmologist. You do not see the facts, you do not speak from data and in fact you are completely blind to the dangers of religion. I am amazed that I have to explain why ultra-Orthodox parties want a halachic state and am amazed when they tell me that a halachic state is compatible with democracy. Hungry, am I arrogant? Nonsense. I am anxious for my existence because of the facts I bring you.

    And I didn't forget: maybe I'm actually wrong. Talk in numbers and you will try to confront the defining book of your life, the one that has all the answers: slavery exists according to Judaism, yes or no? Is it allowed to rape a captive in war, yes or no? Polygamous Judaism, yes or no? Gays who had sex in public, in front of everyone and were warned by two people that it is forbidden, should be stoned, yes or no? No nonsense about Sanhedrin. Suppose there is a Sanhedrin. Need to be stoned, yes or no?

37. Raphael
    Are you basing your words on anything, or are you just throwing words in the air?
    If you think that people who rape babies should not go to jail - then, you either rape babies or you protect people who rape babies. If you think it's nonsense as you call it - you should be in jail.

38. Shmulik
    On what basis do you present this as fact?
    There are those who want, for example, to forbid Knesset members from Arab and Bim to run for Knesset on a similar basis. That is, they conclude that they want so and so...
    Woe to us if we deprive any person of his rights just based on our impression that he thinks this way and that..
    There is no desire to abolish democracy in the platform of any party. And I don't know if any of them secretly want the abolition of democracy (or the destruction of the state). But under no circumstances is such a basic right denied on the basis of our remaining. If a member of the Knesset were to explicitly say that he thinks democracy should be abolished (not something like "when the Messiah comes, God will not tell us what to do and we won't need elections") or alternatively would say that Israel should be destroyed or all its Jewish inhabitants expelled, then yes he should be denied the right to be elected.
    I must say that I am shocked that I have to explain why not deny an entire public the right to be elected?!
    I originally come from the settlement and studied in a high school as a child.
    I have to tell you that your views are more anti-democratic than 99% of the people I know there. And you still patronize them?

39. anonymous
    Why are you talking nonsense?

40. Miracles
    Of course they improved the world.
    But not the way it works. The laws of nature remained constant. If you leave a baby in a closed car on a hot day he will die from the heat.
    I mean a change in the way the world works.

41. A.
    No one can describe a perfect world - but everyone can describe a better world than the one we have. And some people in the world, including religious ones, did improve the world.
    Do you really think I'm wrong?

42. People who leave their children in a closed car in the summer, or women/men who rape babies - and blame God for it - should not only send them to prison for life, but also make sure that they learn what morality is. And let them start from the Torah.

43. A'
    I didn't understand why not? If the religious parties strive to establish a halachic state here, i.e. to destroy democracy, why do they deserve any rights by virtue of democracy?

    I would love to receive answers to my questions

44. K.
    So, if I understood correctly, it is a bargain to expand the limits of freedom of speech (and the fight against it) even to those who do not seem to you to be speaking logically? ?
    This is a really interesting approach. You can also simply say that we will be tolerant of any of these opinions if we do not agree with them.
    Seriously, don't you see that you have emptied the entry of all content?
    If there is an opinion that seems illogical or not built on a correct logical foundation, you can fight it, that's fine. But the democratic values ​​also say that one should fight for their rights to speak!
    These are if and only if the opinions call for harming the other or abolishing democracy explicitly!
    You cannot declare that all religious people are in favor of a Halacha state and make them outside the boundaries of freedom of expression.
    The religious should not apologize for voting for a religious party (I personally have never voted for a religious party)

    ...
    You said you were still waiting for answers from me.
    So I'll try to sort it out. I think all your questions can be divided into three (I think for you it's one question. But I won't be able to answer you without dividing)
    A. How do you know that God is good?
    B. If he is good, how does he have immoral commands?
    third. How do bad things happen in the world? (Holocaust, rape and babies in closed cars)

    A. I think you already understood that belief in God does not come from scientific or mathematical proof. For the sake of it, look at it as an axiom (it's not exactly, but for the sake of it) so the fact that God is good for me is part of the "axiom".
    B. I have already written so much about this that I don't know if there is any point in repeating it. The Torah was given at a certain time and things must be seen in the right perspective. You can see my attitude as dull to suffering, but that's only because you can't fully understand the situation that existed back then. One day you too will look completely barbaric in your opinions and our laws. And yet I have no doubt that in today's situation it is right to put a murderer in prison for most of the rest of his life.
    third. Regarding question C, I thought I was clear that I was not going to answer. I couldn't explain things as simple as this in text messages. Nor can it be a one-size-fits-all answer. There are also questions on the subject that I admit I do not have an answer to. Contrary to what you think, being religious does not mean that you have to have an answer for everything (not that I don't have answers at all. Just not for everything bad that happens in the world)
    I only gave a direction of thinking that you can flow with.
    Try to imagine how you think the world should have been. Be careful but that it really meets all the conditions. And try to really run through all the consequences of living in such a world, and then ask yourself if you would really want to live in it. Of course without death or disease)
    It's more than that, I can't contribute to the issue in this media. (The last move is also not sure suitable for correspondence media) Maybe he'll wait and want to try and maybe he'll be able to explain more (explain, not convince)
    —

45. K.
    So, if I understood correctly, it is a bargain to expand the limits of freedom of speech (and the fight against it) even to those who do not seem to you to be speaking logically? ?
    This is a really interesting approach. You can also simply say that we will be tolerant of any of these opinions if we do not agree with them.
    Seriously, don't you see that you have emptied the entry of all content?
    If there is an opinion that seems illogical or not built on a correct logical foundation, you can fight it, that's fine. But the democratic values ​​also say that one should fight for their rights to speak!
    These are if and only if the opinions call for harming the other or abolishing democracy explicitly!
    You cannot declare that all religious people are in favor of a Halacha state and make them outside the boundaries of freedom of expression.
    The religious should not apologize for voting for a religious party (I personally have never voted for a religious party)

    You said you were still waiting for answers from me.
    So I'll try to sort it out. I think all your questions can be divided into three (I think for you it's one question. But I won't be able to answer you without dividing)
    A. How do you know that God is good?
    B. If he is good, how does he have immoral commands?
    third. How do bad things happen in the world? (Holocaust, rape and babies in closed cars)

    A. I think you already understood that belief in God does not come from scientific or mathematical proof. For the sake of it, look at it as an axiom (it's not exactly, but for the sake of it) so the fact that God is good for me is part of the "axiom".
    B. I have already written so much about this that I don't know if there is any point in repeating it. The Torah was given at a certain time and things must be seen in the right perspective. You can see my attitude as dull to suffering, but that's only because you can't fully understand the situation that existed back then. One day you too will look completely barbaric in your opinions and our laws. And yet I have no doubt that in today's situation it is right to put a murderer in prison for most of the rest of his life.
    third. Regarding question C, I thought I was clear that I was not going to answer. I couldn't explain things as simple as this in text messages. Nor can it be a one-size-fits-all answer. There are also questions on the subject that I admit I do not have an answer to. Contrary to what you think, being religious does not mean that you have to have an answer for everything (not that I don't have answers at all. Just not for everything bad that happens in the world)
    I only gave a direction of thinking that you can flow with.
    Try to imagine how you think the world should have been. Be careful but that it really meets all the conditions. And try to really run through all the consequences of living in such a world, and then ask yourself if you would really want to live in it. Of course without death or disease)
    It's more than that, I can't contribute to the issue in this media. (The last move is also not sure suitable for correspondence media) Maybe he'll wait and want to try and maybe he'll be able to explain more (explain, not convince)
    —

46. It seems to me that from now on every comment of mine will wait for approval

47. I will address everything.
    A foundation for faith. dangerous. Divine intervention. evil in the world. Rabbinic authority. Circumcision. Knesset elections.
    it will be fun.

48. K.
    So, if I understood correctly, it is a bargain to expand the limits of freedom of speech (and the fight against it) even to those who do not seem to you to be speaking logically?
    This is a really interesting approach. You can also simply say that we will be tolerant of any of these opinions if we do not agree with them.
    Seriously, don't you see that you have emptied the entry of all content?
    If there is an opinion that seems illogical or not built on a correct logical foundation, you can fight it, that's fine. But the democratic values ​​also say that one should fight for their rights to speak!
    These are if and only if the opinions call for harming the other or abolishing democracy explicitly!
    You cannot declare that all religious people are in favor of a Halacha state and make them outside the boundaries of freedom of expression.
    The religious should not apologize for voting for a religious party (I personally have never voted for a religious party)

    You said you were still waiting for answers from me.
    So I'll try to sort it out. I think all your questions can be divided into three (I think for you it's one question. But I won't be able to answer you without dividing)
    A. How do you know that God is good?
    B. If he is good, how does he have immoral commands?
    third. How do bad things happen in the world? (Holocaust, rape and babies in closed cars)

    A. I think you already understood that belief in God does not come from scientific or mathematical proof. For the sake of it, look at it as an axiom (it's not exactly, but for the sake of it) so the fact that God is good for me is part of the "axiom".
    B. I have already written so much about this that I don't know if there is any point in repeating it. The Torah was given at a certain time and things must be seen in the right perspective. You can see my attitude as dull to suffering, but that's only because you can't fully understand the situation that existed back then. One day you too will look completely barbaric in your opinions and our laws. And yet I have no doubt that in today's situation it is right to put a murderer in prison for most of the rest of his life.
    third. Regarding question C, I thought I was clear that I was not going to answer. I couldn't explain things as simple as this in text messages. Nor can it be a one-size-fits-all answer. There are also questions on the subject that I admit I do not have an answer to. Contrary to what you think, being religious does not mean that you have to have an answer for everything (not that I don't have answers at all. Just not for everything bad that happens in the world)
    I only gave a direction of thinking that you can flow with.
    Try to imagine how you think the world should have been. Be careful but that it really meets all the conditions. And try to really run through all the consequences of living in such a world, and then ask yourself if you would really want to live in it. Of course without death or disease)
    It's more than that, I can't contribute to the issue in this media. (The last move is also not sure suitable for correspondence media) Maybe he'll wait and want to try and maybe he'll be able to explain more (explain, not convince)
    —

49. Shmulik,
    Your questions are also good and I would love to see Eliyahu also address them and explain what his faith is based on. According to his response, it seems that he has many sources, but the ability to cite multiple sources does not in itself constitute any explanation. In the meantime, I am patiently waiting for the answers of Machekim and A, because in the meantime I have not understood at all what their assertions are based on, for example with Machekim in connection with the claim that the God in whom he believes has never interfered in the affairs of humans, a very puzzling claim in my opinion, and more generally regarding claims regarding his nature and character of the God they believe in, such as the claim that he is a good and benevolent God (who allows fart-inducing events and sometimes even causes them directly). Of course, anyone who believes that they have relevant knowledge (especially from the rich sources of Judaism) is invited to present an orderly argument to justify this belief.

50. Maya,
    Sorry for the partial answer, I'm too tired right now.

    You wrote: "... that there are moments in life when logic is not there in our heads. Is it a shame that it is so? very Would it be better to be otherwise? Definitely. But should we add and say: "It's not right that it's not like that, zero tolerance!" will help? probably not."

    I agree that there are many situations in which the right way is not a harsh and intolerant way, and that there are indeed cases in which conduct in such a way may be just but not wise. I believe that there are other areas in which it is not correct to wear these glasses, especially in systems where there are structured and well-oiled mechanisms that abuse exactly the same tolerant attitude and thus neuter it. I believe that it is not just that difficult to get orderly answers about the logic behind a religious person's belief, and so far, from many other conversations I have had (and this required a lot of patience and tolerance), I have not had the impression that there is any real difficulty in presenting an orderly argument. Not an intellectual difficulty on the part of the interlocutor, nor a difficulty in terms of the complexity of the argument (so far all his versions that I have been exposed to have turned out to be shaky to the point of being completely wrong).
    As far as I'm concerned, the discussion has no meaning unless we accept basic good governance rules. For example, that it is not decent to change accepted meanings of words according to convenience and without clarifying it in advance, that it is not decent to knowingly tell half-truths, that it is not decent to repeat a logical fallacy that has been clarified about it because it is a blatant logical fallacy, that it is not decent to repeatedly ignore questions, and more A priestess and a priestess. I agree that it is always better to first explain what the problem is, and many times I try to do so, but it seems that there are populations (although each case is measured on its own merits), certainly not only religious ones, who for one reason or another have a discussion culture that is not just different, but such Which often impairs the ability to have a meaningful discussion, one that can be used to understand what is behind the things that are expressed. Of course, you can balk and give up, you can continue to "discuss" the discourse of the deaf, but I don't understand what the point is. In this respect, I believe that we have the responsibility and duty to give feedback, sometimes not even in a nice way. I do not believe that niceness is the highest value, although it is certainly desirable and I am very careful about this when, for example, people ask questions about science (there are enough of my comments here and on other sites that present this very clearly).

    Regarding the values ​​of acceptance and openness, maybe I will add more another time, just saying that one of the basic criteria that I think is relevant in this context is the extent of the actual effect that certain perceptions have on society and especially on the rights of individuals in that society. And this is related to the constant tension that exists between the aspiration to allow fundamental freedom for each person to do as he wishes as long as this does not harm others. Surely we can agree that neo-Nazi movements cannot be accepted, not because of the inability to contain their horrific ideology, but precisely because the violence that this ideology leads to cannot be accepted. The exact limit where we should intervene and how is a difficult and good question. In the same way, many other ideologies must be examined which clearly allow and sometimes actually lead to severe expressions of violence, such as an ideology that fosters a distorted perception of same-sex preference for example, an ideology that leads to ignorance and hatred and inevitably also to manifestations of violence. Should we be open to such an ideology? Is it right to accept the incitement that grows from this ideology? Do we really have to wait and stop only the hand holding the knife just before the stabbing? Isn't this an embezzlement of our responsibility to protect those parts of society that suffer from the same ideology? And why would we grind our teeth? Is the desire for the plurality of "opinions" really more important than human lives that are harvested from the outcome of such a dark opinion? I believe that a rather short series of preconditions should be met before we talk about acceptance and openness to opinions, and for some reason I believe that this would also be your opinion even though you did not express it that way, but it seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you assume the existence of all those conditions Early as if they exist when you write: "It is hard for me to imagine a society in which I want to live in which these values ​​[acceptance and openness] are not supreme" when in many cases it is easy to see that they do not clearly exist, and in many other cases it is not so clear to what extent they exist. For example, do you really want to accept and be open to an ideology in which the words of little girls are included? I certainly don't, and it comes from the same rule of thumb I mentioned above.

51. א
    You display an impressive ability to pick out the things you like and ignore the things that are at the base of religious belief, even if it is obvious that you are trying to deny this part. Eliyahu could list countless more commentators who added insulating layers of apologetics, and it is probably not for nothing that so many years of accumulated advocacy are necessary to achieve the tolerable distance that allows one to continue sanctifying something that contains so many atrocities.
    In the end, for me, the criterion is very simple. If I were an omnipotent and omniscient divine being, I would not allow, for example, fathers to sexually assault their daughters and ruin the rest of their lives. Sorry, not willing to distort my ability to distinguish between good and bad, as many religious people seem to do so easily. This would not happen to me, and whoever is willing to believe in a divine being who makes this possible, and hangs on flimsy, gut-wrenching excuses for that, should not be surprised if he is perceived as immoral, even if he is a "moderate" who denies the foundations on which his faith is based. A moral person would vomit out the monstrosity and not wrap it in more and more layers (and still call it a full cart).

    Still waiting for clarifications on the subject of confidence in the nature of the God we believe in and the nature of morality that he supposedly instills in us, because honestly, I can't understand where this confidence comes from and what it is based on other than wishful thinking. Will someone try to clarify this issue in an orderly and logical way, that is, what are the things that are required to be assumed and what are the things that can be deduced from them?

52. A',
    Ben Sorer: And before there were Sages? For thousands of years, parents were allowed to get rid of their unruly child? I'll tell you what happened. After one rabbi received too many requests from parents to get rid of their child, he said I've had enough, I can't see any more dead bodies of children near my hut. You wanted children, take care of them. Ends.

    But seriously, do you realize what you've done here? A demonstration of why the Torah is unnecessary. how? Well, you admitted that there are such nonsense in the Torah that must be abolished because they are not suitable for a moral life. So let's get together, the smart people and find a legal solution to the problem. Every appalling halacha that exists in the Torah, that does not fit, is annulled. Sages said it was blah blah blah and therefore the law is repealed. slavery? It says white over slave, but we are in the twenty-first century, so blah blah blah and there is no slavery. Selling the raped daughter to the rapist (if she agrees, of course, but who will touch her except the rapist?), no, that was once upon a time and blah blah blah, the law is repealed. Pretty Woman? Rabbi Karim wrote a logical opinion according to the accepted interpretation, but blah blah blah, we'll apologize, we'll explain that it's just Torah nonsense and we'll ignore it. Gay stoning, hmm, problem. Let's all ignore the horrifying verse and carry on as if it didn't exist. Liquidation sale: We will leave only verses that agree with the secular law and say that this was always the intention. Rabbi Noah So if the secular law is actually a joke, why don't you just get rid of the middleman (the Torah, which you constantly have to adapt to, and is actually a long long gum that stretches to infinity and has long since lost all meaning) and go straight to it?

    Maybe I'm actually wrong. Talk in numbers and you will try to confront the defining book of your life, the one that has all the answers: slavery exists according to Judaism, yes or no? Is it allowed to rape a captive in war, yes or no? Polygamous Judaism, yes or no? Gays who had sex in public, in front of everyone and were warned by two people that it is forbidden, should be stoned, yes or no? No nonsense about Sanhedrin. Suppose there is a Sanhedrin. Need to be stoned, yes or no?

53. Maya,
    It seems so clear to me that most religious people vote for religious parties and Likud (which is also a traditional religious party). The rest vote roughly like this, in absolute numbers: 5 religious people vote for Meretz, 1.5 for the Labor Party, 62 for Yair Lapid. A significant number of religious people may have voted for Kahlon. Nevertheless, I searched a bit and found the following link. I admit that I skimmed through it at record speed, so I'd love for you to check page 60 (as I thought. There is also interesting information on pages 70-XNUMX). It is quite possible that I was wrong and did not understand what I read, because as mentioned, I skimmed at breakneck speed. Here is the link:
    http://www.idi.org.il/media/3829442/the_national_religious_sector_book.pdf

54. Maya
    The response is awaiting approval

55. Maya
    I don't vote for the Jewish House and I don't agree with their way, neither political nor religious (although on the subject of religion, Bennett often surprises me with his attitude, but on these issues he is a minority in his party) nevertheless, it cannot be said that he is in favor of a Halacha state. Or that his party is in favor of a Halacha state.

56. Maya
    First of all, what bothered me was not the personal credit, but the insistence on seeing these opinions as rare..
    Your choice not to teach at all is certainly legitimate. However, I don't think this is a smart strategy. I think knowledge is power and it is not good to leave it only to the religious to tell you what Judaism is and to always be at a disadvantage in knowledge. The lack of knowledge of the secular public bothers me. In the past there were many exemplary secular members of the Knesset who were very knowledgeable and used to tell religious people that they did not have a monopoly on Judaism. And they are right, but with a lack of knowledge, how can you fight the rabbis' claim to a monopoly on religion? It saddens me to see secularists allow rabbis (mostly extremists) to be the only ones who determine what Judaism is. (In the past this was not the case, for example kibbutzim gave their statement about Judaism and the holidays)
    About your questions:
    It is clear that the Tanakh himself can no longer represent Judaism alone. I'm not saying that. This is what all currents in Judaism have said since the destruction of the Second Temple (except for a pessimistic and almost extinct current called "Karaim")
    To say that the Tanakh should always be read literally and should not be interpreted in any way that harms simplicity is against Judaism.
    Regarding the other questions, forgive me for not answering them all completely. But first it must be remembered that at the base of Judaism is the principle that things can have several interpretations without this harming the legitimacy of another Pharisee.
    The question about the fact that there is no "do not rape" in the dozens of commandments is a good and interesting question, I will admit that I never thought about Aliyah and there is no point in just throwing out an answer (I will only say that the Torah of course forbade rape and even compared it to murder). But that's how it should be for more studying Judaism, raising questions that don't always end in a crushing answer, these in several approaches. In Judaism there is no single answer question. The same with the question regarding the "Akkad Yitzhak" there are many answers to the questions that the subject raises. Some of them may shock you and some you may be able to relate to. This is different from the previous question in that it is a question that has been dealt with more. Not everyone agrees with the way the characters acted. I understand that this may be different from your way of thinking as a scientist, but in Judaism not everything is measured as true, false, true, false. I will give you an example. I go every Shabbat to a fully orthodox synagogue. And every Shabbat another community member demands. Every year when you come to each parsha a different person interprets it or brings a parsha that a rabbi has made that often contradicts the parsha that was last year. One year, according to the interpretations, a certain figure turns out to be evil, and the next year, it can be almost the opposite. But as far as the audience is concerned, everything is Torah and accepted and should be treated with respect.
    "Isn't there some story there about a father who protected God's people and gave his virgin daughters to a mob to rape and did good?" This is a question that cannot be taken seriously because it only shows ignorance. You are talking about the story of Lot and Lot was not a role model either in the story and certainly not among the Pharisees of Judaism. On the contrary, he is described as a greedy person who prefers to live in Sodom because of wealth despite the bad people in it, unlike Abraham.
    -
    About lying to myself or not.
    Look, this is Judaism, to interpret things and not to understand them as they are, not to see in these things the absolute truth of how many faces there are in everything, if I didn't act like that and I would say that this is Judaism then I would be lying. You can disagree with the method, but this has been Judaism for more than two thousand years. What bothers me is that they claim it's not authentic. Only what is extreme appears to people to be automatically authentic and real. I understand that people have a strong connection between real and extreme (look at Trump, to so many people he seems real and lacks hypocrisy only because he expresses himself in extremes despite all the lies he is caught in. It is easy to present a moderate as inauthentic)
    "Therefore when a rabbi stands up (in the case of the chief rabbi of Jerusalem) and says that gays should be stoned, the problem is that he is not wrong" This is exactly my problem with your approach that it gives legitimacy to the extremists to take over Judaism. And that is not true and not Judaism. Judaism is based on the ability to adapt and interpret the Torah. In what place do you even give him legitimacy to say these things. You need to understand that the Tanach in itself is not Judaism (unlike the Tanach in itself is not Christianity) I will give you an example of how Chazel faced that they once reached a point of no end for them. Something they could not accept in any way. It's called "Disobedient Dean and Teacher" I won't go into details but even thousands of years ago they couldn't accept it. Contrary to your stigma about religion, they did not say the moral of the text precedes logic. They determined that this law is void, that it cannot be what God wants, and they determined "demand and get paid" meaning that the law is nullified and the only reason it could appear is that we can cancel it.
    So when a rabbi comes and says something like what the rabbi of Jerusalem said, you don't have to accept it or say I'm in favor of freedom of speech or freedom of religion. You should say I accept your freedom of religion but I am not ready to accept that period. And you secularists should say that we do not accept anything as part of your faith and do not accept that "you have no choice". And the same approach should be applied to every religion.
    -
    In conclusion, you wrote "that this is what scares you"
    Don't make the mistake of thinking that religious extremism doesn't scare me or the lack of liberation of religious people based on rabbis. Just because I'm optimistic doesn't mean I'm not worried. And even if I insist on correcting you on incorrect facts about religious people, that doesn't mean there aren't things that are wrong. I am still optimistic because there is change all the time, it is true that it is too slow but I believe that it will speed up.
    I don't think attacking the whole religion is the right way to deal. On the contrary, it legitimizes religion to be extreme.

57. Maya
    First, what bothered me was not the personal credit, but the insistence on seeing these views as rare.
    Your choice not to teach at all is certainly legitimate. However, I don't think this is a smart strategy. I think knowledge is power and it is not good to leave it only to the religious to tell you what Judaism is and to always be at a disadvantage in knowledge. The lack of knowledge of the secular public bothers me. In the past there were many exemplary secular members of the Knesset who were very knowledgeable and used to tell religious people that they did not have a monopoly on Judaism. And they are right, but with a lack of knowledge, how can you fight the rabbis' claim to a monopoly on religion? It saddens me to see secularists allow rabbis (mostly extremists) to be the only ones who determine what Judaism is. (In the past this was not the case, for example kibbutzim gave their statement about Judaism and the holidays)
    About your questions:
    It is clear that the Tanakh himself can no longer represent Judaism alone. I'm not saying that. This is what all currents in Judaism have said since the destruction of the Second Temple (except for a pessimistic and almost extinct current called "Karaim")
    To say that the Tanakh should always be read literally and should not be interpreted in any way that harms simplicity is against Judaism.
    Regarding the other questions, forgive me for not answering them all completely. But first it must be remembered that at the base of Judaism is the principle that things can have several interpretations without this harming the legitimacy of another Pharisee.
    The question about the fact that there is no "do not rape" in the dozens of commandments is a good and interesting question, I will admit that I never thought about Aliyah and there is no point in just throwing out an answer (I will only say that the Torah of course forbade rape and even compared it to murder). But that's how it should be for more studying Judaism, raising questions that don't always end in a crushing answer, these in several approaches. In Judaism there is no single answer question. The same with the question regarding the "Akkad Yitzhak" there are many answers to the questions that the subject raises. Some of them may shock you and some you may be able to relate to. This is different from the previous question in that it is a question that has been dealt with more. Not everyone agrees with the way the characters acted. I understand that this may be different from your way of thinking as a scientist, but in Judaism not everything is measured as true, false, true, false. I will give you an example. I go every Shabbat to a fully orthodox synagogue. And every Shabbat another community member demands. Every year when you come to each parsha a different person interprets it or brings a parsha that a rabbi has made that often contradicts the parsha that was last year. One year, according to the interpretations, a certain figure turns out to be evil, and the next year, it can be almost the opposite. But as far as the audience is concerned, everything is Torah and accepted and should be treated with respect.
    "Isn't there some story there about a father who protected God's people and gave his virgin daughters to a mob to rape and did good?" This is a question that cannot be taken seriously because it only shows ignorance. You are talking about the story of Lot and Lot was not a role model either in the story and certainly not among the Pharisees of Judaism. On the contrary, he is described as a greedy person who prefers to live in Sodom because of wealth despite the bad people in it, unlike Abraham.
    -
    About lying to myself or not.
    Look, this is Judaism, to interpret things and not to understand them as they are, not to see in these things the absolute truth of how many faces there are in everything, if I didn't act like that and I would say that this is Judaism then I would be lying. You can disagree with the method, but this has been Judaism for more than two thousand years. What bothers me is that they claim it's not authentic. Only what is extreme appears to people to be automatically authentic and real. I understand that people have a strong connection between real and extreme (look at Trump, to so many people he seems real and lacks hypocrisy only because he expresses himself in extremes despite all the lies he is caught in. It is easy to present a moderate as inauthentic)
    "Therefore when a rabbi stands up (in the case of the chief rabbi of Jerusalem) and says that gays should be stoned, the problem is that he is not wrong" This is exactly my problem with your approach that it gives legitimacy to the extremists to take over Judaism. And that is not true and not Judaism. Judaism is based on the ability to adapt and interpret the Torah. In what place do you even give him legitimacy to say these things. You need to understand that the Tanach in itself is not Judaism (unlike the Tanach in itself is not Christianity) I will give you an example of how Chazel faced that they once reached a point of no end for them. Something they could not accept in any way. It's called "Disobedient Dean and Teacher" I won't go into details but even thousands of years ago they couldn't accept it. Contrary to your stigma about religion, they did not say the moral of the text precedes logic. They determined that this law is void, that it cannot be what God wants, and they determined "demand and get paid" meaning that the law is nullified and the only reason it could appear is that we can cancel it.
    So when a rabbi comes and says something like what the rabbi of Jerusalem said, you don't have to accept it or say I'm in favor of freedom of speech or freedom of religion. You should say I accept your freedom of religion but I am not ready to accept that period. And you secularists should say that we do not accept anything as part of your faith and do not accept that "you have no choice". And the same approach should be applied to every religion.
    -
    In conclusion, you wrote "that this is what scares you"
    Don't make the mistake of thinking that religious extremism doesn't scare me or the lack of liberation of religious people based on rabbis. Just because I'm optimistic doesn't mean I'm not worried. And even if I insist on correcting you on incorrect facts about religious people, that doesn't mean there aren't things that are wrong. I am still optimistic because there is change all the time, it is true that it is too slow but I believe that it will speed up.
    I don't think attacking the whole religion is the right way to deal. On the contrary, it legitimizes religion to be extreme.

58. Maya
    First, what bothered me was not the personal credit, but the insistence on seeing these views as rare.
    Your choice not to teach at all is certainly legitimate. However, I don't think this is a smart strategy. I think knowledge is power and it is not good to leave it only to the religious to tell you what Judaism is and to always be at a disadvantage in knowledge. The lack of knowledge of the secular public bothers me. In the past there were many exemplary secular members of the Knesset who were very knowledgeable and used to tell religious people that they did not have a monopoly on Judaism. And they are right, but with a lack of knowledge, how can you fight the rabbis' claim to a monopoly on religion? It saddens me to see secularists allow rabbis (mostly extremists) to be the only ones who determine what Judaism is. (In the past this was not the case, for example kibbutzim gave their statement about Judaism and the holidays)
    About your questions:
    It is clear that the Tanakh himself can no longer represent Judaism alone. I'm not saying that. This is what all currents in Judaism have said since the destruction of the Second Temple (except for a pessimistic and almost extinct current called "Karaim")
    To say that the Tanakh should always be read literally and should not be interpreted in any way that harms simplicity is against Judaism.
    Regarding the other questions, forgive me for not answering them all completely. But first it must be remembered that at the base of Judaism is the principle that things can have several interpretations without this harming the legitimacy of another Pharisee.
    The question about the fact that there is no "do not rape" in the dozens of commandments is a good and interesting question, I will admit that I never thought about Aliyah and there is no point in just throwing out an answer (I will only say that the Torah of course forbade rape and even compared it to murder). But that's what it means to study Judaism more, raising questions that don't always end in a crushing answer, these in several approaches. In Judaism there is no single answer question. The same with the question regarding the "Akkad Yitzhak" there are many answers to the questions that the subject raises. Some of them may shock you and some you may be able to relate to. This is different from the previous question in that it is a question that has been dealt with more. Not everyone agrees with the way the characters acted. I understand that this may be different from your way of thinking as a scientist, but in Judaism not everything is measured as true, false, true, false. I will give you an example. I go every Shabbat to a fully orthodox synagogue. And every Shabbat another community member demands. Every year when you come to each parsha a different person interprets it or brings a parsha that a rabbi has made that often contradicts the parsha that was last year. One year, according to the interpretations, the left turns out to be evil, and a year after that, it can be almost the opposite. But as far as the audience is concerned, everything is Torah and accepted and should be treated with respect.
    "Isn't there some story there about a father who protected God's people and gave his virgin daughters to a mob to rape and did good?" This is a question that cannot be taken seriously because it only shows ignorance. You are talking about the story of Lot and Lot was not a role model either in the story and certainly not among the Pharisees of Judaism. On the contrary, he is described as a greedy person who prefers to live in Sodom because of wealth despite the bad people in it, unlike Abraham.
    -
    About lying to myself or not.
    Look, this is Judaism, to interpret things and not to understand them as they are, not to see in these things the absolute truth of how many faces there are in everything, if I didn't act like that and I would say that this is Judaism then I would be lying. You can disagree with the method, but this has been Judaism for more than two thousand years. What bothers me is that they claim it's not authentic. Only what is extreme appears to people to be automatically authentic and real. I understand that people have a strong connection between real and extreme (look at Trump, to so many people he seems real and lacks hypocrisy only because he expresses himself in extremes despite all the lies he is caught in. It is easy to present a moderate as inauthentic)
    "Therefore when a rabbi stands up (in the case of the chief rabbi of Jerusalem) and says that gays should be stoned, the problem is that he is not wrong" This is exactly my problem with your approach that it gives legitimacy to the extremists to take over Judaism. And that is not true and not Judaism. Judaism is based on the ability to adapt and interpret the Torah. In what place do you even give him legitimacy to say these things. You need to understand that the Tanach in itself is not Judaism (unlike the Tanach in itself is not Christianity) I will give you an example of how Chazel faced that they once reached a point of no end for them. Something they could not accept in any way. It's called "Disobedient Dean and Teacher" I won't go into details but even thousands of years ago they couldn't accept it. Contrary to your stigma about religion, they did not say the moral of the text precedes logic. They determined that this law is void, that it cannot be what God wants, and they determined "demand and get paid" meaning that the law is nullified and the only reason it could appear is that we can cancel it.
    So when a rabbi comes and says something like what the rabbi of Jerusalem said, you don't have to accept it or say I'm in favor of freedom of speech or freedom of religion. You should say I accept your freedom of religion but I am not ready to accept that period. And you secularists should say that we do not accept anything as part of your faith and do not accept that "you have no choice". And the same approach should be applied to every religion.
    -
    In conclusion, you wrote "that this is what scares you"
    Don't make the mistake of thinking that religious extremism doesn't scare me or the lack of liberation of religious people based on rabbis. Just because I'm optimistic doesn't mean I'm not worried. And even if I insist on correcting you on incorrect facts about religious people, that doesn't mean there aren't things that are wrong. I am still optimistic because there is change all the time, it is true that it is too slow but I believe that it will speed up.
    I don't think attacking the whole religion is the right way to deal. On the contrary, it legitimizes religion to be extreme.

59. Shmulik,
    So I'm not sure I agree with your analysis. I don't think you can agree with your analysis either until you see exact statistics that show who votes for whom (perhaps we ask A and wait for which party they vote for ;))
    If it turns out that what you said is true and indeed the majority of religious people vote for parties that have engraved on their flag the destruction of democracy, then I agree that it doesn't really matter what your opinion is as a single person and you cannot be considered a moderate.
    Regarding the problem for which we gathered, all I am saying is that the issue is not black and white and has very blurred boundaries. For example, did you hear about the story that was at the graduation party of the Faculty of Law in Jerusalem? Five women asked to create a separation so that they could dance comfortably. That is, in fact, they sought to exclude themselves, if you will. This case quite shook me because I couldn't decide what I thought about it. Do we really have the right to force them to dance with the other people at the party or not to come to the party? Is it our right as a society to prevent them from, in fact, excluding themselves? Another question: there is some kind of ceremony, women sing in this ceremony. Am I allowed to prevent a guy from leaving the room? Is it reasonable for me to force this person to stay in the room and listen to women sing? While there are things that are clear to me from a social point of view, for example it is clear that there is no situation in which women should be prohibited from singing in the same ceremony in order to "be considered", the case where someone chooses to come out is less trivial to me. Now, you've known me for many years over the airwaves, so it seems to me that you can believe me when I say that the exclusion of women is one of the most repulsive practices in my opinion, but does that mean we should force against it? I'm really not sure what the answer is. As usual, I believe that the best answer is education and the ideal is, of course, that we will reach a situation where no one will want such exclusion, but we are very far from such a situation. What are we doing in the meantime? Force release? How can you force a value of freedom?
    The exclusion of women is, of course, only one, very clear example. There are many more. The most painful of them, to me, is the issue of core studies. If I said that education is the only solution, how will you implement education when you are not given one? And what's the point of forcing education for freedom? What are you actually teaching here?
    Everything I posted here was posted as open questions and for good reason. I have no answers. I only have a general way that I believe in, which may seem too slow and not efficient enough in the above issues. i don't know Force often had a tendency to win, but there were certainly also cases where reason had the upper hand.

60. Maya,
    You did write, but it was important for me to refine the topic more, as I think there is an addictive game here on their part. If you agree with the analysis I did which says that the absolute majority of religious people vote for religious parties, then the unequivocal conclusion is that there are almost no moderate religious people. In the end, this is the only way I can measure opinions, because if I ask any person if he is an extremist, he will most likely think that he is completely reasonable and in the center. Since the religious parties want to maintain the rule of law here, I must assume that this is the desire of the absolute majority of the religious and that automatically makes them extremists. So I will not fight for their right to live their lives the way they believe is right, to the death, because their way of life completely contradicts the way I want to lead and does not meet the minimum I require in order to fight to the death. In a framed article, I must admit that I have never heard from a religious person that he does not want a halachic state (perhaps they are not allowed to admit to Bre Gali) and I have never heard from a religious person a positive opinion about Walter's quote. If we are talking about quotes, then there is a nice quote that says "I like to keep an open mind but not to the point of losing my mind" (sounds better in English). This is exactly the case.

61. א
    First, I didn't mean to imply that waiting is saying things you haven't said before. I remember the things you said and your opinions and I also gave you a token of appreciation in the past so please don't be jealous 🙂
    Second, it often happens that I receive responses from people who believe in them, they explain to me that my knowledge of Judaism is simply lacking. Let's take this fact as an axiom. Obviously, my knowledge of Judaism is lacking. I was never interested and never studied. In life, as you know, there is limited time. I studied the Bible that I had to in high school, I saw that it was a subject that I had no intention or interest in going into, and I did not go beyond that. This seems to me to be a legitimate (and correct) choice to this day, so I am not here to debate the point of a thorn of one interpretation or another. Obviously I don't have the tools. The only thing I remember is a few sporadic stories from the Bible from my school days, when back then I thought that reading the Bible was the best way to turn a person into an atheist. So I will ask you, is the Bible no longer representative of Judaism? Isn't this the common opinion in Judaism that the Bible was written by God and given to humans? Isn't this the holy book on which everything relies? So just a few questions, about the little I know of the Bible: isn't there a story there about a man who was ordered to kill his son and immediately decided to do so and the moral of the mind is that it is good that way? There are no ten commandments there, five of which are about how to worship a certain god or not and whether to take his name in vain, but there was no place for the commandment: "God Thanos"? Isn't there some story there about a father who protected God's people and gave his virgin daughters to a mob to rape and did good?
    So there are a million interpretations. And the Jewish religion has also evolved and it's a good thing. But you cannot take back that which is the basis of your whole religion. for better and for worse. Is it so you can improve your morals? Maybe. But when you ignore the horrors written in the Bible as the basis and refer to countless interpretations that I don't know, yes, you are lying to yourself. I'm sorry. You justify yourself on the basis, you say: "I am no longer this person, I have evolved" and conveniently forget that this person, for many people, is the living words of God. I am sure that there are approaches like the rabbi's, yours, and those who wait in Judaism. Maybe you didn't understand. I didn't mean that you personally are lying to yourselves. I meant that the whole attitude is lying to itself. You cling to a foundation that is simply shocking and cannot be called reasonable by any contemporary criteria and say: "It's fine, there is an interpretation." But you forget the basics. The seculars should remind you of him all the time. And so when a rabbi (in the case of Jerusalem's chief rabbi) stands up and says that gays should be stoned, the problem is that he is not wrong. No matter how many interpretations you give, these things are written in the Bible explicitly. And you have nowhere to run from it.
    And that's what's scary. And that is the lack of a moral compass. refers to him. You say that your interpretation comes from within and you know what is right and what is wrong, but you also say that there is an absolute morality that we are "advancing towards" and I assume that that entity aspires to it. This means that your morality comes from the outside. from an external source. So bless you that you learned not to blindly listen to every rabbi. There are many in the community who do not do this. And as soon as the rabbi's answer is the source of authority and is the final result you will do (as happens a lot, maybe not with you, or with those who wait or with many others, but you cannot deny that this is a common phenomenon) this is the scary stage. Because then we depend on the grace of a person whose conscience is unclear.

62. Shmulik,
    I wanted to answer you, but then I saw that it was more or less the confused answer I wrote to Lek. and is now on hold. Although I already wrote what you say. I wrote that the limit of openness is lack of openness. And it's clear that you don't give a free hand to people who have repented of their flag to destroy democracy from within (see the entry of the Jewish Home, undoubtedly the most dangerous party in the Knesset today and the one that really has the real potential to destroy Israel. By the way, Smotrich, in my opinion, is a fool, but Bennett is not And he is no less extreme and I agree with you that this is what is scary. Ayelet Shaked is also not stupid at all and she is a complete enigma for me). Anyway, that's where the clear limit of legitimate opinions is, I said that in advance. K. She asked about the legitimacy of other opinions and I gave her a somewhat confused answer on the subject (which is pending). I said to Lek. And I tell you too - the solution is, of course, in education (and the minister of education should be changed...) and to prevent the intolerable religiousization, at least for your children, send them to one of the alternative schools (open and democratic of sorts) the situation there is much better, even though it is a temporary solution and absolutely not a permanent solution.
    Regarding the religious, I tend to accept the words of A and Machekim. There are moderate religious people and I would even like to believe that they are the majority. They are swallowed up in the public space because the extremists make more noise, I am not sure that they are really swallowed up. By the way, I knew a liberal religious family that voted in March and I'm sure there are others, so your argument about voting is also not XNUMX% valid in my opinion. In the end, I think that a religious and liberal person lives in cognitive dissonance, but as long as he gets along with this dissonance, I have no problem. Yes, they will multiply.
    I was just talking about the subject with friends yesterday and they said that Judaism, like other religions, has undergone changes over the years and the center of gravity has always been where the majority was and in fact, if there was no State of Israel, Judaism would probably have already undergone a transformation in the reform/conservative direction, but because of this absurdity where Israel is actually associated with the least accepting stream in Judaism, the ridiculous situation has arisen where Orthodox Judaism has power that it should no longer have. Obviously, this is only one of the reasons why religion and state should be separated, but what I want to say is that many religious people will agree with you on the need to separate religion and state. There are moderate religious. They too, like the seculars, need to unite more and make their voices heard in the public arena.

63. Eliahu,
    I don't want to write too long a response since I assume that K will answer you in an orderly manner while going down to the basis of faith and I will only interrupt, but I wanted to get answers to the following questions:
    1. Does slavery still exist in Judaism? To the best of my knowledge, and I have checked, the answer is clearly yes. No one can undo something like that.
    2. Is Judaism a polygamous religion? As far as I knew, and I found out, the answer is yes. The boycott is no longer valid and certainly not valid for non-Ashkenazi communities
    3. Did you walk a valid beautiful woman? As far as I knew, and checked, obviously yes. Rabbi Karim's answer is the accepted answer (and I note here that it did not go unnoticed by those who asked whether it is permissible to rape and on which website. In life, on any secular website, no one would ask when it is permissible to rape women).

    Thanks

64. K.
    I wrote you a long response with a link, so I assume it will take some time for it to be released. Forgiveness is with you.

65. K.
    You asked a difficult question. I'm not entirely sure what my answer will be and the answer won't be unequivocal because in the end, the answer is: each case individually, in my opinion. I do believe in some sort of general view of understanding where it comes from.
    I will explain in a story. Yesterday we were driving on the road and then a car arrived that started cutting lanes and overtaking in a rather dangerous way (a phenomenon we all encountered, I suppose) and my partner immediately grumbled: "Idiot". I immediately referred him to his favorite lecture by David Foster Wallace (recommended: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI) and I asked him what if this person rushes to the hospital now? His response was that he still shouldn't drive in a way that would put him and many others in the hospital. I told him that logically I understand him, but what can be done that logic does not always prevail. I know that I, for example, deal very badly with stressful situations and if the car now skids on the road, then even though I theoretically know what the right things are to do to reduce risks, I probably won't do any of them and instead I will instinctively do all the wrong things (maybe I should have driven less fast, then...)
    The point is that from what I have seen from your comments you are a very logical person and logic dominates every argument and every statement of yours. I know it well, I live with such a person, me too, in the end like this. The thing I'm trying to explain to my partner and currently to you too, is that there are moments in life when logic is not there in our heads. Is it a shame that it is so? very Would it be better to be otherwise? Definitely. But should we add and say: "It's not right that it's not like that, zero tolerance!" will help? probably not. To me, this is similar to a child who hits at school. We all agree that this is wrong. Obviously, this is a phenomenon that should be prevented. The question is how to do it. The bottom line is that schools that engrave zero tolerance for violence have usually done a very poor job of eradicating violence (at most, they managed to move the problem elsewhere). Schools that in essence accept and therefore do not accept the violence but accept the child, even if he is violent time and time again, and examine where it comes from and how it is possible to help the child(!) are the ones that have the potential to eradicate, in the end, the violence.
    Well, that was a somewhat scattered and unclear answer... but here is what I say in the bottom line:
    Acceptance and openness are supreme values ​​to me and it is hard for me to imagine a society I want to live in where these values ​​are not supreme. In such a society, you have to grind your teeth on many things, on many different opinions than your own. Of course, openness should also have limits. The first obvious limit is that of lack of openness which will destroy the system from within. The limits you raised are correct and you need to think about what exactly you do with each of them. Of course, some of them can be destructive (the example of women who are raped by their own fault is, of course, a classic). The question is in what way do you fight against a person who expresses this opinion which is, of course, unacceptable and, in my view, is equivalent to school violence. The most important solution is, of course, education from an early age for openness and equality which will eradicate these views from itself. How do you prevent the opinion that exists now from becoming the norm in the public domain? It is very important to clarify at every opportunity, especially by members of the public, that this is an unacceptable norm. But it is important, at the same time, to accept the owner of the opinion as a legitimate person in the community and to create an open dialogue about where the opinion came from and why it is wrong. The less harm the opinion causes, by the way, the more we as a society should be inclined to accept it as an acceptable opinion, even if it completely contradicts our own.
    Well, I've thought quite a lot about this question you posed and the gibberish you see above is the best answer I've come up with. My thoughts on the subject are still not completely organized and the subject is not completely black and white to me. But I hope you were able to understand a little what I said through all the rant.

66. in her
    good week. Curiosity drew me to your discussion (I even read something about Saturn). I admit that I skimmed over things and did not delve deeper. You are all wise and intelligent, but one thing stuck out and stood out in most of your words: a lack of organized Torah knowledge. In simple words: Wikipedia is not the standard for original Torah knowledge, nor is this or that member of the Knesset. In order to understand the state of halachic ruling today, one must look at the sources of the Torah and from there go to the Mishnah and the Gemara in order to understand the course of the sages of Israel, in whose bright light the great and wise walked, from there it is possible to jump to the ruling methods of the early Rashi, Rambam, Hari" p. of the Rash and more, and from there, even in a fairly quick transition, one can move to the ruling methods in the latter, as written in the Shulchan Aruch. The House of Yosef, the Rama and the bearers of their vessels the Shield Avraham and the XNUMXth and more, up to the methods of the old Rebbe, the owner of the Tanya, and according to the Mishnah Berura and the Son Ish Chai. Then, for added explanation, it is recommended to look at the books of the rabbis of our generation, such as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, and many books by other rabbis (I recommend Rabbi Menachem Mendel Fox, Rabbi Yekutiel Perkash, Rabbi Zvi Cohen) and the window is still short. And we covered maybe a quarter of the basic knowledge in Halacha, and yet there is a general picture here. And this is only what is revealed in the Torah, the halachic-jurisdictional side and its interpretation. Let's not forget the hidden side of the Torah, both from the sages' legends and their midrashes, the hint theory, the investigation theory (for example the Maharal), the moral theory in its stages, the secret theory and the Kabbalah (from the Zohar to the students of the students of the Holy Ari) to the Hasidic theory (for example the words of the Ba'ash XNUMX and his disciples, Breslav and more, and the extensive and deep Chabad doctrine). So after I wrote all of the above with your permission, and really without a hint of bragging, do we even have any idea what the correct and exact values ​​are on which the entire Torah is based? And who are we to have an opinion without comprehensive and clear organized knowledge?
    Now for the NAD it is clear that there are absolute values ​​in the Torah, but there are also some that can be interpreted within the Torah's own standards (measures that the Torah requires), therefore it is possible that in the same prohibition of cooking on Shabbat, for example, there will be a dispute between the judges as to what and how it is forbidden to cook. For example, everyone agrees that you should not place a pot with a stew on the fire, but not everyone agrees on whether it is permissible to pour boiling water on certain foods, and thus a dispute arose as to whether it is permissible to pour water directly from the kettle on coffee, whether when we transfer the boiling water to another vessel, the cooking power is already weakened in them, and more and more. All of this is only in Halacha, so in more internal matters related to behavior, and more than that, to the correction of the person himself, to the service of God, etc.
    There are several ways, and not all of them necessarily suit every person, and this is where the sub-advice "make a rabbi" comes in, even more so. And indeed "Rav" is singular. And if the person comes and asks, how will I know who my rabbi is? Probably only one answer is really appropriate: Trust God to guide you, and keep checking, researching and striving, because maybe this too is just a phase, and you sometimes have to switch to another rabbi. (Only that this is not in the laws but in matters of worshiping God and correcting the morals)
    Hope my response gave some of you something. I didn't come from the skeptical side, and don't "suspect" me that I understand philosophy or other sciences too much, I came to write my opinion on the Torah concepts that I grew up with in a non-religious but believing home, and then in the last 20 years as an observant Jew who studies Torah.

67. א
    And what Shmulik wrote...

68. א
    I don't know what is more frightening, religious people who have lost their moral compass and act according to the moral principles of contemporary rabbis, as you hear from time to time and with a fairly high frequency, or religious people who have lost their moral compass and accept God as a high moral standard, and this despite all the atrocities he is responsible for to them and this according to the writings attributed to him by his believers. In any case, even the version you express, which according to you is unusual and does not represent the religious rabbi, according to which: "Today, without a doubt, each person has to determine for himself..." creates a false representation as if the weight of tradition, the Holy Scriptures and their interpretations, both of which contain, among other things, moral distortions extremely difficult, it is inferior to or equivalent to modern moral principles, which is clearly not the case. If religious people were truly free to determine their own moral principles, regardless of the tradition containing these distortions, the worship of God, in its historical meaning, would be emptied of its content. I will be the first to welcome such a dramatic change, but it is clear to me that it is not happening. Not with you, and what's more, not with the decisive rabbi of the religious either.
    You wrote: "God will not forgive an immoral decision" and this of course raises the question of what an immoral decision is, and how do you know what would be considered moral or immoral in God's eyes, especially in light of the rich history of what seems to me to be severe moral distortions such as the murder of helpless babies. In no way are you guaranteed that the murderer Schlissel made a decision that seems absolutely moral to him, nor can you know if it is not in line with God's morality as it is clearly reflected in the things that are attributed to him, even if today there are some religious people who have found a way to ignore his explicit commands. And it links to another sentence you wrote in a previous comment and for some reason I allowed it to pass even though it seems puzzling and problematic to me:
    You wrote: "If God were to reveal himself to me and tell me to do something clearly immoral... in that case I promise to go to my family doctor and get a referral to a specialist..."
    Clarification is needed: I did not understand where your assurance comes from because God cannot command the execution of things that are immoral? Can you show the logical chain that requires this?

    And regarding: "We cannot judge people from 3000 years ago for keeping slaves" (or acting in ways that are clearly immoral to us today). We may not be able to judge them, but it would be foolish to say that we cannot judge those who could have done a better job of education. Think about you and your children. Because empathy is not yet sufficiently developed in them, and they are limited in their knowledge, and therefore they can think and do actions that are not moral in our eyes, does this mean that we must provide them with rules of conduct that are only slightly more advanced than those they hold in their "time", then only a twisted logic would not require imparting Moral values ​​are correct in the first place. It is even more distorted to display immoral conduct as a personal example. What exactly do you expect if this is how you treat those weaker than you? I do not understand, nor do I accept, that "education" and the personal example that the religious themselves believe that God gave is the best possible way (which is quite jarring especially when it is quite easy to imagine better ways if moral behavior was indeed important to him).

    If I was given the ability to understand what morality is, then this god cannot be moral (and neither can one who believes in it and is based on his commandments), and if someone wants to claim that we cannot know what morality is and therefore we cannot criticize God - the burden of justification is on him to convince why this assumption is correct, and why is it guaranteed that God is good and benevolent (assuming he exists at all). A world that is getting better and better is extremely weak evidence of a good and benevolent God, first and foremost because this improvement is carried out by the thoughts and actions of a minority of people in a continuous and slow struggle against brutality and morality that is incredible in its scope and strength (which definitely still exists). This is definitely not what we would expect from a world directed by a good and benevolent divine being. It reminds me of those who thank God for recovering from a serious illness, when it was the scientists and doctors who discovered the knowledge about the disease and how it can be overcome, and this after who knows how many other patients before who suffered severe torment from the same "gift" that was given in the first place, according to the same logic , by the same god. It is distorted on so many levels to claim that the fact that there has been progress in science and medicine indicates that the God who is believed to be at least responsible for the creation of the world and the conditions in which we live (including the causes of disease) is good and benevolent. In my opinion, this is another glaring illustration of the moral breakdown in such religious groups.

69. A',
    Under the assumption that the Torah was written by humans (men) and interpreted by humans (men for the benefit of men), I am ready to admit that a significant part of what is written there is moral relative to the world of old. Giving instructions on how to drive a slave is impressive. Forcing a rapist to marry a girl he raped for 50 shekels subject to her will is impressive, because otherwise no one else would have touched her and she would probably have died in the absence of a man to take care of her. The law of a beautiful woman is quite impressive because in today's Daesh world, women are simply raped and then murdered and here the Torah instructs what to do with a raped captive and how she is supposed to be treated. The XNUMXth Torah is impressive (according to the little I've been exposed to it). The level of knowledge, the depth, the discussions, everything is extremely impressive (although it's a shame that so much intelligence was invested there, instead of in the development of science). The conclusion from Aknai's oven is amazing and innovative. relative to the past.

    As far as you are concerned, it should be noted, the Torah was not written by men for the benefit of men, but by God in his own right, and this is where the problem lies. God is not supposed to approve of slavery, I don't care how common it was in the daily life of the community. No slavery, period. No rape, period. There is no beautiful/ugly woman, period. No selling your daughter to a man, period. Gays will not be stoned, period. If God wrote this book, he is a terrible, cruel and immoral God by any standard of morality that the human race has reached today. Morality developed only because the civil legislator took away from the religious one the right to manage our lives. It's called enlightenment and education, and they are the reasons why there is democracy, freedom of speech (there is no law in Israel guaranteeing freedom of speech. There is a case law), freedom of association, human rights and equality. I therefore completely disagree with you that progress is due to the will of God, not only because he does not exist but because this progress was achieved only after the religious priests were kicked out of power (here you are in power and then you get the unfortunate Amona affair). This progress was achieved despite what is written in the Torah. Gays, for your peace of mind, will be able to marry and have sex, no matter how forbidden it is in the Torah. Women will be able to testify, no matter what the rabbis say. No longer will they stone a woman who was raped and didn't make a sound (Yanu wanted it), no matter what the Torah says.

    And yet, all these good things are written in the Torah, and this is the reason why there are practically no moderate religious people in Israel. The absolute majority of the religious vote for the ultra-Orthodox, the Eli Yishai Jewish Home and the Likud. All these parties are extremists for whom the Torah is the main element in their world view, and this one does not really hold democracy or equal rights between the sexes, LGBT and other people as something to strive for. The emperor's patron, Sheldon Adelson, put it well when he said that - it is not bad if Israel is not a democracy, because it is not written in the Bible. You are welcome to write as much as you want that there are moderate religious people, but most of them put the Jewish Home, Shas, Aguda and other Mera'in in Shin in their ballot. What is mild there? I mean, your sentence just doesn't add up. This is cheating and eye catching. You can't be moderate and say yes, but when talking about equality between the sexes. No, but when talking about LGBT rights.
    This is the claim of K.

70. Before him, the position was filled by several "bodies"
    Priests kept the halakhic knowledge
    And were also supposed to be spiritual leaders (a role that over the years has not always been filled in the best way to say the least)
    In addition there were the prophets. that for the most part they only dealt with spiritual leadership and almost never with halachic matters (there are a number of exceptions and for the most part these are prophets who were also priests)
    The prophets were until the beginning of the second verse and then stopped.

71. A',

    And until the rabbinical establishment was established, who filled their role? Who told the people what is allowed and what is not allowed? Who interpreted the Torah to the people?

72. rival
    The institution as it exists today was created in the second house during the Hasmonean kingdom.

73. A',

    Did the rabbinic establishment exist during the First and Second Temples? If not why? And who filled this role?

74. Miracles
    According to what was accepted in Judaism. According to what the overwhelming majority of Jews accepted. If the people didn't follow them, they wouldn't have heard about them like the other approaches that existed in Judaism and died out. Like the approach that the authority gave to priests only (the approach of the Sadducees)

75. A.
    You are wrong in that you think there is absolute morality. The reason is simple - not every ethical dilemma has one answer.

76. Shmulik
    Regarding the radicalization mechanism built into religion.
    I think you definitely touch on an important and painful point. I have no one to agree with you.
    But not with your approach to the subject. The answer cannot be because there is extremism so there are no moderates. The worst thing is to say there are no moderates. And this is true not only for Judaism, also for Islam, for example the worst thing that can be done is to say there are no moderates.
    Originally, Judaism is truly the antithesis of extremism, but today the moderate faction is also under attack or at least receives a cold shoulder precisely from the secularists who prefer to see all extremism as authentic and all moderation as a lie. An extremist calls people to the truth probably because of some logical fallacy.
    I have to finish now maybe tomorrow I will continue.
    Just saying that the secularists also have a large share of the blame for the radicalization happening today. I will elaborate more tomorrow

77. A.
    Let's be precise: "According to the rabbis, the authority was given to the rabbis." 🙂

78. ק
    Regarding the first question. According to the religion, the authority was given to the rabbis. But here I will for a moment leave the representation of religion and say my opinion which may not represent the religious.
    Today, without a doubt, each person should determine for himself and not imitate a rabbi who will tell him what is moral. A person can consult the majority that he appreciates and it will be fine as long as he understands that he is always the only one who bears the sole responsibility for any decision he makes. God will not forgive an immoral decision because it was approved by a rabbi. It is not important that Rabbi Aiza "approved" Legal Amir to act as he did for example.
    Regarding the second question.
    Morality does not change, it evolves. As science does not just change, it advances. The whole world is advancing morally all the time even when there are temporary setbacks the general moral graph is rising. Sometimes religious people talk about the morality of the Torah as if it is fixed and absolute. You can't really say such a thing. It is a fact that today everyone will say that it is immoral to own a slave (let it be clear that the slave laws in Judaism are very, very moral for the time and even just 300 years ago)
    The question is does this mean that there is no absolute morality and everything is relative?
    I dont think so. The very fact that I say that morality is progressive means that there is an absolutely good and moral direction. Will we one day reach such a point that there is no longer any need to move forward?
    I do not think so. We will always find that the world can keep moving forward. For example, in the future I believe it will be considered very immoral to kill an animal in order to eat it (Rabbi Kook also says that it will be so in the future) I personally am a vegetarian already today, but it is clear to me that it is wrong to judge those who live today and are not vegetarians by the standards of the future. (Maybe in the future people like you will attack the religion for allowing to eat meat) In the same way we can't judge people from 3000 years ago for keeping slaves. More than that today if a person murdered or raped the most moral thing to do would be to throw him in prison for at least most of his life. In the distant future, such an action may be considered completely barbaric. What will be instead? I really do not know. I can't see that far. And on the other hand, in the distant past in the case of a murder, the most moral thing to do - at a time when most kings usually ruled over one city - was for one of the relatives of the murdered person to be appointed blood redeemer and go to kill the murderer. In this way he would add to the world order and benefit the world. It is clear that a person who behaves like this today is not moral and not only does not contribute to order and morality in the world, he also undermines them.
    (You asked earlier how we would distinguish a world created by an evil entity. This may not completely answer the question, but still. A world ruled by evil would not improve all the time.)

79. Shmulik,
    Thanks : -)

    And I definitely agree with the things you wrote, especially with the radicalization mechanism built into religions.

80. א
    You are ignoring the fundamental issue about which I repeatedly ask religious people, and I have asked several times here as well. I will try to break it down into small questions so you can answer briefly if you want. I'll start with two:
    1) Who do you think determines in religion what is moral and what is not?
    2) Do you think morality is absolute or does it change over time?

    Note that I'm asking your opinion, because I've already received several answers, some of them contradictory, to these religious questions, so it's certain that you don't represent the entire religious community. Right now I would like to listen to your position on the matter.

81. Ariel
    Pascal's wager really cannot fit Judaism. Judaism has never been content with believing in God alone (which is certainly relatively easy), not even content with observing the mitzvot and worship. Ella demanded much more. Pursuing justice, charity, welcoming strangers and protecting their rights. ..
    If you read the prophets you will see what they write about those who perform the worship but do not behave morally. They say again and again that it is much better to observe the laws of justice and morality and not to observe the worship than the other way around.
    ק
    Regarding the question you raised before about whether God would reveal himself to me and tell me to do something clearly immoral. The answer is very simple, in that case I promise to go to my family doctor and get a referral to a specialist (there are good drugs today with much less side effects than before).

82. anonymous,
    If you had lived a thousand years before Jesus ben Joseph was born (what scares you so much about his name?) and someone approached you and asked you why you don't pray to Zeus like most of the enlightened world does and he would add and make it difficult: "Doesn't it seem plausible to you that if it turns out that the prayers They really help - so is it really worth praying" to Zeus? And he would ask: "Doesn't it make sense to you that if people pray - even if it doesn't help - the chance that the prayers will be answered is higher than the chance that they will be answered" for those who pray to Zeus? (Because it is clear that if Zeus is the right divine being then it does not matter if you pray to someone else or if you do not pray at all, in any such case your chances are equal to 0). So it is likely that what you would answer, is more or less the answer you can give yourself.

    But we will return to your question anyway. All that needs to be done is to examine whether it is worthwhile to pray to a certain god in a certain religion. It's actually quite simple, we will ask all believers to pray to their favorite being on a certain subject, and we will check in a controlled experiment the degree of success that their prayer is answered. Atheists will serve as a control group when they "pray" to the spaghetti monster. I assume that if there is indeed one correct entity, then you are expected to get definite results that testify to it. Another possibility is that there is more than one entity (perhaps even all the entities of the true religions are true) and then we would expect to see a distinct difference in responsiveness between all the true religions and atheists. Alternatively, if the correct description of reality is that there is no divine being, we would observe that there would be no special differences that go beyond chance between all the groups.

    I can say that a priori, without any experience, it is possible to understand that most likely you are praying to the wrong entity (simply because for every divine entity that is chosen, there are many more people who *do not* pray to that entity, and there is no divine entity that is clear to everyone that it is the only one the real one, if such a being exists at all). In this respect, there is no negative difference between atheists and the entire group of worshipers-to-the-incorrect-entity, although the opposite may actually be true, the atheists at least do not waste their lives on a false religion, and in this sense they may even receive merit points because they did not pray to God The right one, but at least they didn't sin by worshiping the wrong god. And of course, if there is no divine being at all, then it is clear that the atheists are the big winners, especially compared to those who believe that they will receive the reward in the "next world" and thus waste the precious time in their short lives, the only time they will ever have for eternity, on vanity.

    so no. In view of the evidence about the reality in which we live, I have no reason to think that it is worth wasting my life on beliefs that in my opinion are insipid. It doesn't make any sense at all to act so recklessly in the little time we have in this world, and it certainly doesn't make sense to adopt a utilitarian approach that is entirely motivated by fear of punishment from a "good and benevolent" being, and the pursuit of endless pleasure (hedonism incarnate) that has zero evidence.

    And here is what could be so bad about a prayer that doesn't work:
    http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/844/323.html

83. K.
    Saying it again.
    Judaism literally means to stop listening to morality or internal logic (which by the way is not exactly internal, more a cultural morality that has developed over thousands of years)
    There are many examples to talk about and I have already given some. In Judaism, the path of the land is forward to the Torah.
    And Hazal over the years always made sure to keep the Torah in line with the developing world morality.

84. anonymous,
    What you are presenting now is called "Pascal's wager" and according to his claim, you should believe in God for two reasons:
    1. Believing in God does not require anything from you
    2. If you don't believe and God really exists you lose
    Therefore, those who do not believe in God only lose! So you should believe in God, right?
    No.
    There are too many variables that Pascal does not consider here. I will mention three but remember there are many others
    1. There are many, many religions in the world. Which god to believe in?
    2. Some religions do not believe in life after death (and for your information, in Judaism, the idea of ​​life after death is a concept that only developed after the First Temple. You are welcome to check me) so in such cases, it turns out that Pascal's claim is also invalid
    3. As a person who believes in God only because you have nothing to lose, do you really think that a powerful and omniscient being will fix it? I do not.
    In the specific case you describe, you claim that praying can only help. I argue otherwise. Compare the mortality data from diseases from 2015 to about 200 years ago. You will find something very very interesting. In the early 19th century when religion was still the mainstay of culture, more people died from simple illnesses like colds and flu. Didn't they pray? You will be surprised, their whole life revolved around religion. For every little thing they turned to the priest. Didn't believe in the God of Judaism? Also valid for Jews.
    But miraculously, in 2015 almost no people die from colds and flu. surprising? I do not know. I doubt if when you catch a cold you will turn to God in prayer to heal you or you will just take paracetamol.

85. Avi,
    Why is my comment blocked?

    Guys, I posted the same comment twice. I apologize

86. Maya,
    I no longer accept Walter's quote at face value. I am willing to act in his light only for those who are willing to commit to playing only on the democratic field and not on the limited one of "the majority decides", because any majority can decide that democracy is invalid or that every genji should be killed, but for the one that recognizes freedom of expression, human rights, and the rights of the minority , the rule of law, the separation of powers, etc. One can, for the sake of discussion, call it a demand for an American constitution for its amendments. Whoever is not ready, forget about me. I will arm myself with a howitzer at him.

    It is absolutely clear that every religious person or almost every religious person is playing a addicted game here. The second they become the majority, all the achievements of enlightenment and education will be revoked for them one by one. It's already happening now. I also do not believe that there are moderate religious people. That is, it is clear that there are moderate religious people, but in the public sphere they are swallowed up by everyone who is willing to be more extreme. why? I think it's because of the shame effect. If a public leader says that he is more righteous because he washed his hands 5 times, then slowly everyone around him will line up or be ashamed because he only washed 3 times. There is no instruction to wear a kippah all the time, but little by little, this practice took over the entire religious public space (you can read it on Wikipedia) because why not? What's bothering you? I'm just more righteous. When you think about it, the religious imperative has no natural brake and that's why you reach the mother Taliban. In the public sphere, the one who stands out and becomes a public and party leader is the one who makes harsher and more extreme statements. If we take Bennett as an example, he would not have become a party leader if he had run under the banner of "Let's make peace with the seculars* but on the contrary, it changes from annex, annex to annex. To be firm and a bully and that's what the public likes. In the state education system he introduces religious content, he gives a speech in which he tells everyone that studying Torah and Judaism is more important than studying mathematics (and he knows what he is talking about, because only two days ago we were informed of another deterioration of Israel compared to the OCDI world) and he delivers the goods. If we take Smotrich, the situation is even worse with him (and he's really not a stupid man. That's what's so scary). Since I do not recognize any religious public leader who declares his desire to have democracy in the sense I wrote, and it is clear to me that the absolute majority of religious people vote for the religious parties, some of which actually declare their desire to apply the Jewish Sharia regime here and some simply smile at the victory of the demographics, I am not prepared to fight for their right to say You should be sent to the back of the bus. I'm not ready to be Walter.

    K

    Your writing is a pleasure.

87. "Monkey, point", you say, let's say you live in the year that preceded the birth of the monkey Jesus - during this time it was customary to hold prayers.
    And let's say that no one has any idea whether the prayer really helps.
    And let's say that people still pray. Because they believe it does help.
    Doesn't it seem plausible to you that if it turns out that prayers really help - then it's really worth praying?
    Doesn't it make sense to you that if people pray - even if it doesn't help - the chance that the prayers will be answered is higher than the chance that they will be answered among the public who don't pray?

88. interesting…
    Now, it turns out (according to respondent "K.") that the religious have lost their "moral compass"... Maybe we should call Mrs. Scout Grant to help the religious find him...

89. I see that it needs to be sharpened again.
    I claim that anyone who accepts an "absolute" moral standard from an entity that by definition has no knowledge of its intentions and no understanding of its motives, even if I completely accept that there is a desire and hope that these are good intentions, then that person gives up a personal moral compass (which naturally exists in all of us and exists to a certain extent , who is more and who is less, also in many other animals) in the sense that there is nothing that can protect him, and hope is not a sufficient protection at all, in the event that the intentions and motives of that being are not good.
    It is a matter of fact that this belief cannot protect him in a case where human religious leaders take upon themselves the authority to be the supreme interpretation of that entity and in practice replace its absolute morality with the absolute morality of a very small number of human beings, even if they are slightly more talented in certain qualities, They are still only human, and prone to fall into all the failings in which humans fail. Of course, this refers to what arose from the Achnai furnace issue.
    And it is even more clear that the same believer has no protection in the event that that divine entity does not exist at all, and you can be the greatest believer, this is still an existing possibility (and in my opinion much, much more logical than any other possibility).
    Then the simple question arises: if the determining morality, one that is absolutely binding, does not come from you, then it means that you have given up the natural internal moral compass that exists in you. It is possible that in many cases the internal moral compass corresponds to the "absolute" morality, but it is clear that in many other cases there cannot be a match (and hence a dissonance that needs to be reconciled somehow) and in the meantime, despite many attempts with religiosity and religious people, I have yet to receive justifications that are better than what seem to be delusional excuses based on Wishful thinking and which seem to be completely disconnected from the reality in which we live.

    I believe that renouncing internal morality, especially when it occurs among whole communities, can lead to very dangerous situations for society (and me and my relatives and loved ones among them), for the simple reason that once you give up the internal moral compass, anything may be accepted by you as a moral act, even if it is It is the most monstrous and cruel thing imaginable (and waiting is by definition not special in that), and from this it follows that religion has no ability to defend itself against a "clearly illegal order" even when a black flag is clearly waving over it to any reasonable person. I believe that education leading to such a concession is destructive on a national scale. But it seems to me that before discussing the consequences, one should first at all understand the meaning of what I wrote above - that is, giving up the internal moral compass. understand and recognize this, and it seems that this recognition arouses on the one hand strong emotional resistance among religious people, and on the other hand I do not accept a rational reference to what is claimed. It may be that I have a flaw in the line of thought on the subject and I don't see it, so I would be happy to receive comments (which may lead to enlightenment) on the subject. In the meantime it seems that the result I am talking about is logically bound given belief as described above. Anyone who has the ability to contribute is welcome to do so.

90. Maya
    First of all, I agree with what you said about the limits of pluralism. Pluralism should respect every opinion as long as it does not exclude other opinions. (It turns out that a pluralist accepts every person, but only if he is also a pluralist)
    That's why I also don't get access like K's. who says that everyone who believes in God is immoral (at least that's what I understood from her)
    I think the problem is that you don't get rid of many prejudices about religion. On many issues you are sure that you know exactly what the religion's position is. And in most cases this is not completely true or the approach exists but there is also an opposite approach that is no less common. Many things that wait means are not new and are established and accepted in Judaism. Some of them I also mentioned before. And yet you insist on talking about them as unique to him.
    The attitude that Judaism has answers to everything was adopted mainly by converts (of course this is a gross generalization)
    You come to Judaism with the attitude that you already know what it has to say. Or when you hear something that is not acceptable in your opinion, you accept it as the exclusive answer of Judaism. Judaism does not have exclusive answers on any subject. Several answers and opinions were always said about everything.
    Also about what the rabbi said about Nida. I will not go into whether I agree with her or not, but to come and say simply "she is lying to herself" is a step that comes from ignorance. The concept of impurity in Judaism really does not always mean something bad and disgusting like our connotation today. Impurity really often means heavy to something. Sages, for example, determined that the books that will be included in the Tanakh (it is more correct that the later they will call it the Tanakh. I am talking about the period when the Tanakh was not yet signed) will cleanse the hands (and therefore one should wash one's hands before eating after touching these books. When the sages discussed whether to consider the Song of Songs To the saint they asked if he was defiling or not) the assertion that the books are defiling was intended to give them respect so that for example they would not read them while eating or store them together with food (something people did thinking that the books would "protect" the food from mice, many books processed their lives this way? )
    Even the impurity of a dead person (the strongest impurity in Judaism) Rambam says that all its beginnings are respect for the person and the dead.
    Now it does not enter into the discussion whether or not Nida harmed the status of women. But what is certain is that the rabbi did not lie to herself and the things she said are very grounded in Judaism. For some reason it seems to me that if you hear a religionist say that all non-Jews should be expelled from the country, don't say that he is lying to himself, you will accept it as the position of Judaism. Even though it is in the law no and even though Judaism commands to treat foreigners who live with the people of Israel with respect and justice and to remember how the Egyptians treated us and not to repeat it.

91. Maya,
    I no longer accept Walter's quote at face value. I am willing to act in his light only for those who are willing to commit to playing only on the democratic field and not on the limited one of "the majority decides", because any majority can decide that democracy is invalid or that every genji should be killed, but for the one that recognizes freedom of expression, human rights, and the rights of the minority , the rule of law, the separation of powers, etc. One can, for the sake of discussion, call it a demand for an American constitution for its amendments. Whoever is not ready, forget about me. I will arm myself with a howitzer at him.

    It is absolutely clear that every religious person or almost every religious person is playing a addicted game here. The second they become the majority, all the achievements of enlightenment and education will be revoked for them one by one. It's already happening now. I also do not believe that there are moderate religious people. That is, it is clear that there are moderate religious people, but in the public sphere they are swallowed up by everyone who is willing to be more extreme. why? I think it's because of the shame effect. If a public leader says that he is more righteous because he washed his hands 5 times, then slowly everyone around him will line up or be ashamed because he only washed 3 times. There is no instruction to wear a kippah all the time, but little by little, this practice took over the entire religious public space (you can read it on Wikipedia) because why not? What's bothering you? I'm just more righteous. When you think about it, the religious imperative has no natural brake and that's why you reach the mother Taliban. In the public sphere, the one who stands out and becomes a public and party leader is the one who makes harsher and more extreme statements. If we take Bennett as an example, he would not have become a party leader if he had run under the banner of "Let's make peace with the seculars* but on the contrary, it changes from annex, annex to annex. To be firm and a bully and that's what the public likes. In the state education system he introduces religious content, he gives a speech in which he tells everyone that studying Torah and Judaism is more important than studying mathematics (and he knows what he is talking about, because only two days ago we were informed of another deterioration of Israel compared to the OCDI world) and he delivers the goods. If we take Smotrich, the situation is even worse with him (and he's really not a stupid man. That's what's so scary). Since I do not recognize any religious public leader who declares his desire to have democracy in the sense I wrote, and it is clear to me that the absolute majority of religious people vote for the religious parties, some of which actually declare their desire to apply the Jewish Sharia regime here and some simply smile at the victory of the demographics, I am not prepared to fight for their right to say You should be sent to the back of the bus. I'm not ready to be Walter.

    K
    Your writing is a pleasure.

92. Maya,
    I hold a different opinion and would love to hear your thoughts on the following: In my opinion there are other occasions when it is important not to be tolerant of the opinions of others. For example, when expressing a position that is professionally and sometimes even factually incorrect (like flat earth believers, for example), or when expressing a position that contains actual claims about the world while relying on claims that contain an obvious logical fallacy.
    I would like to make it clear, it is always good to first find out exactly what the other side's position is, and it is also always good first to try to point out the errors (from a lenient assumption that the things stem from a lack of familiarity with the facts, professional knowledge, or logical fallacies, and not from a strict assumption of malicious intent or stupidity ), but after such an initial inquiry has been made, and after it has been clarified that that party is doing one of these as mentioned, the person who has relevant knowledge is responsible, not only to express the position that is consistent with professional knowledge and facts and is as free from logical fallacies as possible, but also not to be tolerant towards Those who insist on recycling wrong statements and even condemning such a form of expression. Just think for a moment as an example, about statements, unfortunately all too common, on the topic of sexual violence, which are riddled with ignorance about facts and about existing professional knowledge, and which often contain blatant logical failures, especially in the context of who is to blame - there are bad opinions that are allowed to be listened to, allowed Try to understand them, it is allowed to try to convince otherwise, but under no circumstances should we leave them as if they are acceptable, and show tolerance for their presence in the public sphere.
    So obviously this does not apply to every subject in the world. It is clear that there are issues in which the factual infrastructure is partial and the elements of belief in it are greater, and still, even in such cases there is an expectation from those who claim certain knowledge to be able to back up that knowledge to a reasonable extent, and especially to be able to make a distinction between where the reliance on faith ends and where the reliance on knowledge begins, especially when The matter has far-reaching consequences not only on the life of that individual but also on his environment. In my opinion, it is a legitimate expectation that those who express themselves will recognize the limits of their knowledge, and when there is a confusion between knowledge and belief, especially when this confusion contains logical failures, it is really important to point out the errors and not tolerate insisting on repeating them without providing a reasonable justification.

    Perhaps I will express it differently - it is our duty to express intolerance towards the mechanisms that lead to irrational discussion. For example, I find myself saying to someone: If you wish to continue the discussion, you cannot use this fact that is incorrect (while referring to reliable documentation of that fact), or you cannot use the logical fallacy you just made (while detailing and explaining the logical fallacy ). Note that the condemnation is not a condemnation of a person's body (even if at the moment a certain person is the one using the inappropriate expression mechanism). And if that party chooses to use these things anyway, not only is there no point in the discussion, but it should be condemned for harming the possibility of having a reasonable discussion and also for tripping others, who may not have sufficient tools to identify the errors and which for them is another opinion that would have been seen as valid if there had not happened to be someone there who could Point out the errors. The more blatant the error, the more should be the condemnation. Each individual case, Holocaust denial for example, should be grossly obscene. And if the other side believes that injustice has been done with the intolerance and condemnation, then please, there is room for a small discussion on the issue of whether that condemnation is justified, and I have already been in this position, on both sides, and in my opinion this (intolerance and condemnation) only adds to the value of the discussion.
    In my opinion, reducing this tool only in the face of a position that is intolerant of other opinions, although this case indeed deserves all condemnation, leaves many other types of cases that I see no sense in showing tolerance towards them, mainly because of their potential for harm.

93. anonymous
    I have an ongoing discussion at home with my living partner. I claim that anything can be solved in an open dialogue and that this is the way to approach any problem. Always. He claims that there are people who are simply impossible to talk to. Why are you helping him? And in case you didn't understand, I say you are helping him because you are simply making a classic demonstration of a person who is impossible to talk to. But I will not despair. I believe in the way, so I will respond to your words:
    Where exactly did I write that I do not accept the opinions of the religious public? It is quite possible that I wrote that I do not agree with them, but do you understand that disagreeing and not accepting are not the same thing? To quote Walter: "I don't agree with your words, but I will fight to the death for your right to hear them." I don't agree with the religious people's approach to life, but I will fight (probably not to the death, I'm a coward) for their right to live their lives in the way they believe is right.
    Regarding everything I said about disagreement in the discussion and the continuation of the discussion, I do not know in what form you enter the discussions. I enter discussions with the aim of learning from them. Not to "win" not to "lose", not to convince and not to be convinced. For me, I won the discussion if I heard something new that I hadn't thought of before or gave my interlocutor a new way to think about things. I don't expect to change my mind (although it sometimes happens) nor do I expect to change the minds of others (although it also sometimes happens) but that is not the goal. I don't want all the people in the world to be replicas of the same way of thinking. If everyone is "convinced" this is what will happen and then, where will the new ideas that lead us forward come from? It is good that people stick to their opinion but sometimes develop it in a slightly different way than how it would have developed if we had not conducted the discussion. For that it was worth it.
    Regarding the things I said about religious people, the things are a bit inclusive, no doubt and it's really not nice, but you can't make endless mistakes. In general, religion by its very nature and therefore also the majority of religious people (at least the ones I've come across) is a system that tries to silence other lines of thought because the other lines of thought are illegitimate or irrelevant because "we already know the answer, it was given to us by the Creator of the world" . It is usually a very static and uniform line of thought. (Again, for the most part, I'm certainly aware that this isn't always the case and Wait demonstrates that nicely here). This line of thought is in complete opposition to everything I believe in and in fact, it is the only line of thought I am not ready to accept. I am ready to accept any opinion as long as it is not: "Oh, by the way, only my opinion is correct and you have no right at all to voice your opinion". that's it. Listening to religious people who explain to me about their belief in God when I'm sure he doesn't exist is fascinating to me precisely because I don't understand it. I'm always happy to hear and check if I missed something. Until now I still haven't found what I missed and yet I don't think you could find a more enthusiastic supporter than me of their absolute right to believe this.
    I hope now the point is clear. Please don't help my partner anymore in our argument. Too bad. try to listen

94. anonymous,
    But I didn't write that appealing to authority is an evil act, in fact I was talking about authoritarianism and not about appealing to authority, and what any reasonable person must have understood from my words is that I was speaking out condemning the abuse of authority. How, for her sake, did you get from that to "appeal to authority is a foolish act"? Why do you insist on demonstrating your lack of intelligence and poor understanding? In view of your multiple failures to understand the words of others, shouldn't you first make a little more effort to understand what was said so that you can relate to the things the other side expressed? And maybe I didn't understand correctly and you're actually trying to claim that turning to authority is an evil act and you just don't like claiming it yourself so you throw it at me?

95. K.
    Humans are born with a trait that makes them turn to authority.
    Even when we were babies - when we heard noise, we would first of all turn to our parents - those who have the authority - to protect us from the noise. Like our children turning to us.
    This is a 'natural feature' that probably exists in every creature.

    To say that turning to authority is a foolish act - it is a step out of ignorance.

96. Maya
    You claim that "acceptance of the other" and "opinions different from your own" - are accepted in your home "without saying".
    So why don't you accept the opinions of the religious public? This is hypocrisy on your part. And - you're lying, then.

    And the fact that you agree with those you disagree with sounds reasonable to you?

    And that you agree to disagree with them and continue the argument with them when you are aware in advance that they will not agree with your words - is that palatable?

    And that you say about yourself that you "give an excellent education to your children" and "you are a very level-headed person who is difficult to get out of balance", compared to the public who believe that, in your opinion, they "think they are right and everyone else is wrong." And zero tolerance" - isn't this arrogance and arrogance (which has no basis) on your part?

    Besides throwing shit out of your mouth towards the public of believers - what were you trying to say in your response?

97. Maya,
    I want to reinforce your words regarding the attempts, which unfortunately I have encountered myself, of intellectual thieves who ambush children and youth near secular schools, and treat them like the last of the missionaries, either by using sweet words (literally) or by using intimidation and threats or by trying to sow confusion and instability on topics that are not consolidated yet, and all this through the devious use of the authority of age, physical size and false rhetoric of certainty.
    It goes without saying that this does not represent all religious people and that this is violent and extreme behavior, but it is hard for me not to think about all those children and teenagers who are led by the same tools to believe in a certain type of religious tradition. How great and significant is the impact of this paving on the lives of those children (which depends almost exclusively on the location where those individuals were born and the environment in which they grew up) and on the possibilities before them to be exposed to knowledge, culture and traditions from other sources, and to make choices as freely as possible.
    I try to remind myself that I must use the tool of authority very carefully, that I must provide knowledge on the one hand, but also know how to say "I don't know" when this knowledge is not in my possession, but not to be satisfied with that, but to encourage exploratory and critical thinking, which leads to exposure to many and varied sources while maintaining Criticality to examine the nature of the information that those sources provide.
    Authoritarianism can be like water that suppresses the fire of curiosity that burns naturally in every child, and I try to use it as little as possible, only in extreme cases (such as in cases of healthy curiosity that can lead to irreversible damage - like checking if you can insert a fork into the electricity or a crochet hook into the cat's ear ), and even then it will not be a mere exercise of authority, but accompanied by an explanation, and if possible also with the help of illustrative experiments and experimentation.

98. waiting,
    I agree with almost everything you wrote. The education for pluralism, hearing and accepting different opinions and accepting the other in our home is, as they say, goes without saying. And there is no problem with exchanging opinions and there is no problem with free speech. vice versa. I wish there was much more of him. I wish people would understand that disagreeing doesn't mean gagging. It is allowed and you should disagree and keep talking. Having agreed to all this completely, there is a problem with children and with authority. I am not against free speech even with children (and teenagers, for the purpose of the discussion, are also children), certainly not. But about the situation you described about your childhood in which you would challenge the lecturer's words, I can only say: bless you. I, personally, to this day am attacked by insecurity when I come to face what I perceive as authority and this is a problem I have to deal with all the time. All the more so my daughters, who are truly wonderful children and even gifted with self-confidence, but still accept, in many areas, the word of authority. It has nothing to do with the excellent education (if I should say more) that they receive at home. It's just character. This character, as mentioned, is relevant to me as well, but as an adult, I am nevertheless a little more grounded and a little more difficult to get out of balance. Children it is very easy. And here is the root of the problem. Therefore, it is important to approach the subject carefully (in everything that is said to the child, by the way, not only in these charged matters). It is indeed necessary and important to hear the uncoordinated world view of the child, discuss it and try to help, but not say: "This is the one truth and if you don't live up to it, you will burn in the fire of hell." This is exactly what you mentioned is not allowed and by and large, many times this is what happens in schools today. More and more I hear stories about children who heard that a good child observes mitzvahs and similar things. When these things come as fact from someone in authority, this is a problem.
    In the end, you represent a small minority that I at least haven't met until now. Most of the believing people I've encountered so far come more with the "I'm right, you're wrong and zero tolerance" approach. And while I consider myself an open person, I cannot find openness to lack of openness - that is destroying the system from the inside. The way in which you see the religion and specifically the Jewish religion, is, without a doubt, romantic, but does not represent the attitude known and, as far as I know, prevalent (although, to be fair, I don't really know what goes on in the bedrooms of believing societies). The problem I presented with appealing to children is things that are happening these days in schools where they try, with words of sweetness or the threat of authority to tempt children to simply repent. it's bothering. And these days when they forget to teach science or the studies of philosophy or humanism and democracy but remember without a problem the studies of the closed and non-accepting Orthodox Judaism (again, as the less romantic people whose voices are heard more clearly see it).
    If the meeting with the teenagers was accidental and was, in fact, a spontaneous exchange of ideas then no, I don't see a problem with that.
    I agree that what is important is that we both work hard and I give you up on the wrong way 🙂

99. I apologize for the errors, I wrote in a hurry, and now I read again:

    "Your opinion" should be "his opinion".
    "That he may" should be "that he may".

100. waiting,
     Sorry, I don't have much to say about your responses, which are chains of statements that are wishful thinking without any substantial substantiation. For me it's meaningless gibberish. I will try to bring down to the ground one prominent point from your response:

     If there is no red line for you, it means that you cannot distinguish between good and bad. A little thought experiment. Let's assume another universe created by an evil being. Her main concern in the universe she created is watching suffering. She is allowed, it is about a divine being that we cannot perceive or understand. That entity of course takes care of what is necessary to sustain its creation, but they are not particularly interesting to it, but only their sufferings, it simply watches the course of affairs and enjoys it, although sometimes it takes care to plant a false belief in its creation as if it were good and benevolent.
     In such a universe, where indescribable suffering is common, a person of faith like yours would firmly assert that the same being who created that universe is a good being. There was nothing, however crazy, evil, violent and monstrous, that could have happened to change your mind.
     It is difficult to understand then, what is the difference between the two cases from the point of view of the believing person, in our universe and in that imaginary universe. Can you point to something that would make a distinction between the situation in our world and the situation in that world (from the point of view of the believer)?

101. combake
     I hope that at least the English lesson was spared from them

102. K.

     "What is the red line? What would be so unjust, unfair, cruel, monstrous, for a person to say, first of all to himself, that it is impossible for a good God to mess with such a certain situation".

     nothing. I wonder if there is an atrocity the world has yet to see.
     But no one is equal.
     We believe that they suffer themselves - not lost. And we fight to reach them too.
     Why are they not lost? Because we see their dreams. And we believe that dreams are meant to come true.
     And why are we sure that dreams are meant to come true? Because when I dig into every child's dream, I find that they want to be the hero who will save the world. Every girl's dream is to be the best mother in the world. When I look into every adult's dream, I see values ​​and good deeds. And I believe that such values ​​are not a random and mechanical product of a few proteins. It is so valuable, that it is eternal, that it will win. that their lives are beyond life, and the evil - that hurt them, that destroyed them, no matter how cruel and monstrous it was, was unable to overcome them, and they will make a comeback, and come back bigger than they were when they fell.
     Ok, let's just say it's a dream and nothing more. This can be discussed. But I am not equal to their sufferings, I appreciate and believe in their greatness, in their power to restore themselves and along the way also me morally. to have the last word.
     This is the essence of faith - faith in the power of good to prevail over the power of evil. An eternal force of goodness, which stems from the movement of creation that was a desire to bestow goodness, and that it will come through us - and we - "a part of God from above" - ​​are made of that good will, and therefore it is always in us, without pause, without being able to ignore it, (and we only have to choose goodness and walk according to him and to listen to him), and that good will is revealed through our choices, is revealed in pain, which fights with enormous evil and indescribable suffering, and is capable of it.
     And I hear you, I feel their pain. It's emotional. And it is noble.
     You (or at least that's how it sounds) seem to be calling out a challenge to a cruel and indifferent world: "This injustice cannot continue like this, it cannot! And with my meager powers I will do everything to fight him."
     And I - the believer - stand there to whisper to you, if you are ready to hear, or at least whisper to myself, "and you will win".

     Elie Wiesel believed in God. He was angry with him. But he continued to observe mitzvot.
     "I never lost faith in God. I rebelled against God's silence... I had questions and protests.”
     He didn't say about G-d, 'I hate you', 'I don't believe in you',
     But he said, 'I will fast on Kippur, because you are there, and you asked, and I will be loyal to you - but you would not be loyal to us. I will keep Shabbat, I will stand in front of you with the wine of the Kiddush with a guilty look. I am loyal to you, and you would not be loyal to us."
     And to me it is similar to a child, who trusts his father. And precisely because of trust, he expresses his vulnerability, his never-ending pain, stands offended - but believes in his father's answer, and waits for it. waiting for a hug
     This is how I understand his words: "I have a wounded faith, but it is faith."

     post Scriptum.
     I had to respond. In fact, it is also slightly related to the content of my words in the regular post that I am currently baking and preparing.

103. Here is something interesting about the Oral Torah and the rabbinic establishment:

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axymxHqwqXE

104. waiting,
     Thank you for the response, and patiently waiting for the orderly argument, for example regarding a God who does not interfere and yet millions of people remove a piece of their limb in order to have a covenant with him that he instituted (and a few other things that seem as if he was involved in them).

     Regarding the idea expressed and embodied in this sentence: "The Torah is passed on to us by the great rabbis."
     If so, it is the great rabbis who determine, in your view, what is the correct interpretation of God's words? And how should one behave in order to carry out his will in the best way? And that you must, and in fact all believers must strive to carry out the policy as determined by those who were given the mandate to be God's mouthpiece, do I understand correctly?

105. A.
     So don't…
     I want to make it clear, I wrote the things, towards the belief, which is distorted in my view, because
     Almighty God is both good and responsible (even if by default) for the monstrous suffering that is widespread in the world. If you do not hold such a belief, my words are not aimed at you personally, and I would be happy to apologize from the bottom of my heart if you clarify what your belief is and it will indeed be fundamentally different from what I stated. If this is your belief (is it? That's how I was impressed by your responses) I stand behind the things.
     There is almost nothing that scares me more than the ability to be level-headed in the face of a perception in my eyes, and without giving her a justification that even comes close to reasonable yet, she is a sociopath. The question that I am often left with without an answer when I think about the subject is: what is the red line? What would be so unjust, unfair, cruel, monstrous, for a person to say, first of all to himself, that it is impossible for a good God to deal with such a certain situation. I am trying to understand this from people who hold faith in a good God in this world, and to get an orderly answer to this question. As mentioned, I still haven't received any kind of justification that can even be considered the beginning of something worthy, and I'm pondering the possibility that maybe there simply isn't. And it's pretty scary.

106. ק
     "Since you don't have an internal moral compass..."
     "It's only a matter of time until you... decide to do an actual act that goes against everything I consider to be moral conduct in social life"
     "I will do everything I can to keep you as far away from me and the people as possible"
     I don't intend to have a discussion like this.
     And I don't agree with you talking to me like that.

107. א
     If I were a being with unlimited power, I would at least make sure that babies are not raped.
     If the god you believe in allows this then it is a sadistic and cruel god, I don't care how you try to wash it away so you can keep your faith in a good god. It's that simple - I wouldn't let it happen and the God you believe in would.
     You stand in the face of this pure evil and say that it seems fine to you (with some kind of calculation that you can't even present). And I tell you simply that this cannot be moral conduct, and anyone who accepts the rape of a baby as if it is part of moral conduct is by definition lacking a moral compass, since anything, but absolutely anything, a flood, a holocaust, can be accepted with leniency by you. If there is no limit you can set before your god, then I will do everything in my power to keep you as far away from me and the people I care about as I don't want a person with no inner moral compass like you to have any possibility of harming us. Since you don't have an internal moral compass, it's only a matter of time until you, or someone with a similar perception as I mentioned above, decides to do an actual act that goes against everything I consider to be moral conduct in social life. Please explain to me what the conscientious defense of the average religious person will be against a decision by religious leaders, that there should be a state of Halacha and enforce the commandments of the Creator, including injury to the body and soul of Shabbat violators, homosexuals and other "infidels"? Please tell me if there is one thing in this world, even theoretically, that you are willing to say that a good man would not do. Is there such a thing?

108. A.
     First of all - I invest a considerable part of my time in trying to make the world better for my children. I also educated my children that they too should invest their time in making the world a better place for their children...
     Second thing - one of my children is adopted, so I am not "guilty" of his birth.
     Third thing - I think it's definitely worth living, provided you're healthy enough to enjoy life. And if you are not healthy enough - you have the right to end this life.

     I didn't say the world was unbearable, but I definitely think if I were God, I would do a better job….

109. You say that the world is so bad that it cannot be that a good God created it.
     And yet you gave birth to children
     Even though you knew they had a high chance of dying in agony or as you said "I see a lot of suffering, a lot of suffering.
     There are natural disasters that harm everyone who is in a certain area - you cannot honestly claim that it is an act of a loving God.
     There are terrible diseases that attack at any age, from a microscopic fetus to the fact that a large part of us will die in agony from these diseases. How many people do you know who die in their sleep when they are healthy and strong"
     So you can't really claim that the world is that bad. The God I believe in created the world once. You chose to have children again and again. Even though you were a mature person and knew the world. Even though you knew they would most likely die in agony. So you probably think this world is worth enough to die in agony to live in.

110. A.
     I did not understand what you were talking about.

111. K.

     Regarding your comment that this is not faithful to the sources. in which this decree is an order, with a penalty clause. And if so, I am committing fraud in marketing the "goods".
     So that's a topic in itself, of course. But - as a fact: the contents I said appear in the most serious rabbis. Those who led and taught Torah. This is how it works: the Torah is passed on to us by the great rabbis.
     This already appears in the sources themselves (in the Talmud, Tractate Minchot XNUMX): in the basic story of the giving of the Torah, it is said that Moses travels to the future, and enters Rabbi Akiva's seminary, and hears him teach Torah and say things that... oops, Moses does not know them. He is upset and does not understand how this is possible. He is discouraged... Then Rabbi Akiva's students ask: "Rabbi, what is the source of your words?" And he says: "She went to our Lord Moses from Mount Sinai", and our Lord Moses calmed down.
     You don't have to look for the meaning of the story. It is unfolding before our eyes: the great rabbis know that the Torah directs us to progress from generation to generation. This is the stated goal of Judaism, which is mentioned in every prayer: "To correct the world with the kingdom that is sufficient... to turn all the wicked of the earth to you." And so in each generation, things get a more "advanced" point of view, according to the development of the generation.
     And specifically in the matter of "mitzvah". The Gemara itself, in its own words, says that there was something wrong with the way the Torah was given (Tract Shabbat Pah). The Torah was given by command, out of necessity, and that is wrong. Not that God threatened, but his powerful appearance, on the mountain, took away from man the ability to choose (adult versus child). And only, in the days of Queen Esther, when the divine intervention had already ceased (I will not go into the meaning of the terminology just now), and the world was conducted in a natural way, and the presence of God does not "sit" on anyone, they moved to accept the Torah - out of love. So the terms - even then - began to undergo adaptation.
     And yes, it is an art. Rabbi Akiva - all of the oral Torah is based on him (almost all of the mishna sages who were his students) was involved in this art.

     Well, this comment was easy to write. Because she was on my lot.
     In the next response I will deal with your pitch. On the topic "an orderly argument regarding one of your assumptions so that I might begin to understand why you hold such a world view". So soon.

112. Maya

     Regarding the story -
     I could tell it was a conversation with my friends. But I chose to write to you that the discourse was in front of youth on purpose, knowing clearly that you would point out the problematic nature of giving such messages to children, and to hear your opinion. Out of respect for your way of life and your justified need to protect it. it interests me.
     But I will not leave. Technically, the difference between us did not exceed ten years, and this took place in the framework of a kind of picnic on a mat in a kind of free discourse about life - so there was not really the situation of an older and authoritative person passing on the teachings of his life to a listener. More like a guy coming back from India, and telling about life as he perceives it. And it was exactly as I said and also broadcast to them - a tip.
     How did it happen? I talked with one of them (a mature guy for his age in my opinion, and in fact at 16-17 years old), about all kinds of things, and also about the parable of the forest and the house - he talked at first about the beautiful corner of nature where we were sitting, which is far from all the hustle and bustle of the city (by the way, a recommended place, Pool of the Nophers) - and through this the discourse developed. The others - who were sitting close, and talking among themselves - simply joined in. When they expressed interest, I asked them politely if they were interested, and if they believed.
     After all, we live in a world of knowledge. In a world where people hear experiences and opinions from other people. We need to educate our children to think, to investigate things. and give them a solid foundation, so that they are not influenced by any opinion like a fleeting leaf. Personally, as a child, I went to many lectures by adults, as part of hosting on behalf of my father's work. I often heard lecturers talking about things that were contrary to what I was brought up at home or thought, and sometimes I voted and asked and I didn't always agree. My father was not always present at the lectures with me, and expressed his impression when he saw that I did not accept all the lecturer's words. I remember a lecturer who demonstrated the wonders of the Hebrew language - I remember that I really enjoyed hearing it - and then he moved on to gematria - and it was nice to see that in gematria pregnancy is exactly equal to the number of days of pregnancy - but when it came to a stage where he tried to derive knowledge from it, I pointed and told him that anything can be found with gematria. He did not answer the question, he said that "we see amazing things". Or a scientist who gave a fascinating lecture on sound waves, and it was impressive, and then at the end, he said that the people of Israel, when giving the Torah, "saw the voices" (so it is written in the verse) because they saw the "vibrating lines" of the sound waves, and I simply stood up and said: But it's lines that you only see on the screen! You don't really see them! So you want to say that they saw lines coming out of Mount Sinai?" And for a moment he was embarrassed, then he said out loud "um... yes!" And just after that I went and told my friends what a ridiculous thing he said.
     This is how I was brought up as a child, with a hint of healthy self-confidence, and therefore I am not afraid - neither to voice an opinion nor to hear an opinion.
     I think that the thing that should be scary in the stories of "stranger meets child" is the exploitation of the child in order to threaten him. threaten him with the thought. To forbid him to think or ask, either by threatening that he will be punished, or in a more "fatherly" way: by assuming authority over the absolute truth and delegitimizing his judgment, because "there are things you don't know, look here...". And the older a child grows, the more difficult it is to keep him away from these people who hang around on social media, so in my opinion, we need to show openness and listen to his non-cohesive opinions, to give him a sense of security in them, as well as to encourage openness and discussion with us.
     In the conversation with the boys, apart from being spontaneous, I also spoke to them at eye level, not in a condescending way that proves to them how much they don't know, but in a conversation that encourages the expression of an opinion. They were mature enough to confront me, and certainly talk to each other after we broke up. It is difficult to describe a situation in which a friendly meeting with a person will affect the thinking - unless the content of the things speaks to them. This is my opinion, but I would like to know if, after what I wrote, you have a criticism of my conduct.

     By the way, the opposite happened to me myself. At the age of 17, the age of those teenagers, I had a conversation with an adult (an adult, not a guy) who saw me reading a book with a picture of an old rabbi on the front, while we were waiting somewhere. He said to me "Wait a minute, look at something... Leave this book. These are nonsense. A child your age should invest in other things." He showed me a luxury car, and told me that today I should strive to have it in the future, and also said "You need at this age to have a girlfriend, to care what you think of her, what she thinks of her, and what she gave you." Everything he said was against the emphasis in my education. and we argued. We had a fun discussion. I didn't feel helpless at all.
     My growing son, when the day comes, will also meet smart people outside, and I will want to educate him on pluralism and hearing diverse opinions. And for that I will bring him a good base from home.

     You have the right to see Judaism as an illusion, of course. You have the right to demand from the school principal that your children are not exposed to this Judaism. You have the right to ask me: do not come to our children's school. Of course I will respect. Not only because it is "politically correct", but out of fundamental respect for your way of life.
     But don't forget that in the eyes of many, in the eyes of my parents who loved me and raised me, in the eyes of my gentlemen and friends and a whole environment of decent people - Judaism is "a gift I have in Beit Ganzei". It is a way of life.
     And at the same time in their eyes - certain things in the secular culture - that appear in the public space and the children are exposed to them - are a disturbing thing.
     In the end - the solution for all of us is: good education, which also includes communication education.

     You ended with the sentence: "The only way to do this is through very hard work, which there is a tendency to give up a little when you think that father is there."
     For me, the opposite. When you think that he placed in the world the potential to solve the problems - it encourages solving them.
     But so be it. The main thing is that we both work hard...

113. Miracles
     So apparently the world is not so bad.
     Or was it purely pure egoism (I guess that egoism is something that is contrary to what you define as morality)

114. anonymous
     I wish everyone to die like this! The reality is, unfortunately, different.

     א
     Yes, and grandchildren too.

115. Nissim, my grandfather - a true hero - died in his sleep. in his bed When he is healthy and strong. Rest in peace.

116. Miracles
     Do you have children?

117. waiting
     You wrote "Being omnipotent, the most logical and plausible thing we can assume is that he created the world to give us, so that we can have a quality and good life, because he - for him - does not need us."

     I don't understand the logic behind this sentence. It must not match what we see in the world. I see a lot of suffering, a lot of suffering.
     There are natural disasters that harm everyone who is in a certain area - you cannot honestly claim that it is an act of a loving God.
     There are terrible diseases that attack at any age, from a microscopic fetus to the fact that a large part of us will die in agony from these diseases. How many people do you know who die in their sleep when they are healthy and strong?

     If anything - the Babylonian story from which the "Genesis" story was copied makes more sense. We were created to be slaves to the gods. The story of the "Tree of Knowledge", the story of "Noah's Ark", the Ten Commandments and so on - everything fits and reinforces what I am saying.
     And of course - wise gods will make their slaves think that the gods love them and care for them... And on the other hand, they will prevent them from knowing and understanding...

118. waiting,
     Thank you for your detailed answer. First of all, I wanted to say that I very much agree with you regarding the exchange of views. I believe very much in conversation and listening to the other side, not out of a need or desire to convince or be convinced, but just to hear something else and really listen to it. This is one of the things that hurts me the most in the direction that I see the country is going, there is no tolerance, no desire to listen and no ability to really hear opinions different from your own. The absolute antithesis of democracy and in my eyes it is a dangerous process.
     Second, I wasn't nice enough not to ask about the LGBT issue. I didn't even think to ask about this topic, it's absolutely not what was on the agenda in terms of the discussion, in my opinion. I tried to find your reason, after the assumption of the non-intervening God, to observe mitzvot. I also think that what you wrote pretty much answered it for me. The story is indeed, as K. wrote, an emotional story, but the question was emotional, so I accept the answer.
     By the way, I don't agree with the things you wrote (I mean, what do you mean I don't agree? You wrote very personal things and your personal forms of reference that there isn't much to agree or disagree with, it's your approach to life and it's your right, I just don't agree with it) And with your permission, I will also tell you a personal story:
     Many years ago I married the chosen one of my heart according to religion and law (that is, through the chief rabbinate as is customary in our places). It was, by the way, a step that I regretted for many days because it goes against everything I believe in, but in my defense it can be said that I was very young and the thought of not doing things like everyone else simply did not cross my mind. In any case, as part of the ceremony, the woman is supposed to undergo "bridal guidance" by a rabbi. Since we were married by a relatively liberal rabbi (one of the Zohar rabbis), the bride's guidance was done by his wife and was done to both couples. In fact, she did such a short "couple's therapy" and the truth is that it was a very nice experience (in contrast to quite a few horror stories I heard from friends). During the meeting, the rabbi described in our ears her personal attitude to the whole nida matter. She explained how there is nothing impure about Nida and clearly she is not impure and Nida does not make her so. So why is it still forbidden to touch? Well, it's for nostalgia. What is meant by? The couple, who have been living together for some time and have children and have the daily chores, etc., sometimes need to take a break. But what to do when life does not allow you to move to another house for a few days so that you can create change and create longing between you and your partner? so what are we doing? We continue to conduct ourselves in a seemingly normal manner, but for two weeks a month, when we need to pass the keys to one another, we do it through the table and not through the hand. No one else notices, only you and your partner, and so it creates longing without disrupting your day-to-day life. At the end of these two weeks, you go to the mikvah, not to purify yourself, again, you are not impure, but because you are excited to touch your partner again, excited as a bride on her wedding day, and therefore you want to dress up and dress up and this is part of this process. I came away from this visit fascinated, because I had never really heard this approach and it seemed to me beautiful, charming and in complete antithesis to the known and accepted religious approach. I discussed this with my future husband and asked him if it wasn't lovely. And he asked me, did I really not notice that she was lying to herself. After all, it is clear in the Torah that it is written in an unequivocal way that a woman in a marriage is impure. So it is easier for her to live with these commandments by telling herself this nice story in her head. Beauty. But this nice story has nothing to do with reality.
     This is pretty much how I feel about your story. And the front K. and said so. By the way, I really think it's charming and nice, the way you see things. But it is clear that this is not backed up too much by reality.
     I will also add and say only that, as a mother of three young daughters, when I see, with great concern, where the education system in Israel is going, it also bothers me that these discussions are being conducted with teenagers. I don't fully understand how you got into the situation of talking about such issues with teenagers (and I would be happy to understand), but I admit that, as far as I'm concerned, there is something wrong with it and it definitely bothers me.
     One last thing I wanted to say about your story: we live in the forest, it's clear we live in the forest. We would really like to live at home and feel at home, but it is the belief in God that causes problems in this area, in my opinion. The only way to do this is not to simply feel at home because dad is there. The only way to do this is through very hard work that has a tendency to give up a little when you think that Father is there. We are still very far from being at home and giving others the feeling that they are also at home. You have to train your waist and work towards this goal.

119. waiting,
     I'll leave it to Maya to answer you if she wants to about the "story" you wrote, which is a prime example of appealing to emotion and relying on pieces of information that are at least half-truths and sometimes simply not true. I will not analyze these things in full now although I may come back to them later because they really represent something that I have noticed that is repeated especially in conversations with religious people. I will mention only one or two points that really annoy me.

     In Hebrew, many words can be derived from the same root, this has some notable advantages but also some disadvantages, one of which is the relative ease with which the original meaning of a phrase can be distorted through an "interpretation" that attributes to the original word a different meaning (sometimes even the opposite) through the abuse of The fact that the different words are derived from the same root. This is what you do, for example, when you (or others) propose to change the meaning of mitzvot, which is easy to show that they are written in the Torah with the meaning of a command, like a king's order, like a general's order and like a court order, as if the intention is an action that is done together, out of love, out of connection . I'll start with the fact that you can of course do anything, you can write that red is actually green and a cat is actually a mosquito. The fact that this can be argued does not mean that it is based on something real in reality, nor does it mean that there is any good justification for it, especially when it is evident that the interpretation stands in stark contradiction to the original and common usage. While this game is a very positive thing in art, when using the same technique in other fields it can be problematic because it contains an element of deception (whether in good faith or on purpose). The way in which the word mitzvah appears in its derivatives in the sources does not allow, for those who value integrity, a good reason to interpret these expressions in a different way from commandments that must be fulfilled and whose non-fulfillment may result in punishment. Even if, as mentioned, it is possible to use literary and artistic freedom and present the things not in their accepted original meaning (of course while renouncing their original meaning), presenting the things to minors whose opinion is not formed as if these are the surface of the things emerging from the sources, is extremely problematic and borders on plagiarism. Although it is clear that in your eyes the "story" is quite successful, in other eyes it is an example of what is seen as part of the ills of religion that threaten secular culture.

     I will not address at the moment other points that I find extremely problematic in what you wrote. Bottom line, the lack of reasonable justifications for the positions that are voiced as if they were absolute truth, is what I am trying to understand better (especially when the things are said to minors who are not yet competent enough to question what they are told by an adult who is perceived by default as a source of authority ). With you, the lack of justifications is much more prominent than other approaches I've heard from religious people, precisely because you seem to hold a not-so-ordinary interpretation, which you may like better, but on the face of it, it seems as if it conflicts on many fronts with reality and with logic. In the meantime, I'm waiting to see an orderly argument regarding one of your assumptions so that I might begin to understand why you hold such a worldview.

120. K.
     I apologize in advance that in the next three weeks, until the end of a certain project, I find it difficult to find time to respond. Right after him I'm expected to have more time.
     I will write my response soon. Probably tomorrow during the morning. Today I sat down to reason a few things in my head. I will try very hard to focus and write in the style you requested. I promised at the very beginning that the discussion will be conducted in the way you choose. There is no doubt that you challenged me and sharpened a few points for me.

     Maya
     I thought how to answer you. You asked a personal question, and I decided to present you with a personal answer, to present you with my position as it is, through a personal story. I don't come to justify anything I say, but first of all to present. It will also reply to the opponent and miracles for their comments.
     Thank you for writing that you were impressed. These discussions are indeed fun, and it is also important to exchange opinions, to learn from the other's wisdom, or at least - to learn from the other. After all, we live here, on this planet, which is already shaking enough even without stepping on our feet, so even if we remain separated in our opinions, if we talk - we can join forces.
     In my opinion, the ultra-Orthodox, and the secular, the loudest, would gain more if they argued. Martin Luther King said: "People usually hate each other because they are afraid of each other; They are afraid of each other because they don't know each other."

     post Scriptum. You were nice to me when you asked me about keeping Shabbat, and no - let's say about the LGBT field, which is actually the hottest apple.

     I am transcribing a dialogue I had with teenagers. It was once, a few days before Rosh Hashanah, and they wanted a tip for the New Year from me.

     "Is that interesting to you?"
     They nodded.
     "Do you believe in gods?"
     They slowly shook their heads in the negative.
     "Not bad. Nothing happened..." I said.
     "But -" said one of them "it's always interesting to hear another opinion... another approach."

     "I will give you a parable that will explain my idea.
     A prince enters the king's menagerie. There are also lions, boas, bears.
     He is not afraid, from a young age he is used to them being tamed, and they play with him.
     In the afternoon, tired after a long game, he fell asleep...
     He wakes up in the evening, and hears bears growling, the sound of a snake crawling in the grass...
     He almost faints from fear...
     Until he remembered that he was in his father's cabin.
     Again nothing has changed in reality, only his perception of reality.

     Let's think about the forest again.
     In the forest, a wolf must be an alpha male. Dominate the other males in the group, to get the best food.
     But as soon as he grows old, and a new brave young wolf comes: he drives him out of the herd. with violent bites.
     A bird, flying to her in the sky. riding on gusts of wind.
     But suddenly she bruises her wing, falls, and there is no creature in the world that is more helpless than her.
     She will lie on the bed of leaves, panting loudly, frightened.
     Hear the cat walking towards her leisurely... turning her over curiously...
     Do you know how a bird of prey ends its life?
     Another chicken removes her from the territory, and she is forced to eat dead carcasses.
     That's how life is in the forest.
     Conversely, what happens at home, to a child who has a fever? is he weak?
     The guy listened in silence. in a serious manner. But the girl was a full partner in the conversation.
     - They take care of him.
     - They take care of him. Right. Cover him with a warm blanket, bring him a cup of tea, keep quiet around the room.

     We have to ask ourselves, if the world we live in is a forest, or a house.
     Some would say that the world is like the forest.
     There is always competition. And you have to be strong, rich and beautiful, to oust the previous strong, rich and beautiful.
     For example, I want to go on vacation in Eilat for two weeks. But for that I need money, and for money I have to work hard for a year, and hope that the boss will promote me and not my competitor...
     But really, that's not true.
     We are just like the prince who forgot he was in the king's pavilion.
     The world is home.
     How do you feel that the world is home?
     By internalizing that the Creator of the world, who created this world, created it so that we can be good here.
     Well, as you understand.
     This is what he wants: for you to go to sleep at night, and say: Yo, what a nice and good day I had.
     That you wake up in the morning and say: How fun it is to get up for this day. I have something to get up for. I have something to do.
     The thought that he wants me to be well - makes the world a home.
     We stop being afraid - we feel like princes, and we make our dreams come true."

     Before I continue the conversation with them, I will say what I did not tell them:
     that when a person feels at home, feels that he is protected in the world, and his dreams are meaningful,
     So he also applies the same attitude to others.
     As Aharon Razel's wonderful song "What did you do today" describes
     What did you do today,
     what did you want today
     who you hugged warmly,
     who didn't let you go

     One of them, who had been listening until now, asked:
     - "And what does he want, in return?"
     She asked this with a suspicious expression. turns a cold shoulder to me.
     - "Nothing" I answered with my most honest and big eyes.
     She turned to me: also with big eyes.
     "What does a father want from his son?" I kept saying.
     - "May he be well."
     - "May he be happy, right? That's all he wants. That's all he needs to see. that his son is happy. satisfied".
     - "But father wants to be respected!"
     - "No. A father first and foremost wants his son to be happy."
     - "But father wants them to respect - !" insisted.
     - "It comes alone! He wants to be respected, you're right! But it's something that comes on its own!
     When a son appreciates his father, then he also respects him!
     so that's it. This is my tip for you."

     "can I ask you a question?"
     - "Yes."
     - "According to your attitude. So what is the beard, the cap, the shirt?"
     - "I will answer you. The Zohar writes that mitzvot trigs - are advice trigs. Profound advice on how to -”
     - "It will be better for you".
     I nodded.
     "Tefillin for example - it really does something very special in the mind. Have you ever put on a tefillin?" –
     I turned to the guy sitting next to me.
     "Yes" he was momentarily confused, "once. Bar Mitzvah - before the Bar Mitzvah".
     "Beautiful" I said.
     I continued:
     - "Advice is in a structured way something that does not come under compulsion. one day, you will have a boyfriend,
     That you will really love him, and he will give you a flower.
     How will you feel?"
     She instinctively responded by looking at her boyfriend for a moment.
     "What will he ask of you in return? All he will want to see is that you are ecstatic!
     He will want you to be faithful to him. And he's yours."
     She nodded.
     "But if a guy you don't know, comes and shoves a flower in your hand with force. Does it have any meaning?
     "What is? It's disgusting!
     "The same commandment. This mitzvah means to be together, in connection.
     They are given like a flower. with love. It is not given by force."

     We also talked about keeping Shabbat.
     At this point I told them a sentence that I kind of regretted later:
     "I keep the Sabbath. You don't have to keep Shabbat. This is not your place!
     You should do what is best for you, according to your best understanding!"

     Why did I regret it?
     Because since I am sure that God's commandment is enlightening - I cannot say such a thing.
     I can say: the unleavened bread is a wonderful thing. But they are given like a flower. You can always go and try to smell. But you don't have to.
     But yes to convey that they are a great and wonderful thing, and fun!!

     Then I visited my uncle. A person from an atheistic kibbutznik family, who has returned to repentance.
     I told him about the dialogue.
     He asked me: "But the commandments are law! They are a must!"
     I answered him: "The commandments are obligatory, because they are such good advice that you cannot refuse them"!
     As long as they are not exposed to it maturely, or are not exposed to it properly, or are exposed to it under duress,
     So not interested in her, and that's fine.
     A flower that was not presented with love - it is not really a flower.
     But from the moment you are exposed to her - truly as she is - you are bound to her by the thickness of binding love.

     And so I find that it is more difficult for religious people to understand this point.
     Many of them think, as Yariv said, that God will reckon with them.
     And I say to them: if we assume a creator for the world, if we assume that there is someone almighty behind the creation of the world,
     Being omnipotent, the most logical and plausible thing we can assume is that he created the world to give us, so that we can have a quality and good life, because he - for him - does not need us.
     As Nissim said: "I find it hard to believe that God, if he existed, would punish someone who acted in good faith."
     After we understood that - I finish and say - we can continue the discussion.

121. Rival, so if you have already 'learned', there really is no need to continue. Maybe you can even start teaching other rabbis...

122. Miracles,

     I'm starting to think you're right. I don't understand what he's looking for here, he's not ready to start any conversation on the subject, he's not ready to say anything substantive, he just curses and slanders all the time.

     Seriously, what is his purpose here?

123. rival
     Are you seriously still talking to him? Can't you see he's a troll?

124. anonymous,

     I've already learned, but I thought maybe you could update me on something 🙂

125. rival
     If you don't know, then go learn!
     What are you talking about here, on the site, in the place?

126. No I do not know. What is "from above"? From your roof, like?

127. anonymous,

     Seriously now, if we've already started talking, can you explain to me who God is, and on what basis do people conclude that he exists?

128. anonymous,

     What do not you know? Everything from above! 😀

129. Here, again, is the response:
     What happened, Nissim, did I drop the ground from under your feet? Are you unable to handle substantive criticism about your mental state? (I made a small edit of the text so that Adon Nissim would not offend excessively).

130. I wonder why my previous comment appeared and after about an hour - was deleted...
     Does your skin not like the finger in the eye?

131. K.
     You should have finished the sentence with: "Anonymous surpasses you on several levels". 🙂

132. : )

133. rival,
     Sorry to tell you, but Anonymous surpasses you on several levels in his ability to convince that your position is the right one :-)

134. rival
     Are you really trying to have a discussion with a floor mop?

135. Why do you think that the practical consequences of believing in him really stem from believing in him and not because of a chemical-biological failure in his body, which brings him to a state of insanity?
     Just look at yourself and like you - is the flaw in you that causes you to behave in an insane way - and blame something that doesn't exist for all illnesses - doesn't it stem from a belief that it doesn't exist or does it stem from a chemical-biological failure in your body?

136. anonymous,

     This something does not exist, but the consequences of believing in it are certainly very practical in our world and not for the better.

137. rival
     I went to the clinic, I was examined, everything is fine. Now it's your turn.
     But I don't think it will help you...
     If you are convinced that something does not exist, but nevertheless you deal with the consequences that arise from the fact that it does not exist - you are a delusional person.
     The problem is that you don't feel the fact that you are an insane person for the reason that you graze in the same environment of delusional people as you. But luckily for humanity - you were always in the minority and you always didn't know how to win. Neither in Israel nor abroad. 🙂

138. anonymous,

     You have severe problems with understanding, so instead of constantly sending people to the clinic, maybe you should check yourself. We're not mad at any god, we just think he doesn't exist.

     What I said before is that if he existed (in theory!) then this whole thing with hell wouldn't be right.

139. If he does not exist - then why are you angry with him? 🙂
     Being angry about something that you don't believe exists is called in medical scientific language: a mental disorder. Have you considered seeing a doctor? Poor people..

140. If I thought for a moment that there really was hell, I would immediately repent and start observing mitzvot, just to not end up in this horrible place, as unjust as I think it is.

141. rival
     I understood him differently - we know there is no God, because our world is hell... 🙂

     Anonymous is not the sharpest pencil in the pencil...

142. Yes, we know God exists but we have decided not to believe in him because we know that way he will not send us to hell.

     What common sense.

143. Right.
     If he existed...
     And you think he doesn't exist for one simple reason: cause you be in hell... 🙂 🙂 🙂

144. rival
     I find it hard to believe that God, if He existed, would punish someone who acted in good faith.

145. Miracles,

     1. "If it were true, then the phrase with God's help would become meaningless"

     True, but my words referred to believers who don't think that God intervenes in our world, I guess they don't say with God's help. But maybe I'm wrong, I need to ask Machek if he uses this phrase, and if so why?

     2. "Prayer also has no meaning." And in general - faith has no meaning, because you will be measured by your actions in the end, and it really doesn't matter how many tefillin you put on..."

     This is exactly the point, that if you don't fulfill a mitzvah, and you don't pray as a mitzvah for you, and you don't put on a tefillin, then in the end you will be measured for it and punished...

146. rival
     If this were true, then the phrase "with the help of God" would become meaningless. And - the prayer has no meaning. And in general - faith has no meaning, because you will be measured by your actions in the end, and it really doesn't matter how many tefillin you put on...

147. K.,

     Thanks for the detailed answer, yes I was definitely referring to Pascal's Wager and I also think it is a very weak and weak argument if you take into account all the gods you can believe in, and all the religions you can choose from (for example Judaism, Christianity and Islam who all believe in the same God, but each claims who has different requirements from us).

     Another answer that I understood between the lines from Machachim's words is that in his opinion the way of observing mitzvot makes him, in his opinion, a better person, more valuable and more moral in the world.

148. waiting,
     I will speak for myself, although I know at least how much the answer I give here is also true for others. I'm sorry to disappoint you, the reason I invest in my comments here and elsewhere is first and foremost because I enjoy it. I enjoy making an orderly and logical argument, I enjoy sharing knowledge that I have, and I also enjoy exposing failures that I identify in others (and sometimes even in the text that I wrote and after re-examining things, I or others identified an inaccuracy or mistake). I don't believe that my main goal here is to teach people or rescue them from their ignorance, although it is clear that when the information is accessible to them, they may indeed learn. Sometimes the very expression of the idea + relevant information is the goal, it's just fun. You are again debating me (and several other atheists) and interpreting our motives in a rather wrong way... Ask, don't assume, and if the answers are not convincing, insist on getting more organized/detailed answers or anything that will help clarify the matter 🙂

     You wrote: "I don't have the ability to analyze even myself and examine my motives in depth" - why do you think so? I actually believe in you that you are capable of it if you only choose to do so. It doesn't take anything beyond honest curiosity and integrity (through the willingness to examine your thoughts about yourself against the things you actually do). Sometimes it's difficult, but I don't think it's impossible.

     As mentioned, I will put aside for the moment the assumption of the existence of a divine being (although it seems to me that there is no escape from discussing it as well, and I would be happy to do so later).
     You wrote: "If I have the ability to be valuable, and the world is becoming a valuable place, then a creator of the world must be assumed to be valuable."
     Sorry, the jumps are way too big. I am ready to accept the first part at the moment, regarding the second part I do not understand what this statement is based on. Is the world becoming more valuable? is that so? Are you aware of what is done in areas not far from us, in war zones, in the territories of dictatorships, millions of people who suffer from hunger and diseases where "Western" welfare and advanced medicine are almost non-existent, places where exploitation to the point of slavery is a daily occurrence, as well as other acts of violence up to to rape and murder. Honestly, I am not sure that the level of morality today is absolutely higher than it was in the world ten or fifty or even five hundred and two thousand years ago. There is an absolute increase in knowledge and technology (even in third world countries (perhaps with the exception of some remote tribes). We can perhaps talk about principles that characterize humanism and are mostly common in Western democracies, I tend to agree that there are a series of norms that are at least accepted in principle (although certainly not by everyone, and sometimes not even by the rabbi), such as equality between human beings regardless of who they are, which brings about the recognition that slavery, arbitrary violence, discrimination on sexual or racial grounds cannot be considered moral (even though, as mentioned, they are still very common there as well). But is the level of values Went up all over the world? Not sure I see a good reason to think so.
     The jump to the last part of the sentence you wrote is the biggest. Why do you attribute the (questionable) rise of valor in the world to the will of the divine being? There is, for example, a natural and quite simple mechanism that can lead to the result we experience in the reality we live in, even if the divine being who created the world for that matter, did not explicitly intend it at all. The same mechanism also exists (as a fact) without necessity in a divine entity from the beginning in my opinion. I'm sure that other possibilities can be imagined that enable the current situation and the sequence of events that led to it. A more orderly and detailed justification is needed, and especially with reference to what really exists there in reality and not to wishful thinking, if the claim is that it is a rational view. At the moment, I don't understand the logic in that sentence and I don't understand the sequence of choices in it which seem to me to be an arbitrary string, one of many possible ones.

     Regarding the superpower example, my intention was different, I was talking about the connection between a preference to imagine a certain reality and what actually exists in reality. I agree that we have a power (quite limited!) that our happiness will depend on us (you again ignore all those cases, and they are very, very many, of people in the world who are living at this moment and whose happiness does not depend on them at all, or at least to a small extent). Of course you can declare that the happiness of the people is in their hands, and you can believe it to the ends of your hair, but it is still not necessarily true. From observing the world, it seems that our happiness, both as individuals and as a society, because it is such a complex system, is not in our hands, certainly not fully. It is quite possible that there are good reasons to think that the more decentralized society is (democratic for that matter), the control we have over our happiness is actually less good on average, and that there can be a dynamic that will actually lead to a decrease in happiness (for example, electing Trump as president who more closely reflects the popular will, which will lead to much more racism , violence, conflicts with other countries, and maybe even lead to military conflicts). There is no security here, we really control our happiness. I assume you prefer to see things that way, but that's exactly what I asked about - what is the connection between a preference for a certain reality and what actually exists in that reality. I don't see a necessary connection between the two, and in fact there is usually a loose and sometimes even inverse connection between what people want to believe is happening and what is actually happening.

     I see that we scattered "a little", and this is even after I hold back with the strength not to address several other points in your last comment that are clearly unjustified. This means that it is necessary to reduce even more than I tried to reduce in my previous response to you. Could you choose one point from the gaps I pointed out so that we can focus on it, and only on it, and try to understand what the justifications are for the claim that includes that point? I don't see much point in such an entertaining discussion, because there is no way I will be able to understand what you are basing your belief in something on, if every "explanation" opens several more gaps. do you want to choose Or will I choose for us?

149. rival,
     This is certainly a possible claim and it is known as "Pascal's Wager", but this argument is full of clearly unjustified assumptions (and therefore full of holes), contradicts itself on at least one issue (the question of the probability of God's existence), performs a Boolean probabilistic calculation, when on the face of it it seems Because Bayesian probabilistic calculation is more appropriate, and no less important, it does not solve the problem at all since belief in the wrong god (and the practical meaning is not just a general belief in one god, but in a particular god and his particular commandments for that religion) leads according to this calculation to a total loss. So even if you accept the (completely shaky as mentioned) argument, you still have no idea what the correct belief is among the many hundreds of possible religions. In such a situation, when a priori, the chances are that a religious person does not believe in the correct faith and at worst will lose everything, regardless of how devout he is in his faith, and on the other hand the losses of wasting life on superstitions in the event that there is no divine being at all are certain, the bet takes on a completely different meaning .
     Other possibilities are also not taken into account, in which, for example, looking at religion as a test of morality, when a person is tested for how much immorality and irrationality he is willing to succumb to, and only those who successfully pass this test, that is, to begin with, are freed from religion, are rewarded in the next world, while the others Condemned to the boiling fire for removing responsibility for themselves and the society in which they live and abandoning their destiny to be Satan's slaves. Probably not likely, but definitely possible (greater than zero chance as Pascal pointed out...).

     In light of the evidence I have been exposed to so far, I prefer Laplace's answer when asked by Napoleon where God appears in his calculations: "Mr. First Consul, I did not need this assumption".

     And of course all this, i.e. Pascal's argument, does not obviate the need to explain on what basis the claim that it is a God who does not actively interfere in our world, which we asked about, is based on. Therefore, I will wait for the answer of the waiting to see if further clarifications are needed.

150. K.

     No, I don't think you are overly critical. I actually appreciate your examination of things, and the step-by-step (in Hebrew also called: patience).

     You wrote "I don't understand what the preference to imagine has to do with reality", regarding my words that I "prefer to assume that the quality people are not indifferent to the suffering of others". And you probably also meant the derivative I derived from it. So, first a few words about this assumption.
     I *prefer* to assume this, and not determine this, because I can never know what motivates a person, but I can assume that what seems more logical, is the right thing.
     And I will try to illustrate to you - as an undercover surfer for the most part - I see the investment of atheists of your type, to write about science in order to take people out of their ignorance. And on the face of it, it seems that the rationale behind this is that the less people are in cities, the more productive they are, and I assume that on the face of it this is an investment to do good in the world, and not a small and egotistical occupation in the style of "keep it for me and I'll keep it for you".
     It is possible that one day some scientific explanation will come, fully reasoned, that will prove that it is indeed "keep it for me and I will keep it for you", and we are egoists to the core. On this day, my theory will fall. And on that day I will be very sad.
     And I see this power not only in individuals, but among many people, and even in myself, and even though I don't have the ability to analyze even myself and examine my motives in depth, logic guides me to assume that it is, as I said, a desire to do some good in this world.
     I use the word "logic", and I will expand on it in a few words:
     A logical decision is a decision when there is limited data, and you have to choose what seems more likely. If two people tell me an opposite story, and I don't know who is lying, I try to use all my knowledge of facial expressions, body language, try to see which story corresponds more with the clues in reality, and decide. I could also be wrong. But chooses what seems most promising. it's simple.
     I am aware that there are explanations for our social behavior, that everything is a biological mechanism designed to preserve the genes, and in fact we are animals that have developed a very sophisticated social life, but like animals - we operate on a mechanism and nothing else.
     But I also know that a whole world, talking about morality, feels moral emotions, experiences happiness from them, and calls them "value". And this is true for the common people and the wise alike.
     To me - this is a phenomenon, like any other phenomenon. Just as I do not deny a falling stone, I will not deny the universal intuitive feeling.
     In my eyes, what speaks like a matter of value and my choice, walks like a matter of value and my choice, and moves like a thing of value and my choice - is a matter of value and my choice.

     And now I will summarize my words to the definition as you requested.
     You suggested that I write separately about the assumption that there is a creator of the world, and about the justifications I claim for his existence. In fact, both legends have one basis.
     First I will define what a creator of the world is - I can only understand (and even that with difficulty) the laws of physics, and the complex structures they create: biological structures or human-made structures. Since I assume a creator who created the world, a creator who is not bound by the system of natural laws, therefore I have no understanding about him. If I can know anything about him, it's only through the world. And it won't help me to know anything about him, but about the attitude he chooses to give to the world. Therefore, the question is only if such a relationship exists, in other words: if the world is built in a way that indicates some goal / message.
     And that's what I find in the "high quality people", I find that they have a value power and a choice to give to the world, and I find that they also overall, little by little, manage to give the world what they want, during a stubborn struggle, "against all the odds" someone said .
     That's why I create the template: if I have the ability to be valuable, and the world is becoming a valuable place, then a valuable world creator must be assumed.

     And regarding your claim to imagine a superpower:
     We do have a superpower - because what defines a superpower is that there is no/almost no power that can prevail over it, and we have this power: the power that makes us happy will depend on our hands. Because my argument is that the more a person goes with his value desire, the happier he becomes, and therefore - more successful in life. And in fact it is not only in the subjective feeling, but it also has a correspondence with the world that surrounds him, and this is something that I think everyone experiences: his value behavior brings him together with a world that is better for him. (And I should expand on this point, but it is on the tip of the fork a reference to the message of the Bible).
     And in this it is different from a superpower to pass through walls - which is the latter encountering the wall of reality.

     I wrote a reference to the rest of your words. But it's getting long. At the moment this is what I offer for your consideration. You can ask me to finish answering, then answer. or focus on a certain point.

151. It could be (from a logical point of view, although I'm really not sure that this will be his answer) that this is a God who does not interfere in our world actively, but he will still consider us after our death and therefore it is desirable and worthwhile to keep his commandments.

152. Maya,
     First of all welcome, I'm glad you joined.
     Your question concerns one aspect of what I asked regarding section 2. According to the Torah, it seems that the God in whom the religious believe is an intervening God, both in his direct intervention (especially in the context of punishment for sins), and through messengers (in the context of pointing out sins and demanding a change of behavior, and also in the context of punishment for sins), and first and foremost through giving commandments regarding the behavior required of believers (such as the Ten Commandments, including keeping the Sabbath as you mentioned). Things do seem to be in stark contradiction to the premise of a morally non-intervening God. Thanks for clarifying the question.

153. waiting
     I follow your and K's discussion. And first of all, I wanted to say that I am very impressed with him and the way you express yourself. I too have been through such discussions more than once and I admit that you gave me a point of view that I had not encountered before and this, in my opinion, is the whole purpose of such discussions. While in principle I agree with K. Regarding the need for clear wording and a continuous logical path, I would like for a moment, nevertheless, to rely on my intuitive understanding of your words and ask one question that is not clear to me. The question is personal to you and asks, of course, about your point of view only, as I understood it. If I understood you correctly, you are an observant person (so it seems to me from your last comment from which it was implied that you observe Shabbat). I don't understand how this fact fits with the rest of your view that there is no intervention of the Creator in the world and man should act according to his internal moral code which is dynamic (this is my succinct formulation of your point of view as I understood it) I would appreciate it if you could clarify this point in your free time.

154. waiting
     I'll try to say it again...all fish have fins. And in particular - every fish that has scales has fins.
     What exactly is the wisdom here?

155. waiting,
     From previous attempts it is not so possible to cover so many topics in a proper way, for the simple reason that such a text contains so many hidden assumptions that require in-depth investigation, that very quickly it becomes impractical. For example, I started to scan your last two comments, and I found (easily) a lot of leaps of thought that, in my opinion, must be justified. My experience shows that the main reason for the difficulty in producing a rational discussion is a discourse based on intuitive writing which by its nature often assumes that the other side will fill in the gaps alone. This kind of writing creates an ambiguity that makes it possible to go around in circles, without finding clear and agreed points of reference. If every second sentence (and sometimes several times in the same sentence) I already recognize claims that, in my view, cannot be justified, and when referring to my questions about some of them, answers are again received that are written intuitively, then there is a problem, because it makes it very difficult for me to understand what the logical skeleton is actually based on the things In a rational discussion, in order to understand a complex idea, that missing material is also of great importance that we tend to skip in intuitive writing. Therefore, it is important to try not only to summarize things as much as possible (at least at the beginning) not only in terms of the amount of words, but also to present a linear argument detailing step by step. Even then it may be necessary to stop and delve into one of the stations.
     I apologize if I sound excessively critical, but this matter is essential in my opinion so that I can understand your worldview in the context of what I asked. By the way, if you find similar flaws in my questions, I would of course be happy to provide more focused clarifications and break down the line of thought into smaller steps. Would you agree to try to lay out the beginning of an orderly argument so that we can find a starting point from which we can develop the topic? I will try to suggest such a start and if you agree we will continue from there (with the adjustments you want to make of course). Such an argument could be something like:
     1) I assume the existence of a creator of the world (or any other formulation). At this point I can skip the justifications for this because it is not directly related to my questions, unless you think otherwise and then of course we can start the discussion from this point).
     2) I assume that the Creator of the world does not interfere, and has never interfered directly in the lives of his creatures (this is based on what you wrote: "I assume that the Creator of the world in advance, put things in such a way that a world would develop and be governed", did I understand correctly?). Here some clarifications are needed. In the Torah it seems that God is a very meddling being and this apparently does not go well with the cut off - please clarify. In addition, the main justifications for this assumption are required.
     3) I assume that the same divine entity assigns the responsibility to humans to take care of their well-being. Here the justifications for this assumption are needed. It seems to me that you addressed this to a certain extent earlier by writing: "And I prefer to say that you are not indifferent, neither you nor any of the high-quality people, and this leads me to say... that everything was set up on purpose, to create an interaction that would allow moral development" - here, if I understood correctly, You justify assumption 3 by saying that you *prefer to imagine* a world where the quality people are not indifferent (to the suffering of others I suppose?). A. I don't understand what preference to imagine has to do with reality. If a person prefers to imagine that he has superpowers to pass through concrete walls, it is likely that this has nothing to do with reality where we do not witness such an ability. A preference to imagine a certain situation does not in itself sound like a good justification for the claim that a certain reality exists. B. I don't understand why the preference to imagine an indifferent world actually leads to the necessity of a being that places the responsibility of caring for the well-being of human beings, after all, this is not the only possibility that can be thought of that leads to indifference even without needing this assumption (and in fact also without needing the existence of a creator of the world at all). Why does the same preference for imagining not lead, for example, to a world where the divine being actually intervenes through education, as a good parent would do to his children, whether through a personal example, or an explanation, or even in certain cases through a negative sanction against those who act indifferently, or through a point of praise for those who do act Indifference?
     I think that's already quite a lot. Shall we try to start from here? You can even start with only the second assumption (or even from the first if you want).

156. K.

     I wrote a comment yesterday evening and it has not yet been approved.
     Since I will only respond during the next week, I will only say thank you for the opening of your words, that we discuss the positions that each of us presents.

157. K.

     I wrote a comment yesterday evening and it has not yet been approved.
     Since I will only respond during the next week, I will only say thank you for the opening of your words, that we discuss the positions that each of us presents.

     Miracles,
     Indeed, these are fish. It's simply what is written in the Mishnah (Chulin Chapter XNUMX): "And in fish - everything that has fins and scales". How do I know a sea turtle is not a fish? Because no one looks at a sea turtle and says: "Hey, mom, here's a fish!". And sages also knew how to say "sea animals" when they wanted to (Torat Kohanim Parsha XNUMX).
     And there is something to marvel at, because to date they have only found one fish with scales and no fins. It's just a rule of thumb that worked.
     But I am not saying that Sages knew scientific information. Certainly not overwhelmingly. They didn't know, and they admitted it. For example, they thanked the sages of the nations of the world that the sun continues its course at night, after they thought that it returned in a kind of reverse back to the east. (Passover Tract side page). You can see there that they really engaged in science according to the theories that were used at the time.
     Sages have credit for many things, but not for science. "Wisdom among the Gentiles - practice".

158. If it wasn't clear why I was asking my questions, the delusional Shlomo Amar came and demonstrated it in a small way.
     Do we really have to wait for another murder to arrest those who instigate it while relying on God's instructions?

     Shlomo Amar - this cult is bullshit!

159. K.

     I will not speak to you, as you requested. And I apologize if I made a mistake.
     Regarding the explanation of the science - I think I do understand how the method works, so either I misunderstood and would be happy to correct it, or I was wrong - and I would love for you to write / ask about it. Not necessarily now.

     "It can be understood from the fact that you believe that the divine being in whom you believe has decided not to interfere at all in our day-to-day lives",
     Yes, that's true.
     What I'm saying is that I assume that the Creator of the world in advance set things up so that a world will develop that will be conducted in such a way that choosing good - and I will define later what choosing good is - leads to the advancement and development of the world, and receives positive feedback in a person's personal sense of values, and choosing bad - harms the world and the person Personally.
     I cannot pretend to state that he does not interfere in secret - there are things in nature that are not yet known to us, and there are events that will say that the probability of their planning by chance is low, and therefore this increases the chance that there was his intervention. And I can expand on that. But in general - a blatant intervention would destroy the whole point of letting people choose morality on their own and of their own accord.

     Choosing the best -
     You asked what I think the creator of the world is a mitzvah and what is not a mitzvah in general terms.
     If there is a sentence that I know that represents my opinion well, it is that the Creator of the world "believed in the world - and created". He gave the world trust.
     Put everything in our hands, so that we learn what is moral from trial and error, and feel a moral obligation to do what is right, and we can also ignore that moral obligation.
     The moral duty is not only because of the accepted social code, but mainly the inner nature of the person.
     Choosing the good - is walking with the same moral obligation. Bad choice - ignoring it.
     Berry, that the value obligation of a thousand years ago is different from the value obligation today. We have wised up since then.
     If you put it in one sentence, a big rule that pretty much says it all, then this is the rule: "Do not do to your friend what is hateful to you."

     The question applies to my last words:
     If the creator of the world does not intervene, what is the importance of the discussion if he did create a "controlled explosion" at the time of the big bang, and planned a world that would run this way and that, or not, after all, it has no effect in our daily lives.
     My answer, in two words: it is encouraging. Not only encouraging and giving some kind of sweet hope to the downtrodden, but also encouraging to be more valuable.
     how? I will speak only on my own behalf, although as much as I am impressed by such and such letters, I also speak on behalf of others.
     It makes one feel that man's greatest treasure on earth is the sense of value, it makes one feel that he can succeed, because his choice to do the value thing, is the role given to him in the system, so for example - if I try to treat a cancer patient, and fail - with all the pain That being said, I know that my choice to strive for him as much as possible, even though I failed, was the role that was intended for me from the beginning, and in which I fulfilled successfully, and thus I advanced the world towards the final goal where everyone will be good, and the more I am aware of this, the more committed I become to it, because I I identify the values ​​with my personality, and this makes me have more attention and more respect for the next patient I treat, thus I become even more productive.
     And also for another reason - that a person begins to feel that everything is his responsibility. If a person failed morally, and hurt me, or called me a disaster, then it's hard for me and I'm hurt, like every person, but it can't really hurt my happiness - because as mentioned, the greatest treasure of man on earth is the sense of value, and therefore the fact that I feel that suffering Designed to develop the world morally, makes me feel valuable, that I was chosen, and that's what-it-changes the whole outlook on life, and leverages the pain to a place of giving.
     But I'm not just talking about subjective feelings, although they are something that is very difficult to deny, but also about something that is measured by the test of action.
     And I must add to complete the picture: I am not saying that those who do not believe are less valuable and less moral, sometimes they are even more so, but that in my opinion - those who do not believe - are not aware of how valuable they are and how moral they are (because by definition - they have no choice in this. And I I apologize for saying this as an assertion. I hereby offer my understanding of the atheistic approach, and I will be happy to stand by my mistake if there is one). And still his situation is good, from those who believe in vanity, or in a distorted faith, because the latter, thinks he is valuable and thinks he is moral.

     Hmmm… I still got a long one. I am like that, I write from a source. But I was shorter than the previous one, and in the next one I suppose I will be shorter.

160. anonymous,

     1. You started talking dirty, and you are surprised at the response you received?? Aren't you a little cheeky? Do you know how to respect others?? And yet you continue…

     2. All the time in class that they focus on you instead of the topic, then when you are offered to discuss the topic you start cursing and showing what you are worth. Not that I'm particularly surprised.

     3. It is not clear to me which lies you are talking about, could you name one lie I told here? Really curious to understand what you are talking about.

161. anonymous
     Was that supposed to be an answer to my question?
     Obviously there are religious people smarter than me - I have friends that you could put an iron rod through their brains and they would still be smarter than me. How does this relate to what I asked?

162. Miracles
     Is it because you think you know what God is and therefore you consider yourself smarter than the religious? Did I hit it right? 🙂 You don't have to answer.

     rival

     If you really wanted to learn and understand then I'm sure you would. But you have no interest in learning but only in discrediting the religious public - and you use all possible lies to succeed in this.
     Therefore, all I have to say to you right now is this: until you learn to respect others - go fuck yourself.

163. ok anonymous,

     Let's leave you and talk about God, are you willing to explain to me once who it is, what it is, and on what basis do people conclude that it exists?

164. anonymous,

     You really don't understand why I started talking to you in such a tone? Do write to me:

     "I answered you: "I don't pray". If it's not clear enough... then you should run to the clinic immediately. And as for my faith - you have no idea."

     Does it look friendly to you? what are you doing yourself

     Speak respectfully if you want to be spoken to respectfully.

165. and not…

166. anonymous
     I too am only interested in why people believe in God, not God himself.
     Can you guess why?

167. It's also strange, Rival, that you are more intrigued by my opinion of God, than God himself... It's quite strange because you insist on trying to understand God. And not my opinions..
     'I wonder why.

168. In general,
     What is your business what I think about God?
     I'm not asking you what you think about God.
     Also because it doesn't matter what you think. And also because your opinion does not determine anything in this case. And your opinion doesn't explain anything either. Therefore what is your opinion about God is an irrelevant question. You've got it?

169. By the way, I expected that to be what you would do. Your inability to discuss religion drives you insane.
     It reminds me of the religious man who has no idea about science but breaks his head in scientific debates.

170. rival
     You not only didn't understand who you were talking to, you also didn't understand many other things...
     Why did you suddenly have an anxiety attack and started writing nonsense and deteriorating? You were better before. What's all this 'who asked you' nonsense? you asked Why do you suddenly become an idiot?
     Listen to his brother, go rest, eat Borax, relax. drink a glass of water

171. waiting,
     A clarification question regarding what I wrote to you in my previous response.
     You wrote: "I am building a picture of the world in which everything begins with a creator of the world who is interested in quality of life, but - lets us build this quality of life ourselves"
     It can be understood from the fact that you believe that the divine being in whom you believe has decided not to interfere at all in our day-to-day lives (otherwise, if it intervenes, then it does not let us build the quality of life ourselves). did I understand correctly?

172. Blizowski correction.

173. Avi Belisovsky the comment filtering mechanism here is simply unbearable! Whoever built it for you did a bad job. Every second or third message is blocked here, what will happen??

174. Who even asked you if you are religious? Who asked you if you keep Shabbat? Who asked you about moral issues?

175. anonymous,

     I asked you first to define who God is in your opinion, and whether you believe in his existence, and you answer me in answer that you are not religious, and do not keep Shabbat, and explain to me about moral matters... Who even asked you about these things?

176. I asked you who God is in your opinion, and do you believe that he exists, and you answer me that you are not religious, and do not keep Shabbat, and explain to me about moral matters... Who even asked you about these things?

177. anonymous,

     I asked you first to define who God is in your opinion, and whether you believe in his existence, and you answer me in answer that you are not religious, and do not keep Shabbat, and explain to me about moral matters... Who even asked you about these matters?

178. You're getting rude I see.

179. anonymous,

     I'm not avoiding an answer, I already answered you before that I'm asking out of curiosity, just to understand who I'm talking to.

180. Besides, this is the umpteenth time I've asked you: Why is it important for you to know what I think about God? But you avoid giving an answer.

181. rival
     Certainly my opinion does not represent the religious public. I do not pretend to present my views as the views of the religious public. I'm not religious. And we're not discussing my views or yours either. The discussion revolves around God, but you turn in other directions...
     And what is this nonsense that I didn't answer you clearly about the prayers?
     Did you ask if I pray? I answered you: "I don't pray". If it's not clear enough... then you should run to the clinic immediately.
     And as for my faith - you have no green idea.

     At all, it's not clear what the fuss was about in your last comment.

182. anonymous,

     "for sure. According to the Torah - the only truth is the Torah written by the Creator. Everything else is politics"

     In short, your opinion does not represent the opinion of the religious public or the opinion of the believing public because most of them claim that the Gemara, the Talmud and the Oral Torah are an integral part of the Torah and were given to Moses at Mount Sinai.

     I asked you again about the prayers because all your answers before were evasive and unclear, so I tried to be more clear, and regarding your faith I see that you don't feel like answering even though from all the messages you posted here the answer to this is very clear.

183. K.
     It's OK. Why bother yourself with these questions.. there are more important questions. Like: How do you pronounce Mehta's first name correctly, is it 'Zobin' or 'Zibin'?

184. anonymous
     Sorry, can't be clear from what I already wrote before. All I asked for was a factual reference to some specific questions I presented. No tricks, no evasions, just a matter-of-fact reference to the questions asked. I've had such discussions many times with the same questions and usually people have no problem answering (sometimes they do, but then they don't pretend they don't understand) so I don't think it's a lack of understanding on your part. You don't want to answer and that's fine by me. In any case, even if you really don't understand, there is clearly no point in the discussion, which actually hasn't started with you yet (because you haven't answered any of the questions I've presented yet...)

185. Besides, rival, why do you ask me the second time whether I pray, after I already answered you the first time?

186. rival
     1: Of course. According to the Torah - the only truth is the Torah written by the Creator. Everything else is politics.
     2: One more time.. What is important to you, what is my opinion about him? Am I the subject or is he? "Ugh... it's hard to be God..."
     You're starting to remind me of K.
     K.
     Sorry but I feel like I'm wasting my time on you. I didn't understand what you wanted and to be honest I don't care anymore. Good luck in your further study of the Jewish Torah.

187. waiting,
     You wrote many things that I do not agree with at all, and in my opinion are fundamentally wrong, both regarding science, both regarding scientists and especially regarding the things you attributed to my perceptions which are simply incorrect. I also don't see the contribution of most of the things you wrote in response to the questions I asked and which concern the religious basis of your *your* words. In order for the responses not to be excessively long, at this point I will try to stick to references that seem directly relevant and therefore I will ignore everything that does not seem to belong directly to the topic, which is, to begin with, the question of the basis of trust regarding the intentions of the divine being in whom you believe. I would appreciate it if you would try to avoid talking about me, or the other scientists or science in general and I promise to try not to talk about you or the religious people, or the religion, and also to limit my words to what you claim and the justifications you provide. It is clear to me that you speak for yourself and that you do not represent any public.
     I try to reduce the relevant information details from your words. If I offend your intention, I apologize in advance, please put things as briefly as possible in a clear way so that I can make you more precise:
     In a previous response you expressed complete confidence that the divine being would not require you to blow up a car to offer him a sacrifice. According to you it just won't happen. Although it is possible to focus on this particular action, before we proceed to what you wrote about the basis of this assurance, I would first like to understand what is the collection of commandments, in general terms, about which you are convinced with more or less the same level of certainty, that the same divine being will not command its believers. It is important for me to understand in principle not only the amount of security, but first of all what you are actually certain of. Of course, there is no point in starting to enumerate grocery lists of all the specific actions imaginable, so I would be happy, if possible, to state general rules. Such a rule can be, for example, any express commandment that includes harming the helpless such as children and the disabled. Another, broader rule can be - any commandment, whether expressed or merely implied, that includes harming any other human beings. For example, a command such as: "In order to burn sin from the land, you must act according to my instructions that I gave you in the Torah" although it is not an explicit command to kill, but it may be implied that stoning, for example, is indeed a relevant action in some cases. Can you try to draw lines that will delimit the commandments that you believe cannot be given. In addition, it would be helpful to understand what the things that you believe are within reasonable limits. I assume that there is also a gray area, but it is less interesting in my opinion, because the questions deal with a matter of principle, so it is precisely the extreme cases that interest me.

188. waiting
     There are many insects that hide - what does this have to do with it?
     You are making puns 🙂 Notice what the topic is: we are "surprised" that the Sages knew that there are no animals in the sea with fins but they don't have scales, right? After I gave some examples that show that this is not true - you changed it to "there are no fish in the sea that have fins but do not have scales". Right?

     But …… this fish is an animal with gills and no limbs. So all fish must have fins 🙂 So what did the Sages say ….. A fish is a fish!!!!
     Wow, geniuses.

189. It was anonymous.

190. 1. In short, in your opinion, all interpretations of the Torah (hint, sermon, and secret) in the Gemara, Kabbalah and Zohar, are simply the opinion of the writers and do not have to accept it as truth.

     2. I didn't ask if you are religious, I only asked if you believe that God exists and do you sometimes pray to him in your thoughts, if so then how in how many words or sentences would you define him? (Did he create the world? Humans? Does he follow our actions? Will he reckon with us after we die?).

191. waiting,
     Thank you for your response, I will try to reply as soon as possible.

192. anonymous,
     Questions concerning the Jewish religion can be answered by anyone who has this knowledge and it doesn't matter on which site the questions arise. I, for example, have never rejected someone who asked me something about a subject in which I have relevant knowledge and it didn't even matter to me what was the context in which the question was asked. I have never been evasive in the way they are evading answering my questions here. If I have knowledge I am happy to share it with others, and when I don't have knowledge I don't make plays as if I have this knowledge but I will refrain from providing it because this is not the right place. Look, your excuse is pretty lame, but I'm not surprised.

     Note some dodges. Is it so hard to answer if you are a religious Jew or not?
     And again you are confusing main and main. The only reason there is only a reference to handle is because you are not contributing anything to the main topic. Of course, in such a situation the whole discussion becomes bland, and for this reason (and not for the reasons you mentioned) there is indeed no point in discussing with you, because you do not contribute anything substantive to the questions asked, perhaps because you simply have nothing to contribute (at least that is the impression created so far from the rest of your responses here.
     The bottom line is that the questions I asked are being dodged but not answered. You are welcome to finally contribute something to the discussion and raise a substantive argument to the body of a question. Alternatively, if you think there is a flaw in the questions, you are welcome to contribute something to the discussion and indicate in an orderly manner what you think is flawed in them so that I can address it. In light of your responses so far, I am quite skeptical that you will present any kind of substantive reference.

193. rival
     In my opinion - these books should be treated with the same seriousness as writers interpreting scientific experiments.
     The author of the text is important. The content of the text is important.
     And each case will be examined on its own merits.
     The interpretations in the book referring to reincarnation are total.. interpretations of the writer. his opinion And that's how they should be treated. And this is how those who argue about the Torah treat them. Hence all the different factions in Judaism. And for the same reasons of "disputing" and "philosophizing" are divided into different movements - different currents - in the same religion.
     That's my opinion, at least.

     2: I don't consider myself religious. But there will be those who say yes. I don't pray, I don't keep Shabbat. I do not believe that a person is born with good values ​​and morals because he was born to a father and mother who voted for Hillary Clinton.
     People are moral and ethical because of the education they received - not because they were born that way.
     And I recognize values ​​and good morals much more in the religious than in the secular.

194. anonymous,

     1. Are the things written in the Zohar and Kabbalah things that you think should be taken seriously? And if it says that there are reincarnations, does that mean that this is really the situation in reality?

     2. I asked you about your faith just out of curiosity, simply from the sequence of your messages here it sounds like you are a person of faith, I would appreciate it if you answered anyway.

195. rival
     1: These books are a kind of books that interpret the Torah. that's what I said. The rest of the things you attribute to me are figments of your imagination.

     2: Do I believe in God? Ask God.. 🙂
     Besides, what does it matter to you if I believe in God? Are we talking about me or God?

196. K.
     The ways of the name are hidden - is an expression. And it can be said even if you are not Jewish and not religious. In fact, even an Eskimo who does not know Hebrew can say this. Come on, some common sense and some inner integrity. please.

     And again, you claim that I am not the subject, but still you treat me as if I am the main subject.
     Anyway, I see that this discussion has no meaning. You will not be able to understand the Jewish religion by wandering around this site.
     Therefore, I find no point in answering irrelevant questions.

197. anonymous,

     1. Interesting, I thought that the Zohar and the Kabbalah (Secret Torah) are considered by the believers to be the most thorough and in-depth way of learning the Torah possible, so are you saying that there is no need to take seriously what is written there? Are you really claiming that the Kabbalah and Zohar for believers are like the guide to the galaxy for the secular? You know that Guide to the Galaxy is a completely humorous book/movie that never pretended to teach science or the theory of relativity seriously.

     2. Who (or what) is God to you? How would you define it? Do you believe it exists? Do you pray to him?

     I would be happy if you answer the questions.

198. anonymous,
     When you write that "the ways of God are hidden", it would not be unreasonable to understand from this that you have a religious belief in the divine entity of the Jewish religion (whatever its nature). If this is not true, please correct things. On the other hand, if this is true, I would appreciate it if you would start answering the matter.

199. anonymous,
     Again you attribute things to me that I did not say... You are definitely not the subject of the discussion. So although your beliefs do affect the relevance of your answers for me, this does not mean that the discussion revolves around you. It is useful to know the difference between the main and the minor. From your previous responses it can be seen that you are religious or at least you were religious in the past, so I thought that the topic that *yes* is up for discussion as far as I'm concerned can be relevant for you as well. Obviously, if you are not religious and have never been one (is that true?), your position on the matter is of less interest to me (although you are still welcome to express your opinion on the matter if you wish).

200. Miracles,

     I don't think sages know what family the beetle belongs to. The Torah categorically prohibited any animal that roams the land, so a beetle is off limits. (to take out a grasshopper that is indeed swarming on the ground, but has the ability to detect).

     It actually seems logical to me that when we talk about scales and fins we are talking about a fish. Because a sea snake or a sea turtle, simply do not play on this field, they have an anatomical structure whose rules of the game are different. It's like I'll give you a distinction "everything that's operated by a remote, is also operated by a button, and some have a button, but don't have a remote" - obviously I'm talking about an electrical device, not furniture. The distinction is within the family, not outside it.

     K.
     Thank you for your attention.
     Ok, as for the sentence "If I understand correctly, you want to claim that all the scientific and moral advances that have taken place in recent centuries are the result of the hands of that divine being and not of masses of people who fought against all odds".
     So no - I think it's thanks to these quality people.
     And in fact if we agree that it happened thanks to these quality people - it will help us understand the main part of my words.
     And that takes me directly to your main point, which I must honestly say I was impressed by the logical way you led the readers to it:
     >> There are direct observations of the existence of situations which... have no indication that they are the result of concern.
     >> Admitting the inability to know what the motives of the divine being are
     >> It inevitably entails uncertainty about its intentions towards humans.
     >> In this state of uncertainty... the one who claims to know that that entity is interested in the good of all humans, has the responsibility to give a convincing argument for this "knowledge".

     Well, you're just right. But what, I think to a certain extent I appreciate those quality people more than you.
     And I'll explain why.
     You know their work and efforts better than I do, you yourself are one of them, and I can say that at this stage in my life, my contribution to the help of those poor people you mentioned is less than yours.
     But I appreciate them more.
     According to science as of today, all our motives are something that ranges between absolute ego and absolute necessity, which makes the entire contribution of those high-quality people (i.e. the scientists, legislators, engineers, all those who left a mark of life on the world) something quite technical. We appreciate them because they are on our side. Because our survival mechanisms mark them as a friend and not as an enemy.
     But that's not my opinion. I appreciate them more.
     You asked me what I base this knowledge on. I have no knowledge. I have - as I said - trust. But trust is built on observation. While you scientists watch the suffering of humans, and look for ways to advance science, I watch you, and say to myself: No, these energies are not a biological mechanism that evolved out of an interest in surviving at someone else's expense.
     I think I genuinely see a valuable, caring desire.
     And now I will get to my point: on the one hand, I know that in practice we did evolve based on the interest of surviving at someone else's expense, and that the evolutionary mechanism is based on a blind ego. And on the other hand, I see the people, and feel - if I'm allowed to use emotion, which I think is also a mechanism I trust, no less than reason, while I put it to the test at all times, but trust in emotion - and I find myself convinced that the statement that everything moves On the axis of ego and instincts, is not true in my opinion.
     And so I build a picture of the world where everything starts with a creator who is interested in quality of life, but - lets us build this quality of life ourselves, and basically my thesis says that the world is a school of morality. In the first grade, egoists enter, and later learn to know morality, to develop it. At first because of the recognition that it pays off (see the altruism value), and finally because it is truly valuable.
     And the suffering in the world is part of this process. We see difficult cases, they do not give us rest, we cannot allow another baby to bask in the sun, we look for solutions, educate and build mechanisms, and with our own hands build a moral world. At the graduation party of the school, you know the story: "And a wolf dwells with a lamb, and a tiger dwells with a goat."
     Regarding the question of what is the fault of the baby who has to suffer, in order for me to develop my morality at his expense. So this is of course a more difficult question, which requires a more far-fetched work assumption.
     But here is the difference between our approaches: you want to say that this indicates an indifferent world, and in doing so you make yourself indifferent as well. You are basically saying that your concern for their suffering is just a motive of your blind and pure ego, an evolutionary mechanism like a machine that is programmed to caress a child warmly, but inside it is a coldness, and there is nothing valuable or caring here.
     And I prefer to say that you are not indifferent, neither you nor any of the quality people, and this leads me to say that this is not just a blind biological mechanism, but everything was put forward on purpose, to create an interaction that would allow moral development,
     And suffering is a way to reveal the values ​​in us, and that everything is part of one big plan in the end of which everyone will be compensated (there is also a verse in the Bible about this: "And you said in that day, O Lord, I will praise you, because you have breathed in me"), and hence the Creator of the world who is interested in our welfare.
     In the end - I relied on one thing: an observation with my interpretation. Although not an observation of empirical facts like you scientists, but an observation of the quality people.

     I owe you a specific reference to human suffering:
     What I mean is also based on observation: I see how mature people, ready to give up their quality of life, for others. These are warriors on the battlefield who return disabled, scientists who enjoy a poor salary and countless disappointments, doctors who give up family life, and on and on. Always in times of war I feel more obliged to be a man of values. If the IDF fighters risk themselves so that I can live here, they want me to live a valuable life here. This is what they fight for. I owe them.
     And the same goes for babies, or any person who in the middle of life befalls a disaster: these are people who chose to sacrifice the quality of their lives, so that there would be in the world the moral challenge I mentioned. Yes, they chose this before they came into the world, not because of their iniquities, but because of their mighty good will to contribute to the world. I am obliged to them, because they are of better quality than me. Committed to doing everything I can to heal them, and also being valuable. The more valuable I am, the less cancer patients will be needed. It is not their iniquities that make them sick, but my iniquities.
     Since I assume a creator of the world who is interested in the good of all creatures, and that this is a school, then the same assumption also forces a life beyond life, and those people are people who chose to take this role, to be the suffering party, in order to promote morality in the world. This is the Jewish argument for suffering in the world.
     You can protest this whole theory, if it even deserves to be called a theory in your eyes, with a wave of the hand, as complete nonsense, as desperate wishful thinking, but you are also protesting your own value.
     This is the formula: if I am moral, the world is moral, there is a creator of the moral world.
     If there is no creator of a valuable world, the world is not valuable, I am not valuable.
     I would love to be smart.

201. K.
     Why do you think I "believe in existence"? And maybe not? are we talking about me Why are you deviating from the topic? You yourself asked not to do this - this is not moral behavior.

202. anonymous,
     Maybe you don't understand, because I didn't reinforce your words at all...

     An example question, let's say that the entity you believe in appears tomorrow in all its glory, announcing that it has decided to return its crown to its former glory and, among other things, to apply its constitutions to the entire country. It commands all Jews (the religious, the secular do not notice its existence at all) to leave their homes and observe its mitzvahs, including explicit commandments regarding what should be done to Shabbat violators, men who perform male circumcision, etc. Many religious leaders beg her to show mercy to the people but she is mature. How do you think you should act in such a situation?

203. K.
     I thank you very much for your patience.
     I would also really appreciate it if you would respect the patience of others towards you.
     Well what are the questions?

204. anonymous,
     I will be happy to answer any question after I receive a factual reference to the questions I asked. I believe that so far I am showing quite a lot of patience in my waiting. In the meantime, I get the impression that most of the effort is devoted to diverting the discussion to other questions. I have no interest in discussing other issues with you at the moment or giving you examples (which exist in abundance) of harm done by Jews with purely religious motives.

205. K.
     You reinforce my words and at the same time you claim that you do not understand my words. Quite strange I must say, I could not understand this difficulty of yours. But, come on. we will move forward. What were your questions? Sorry if I missed it. 🙂

206. Miracles
     So you would expect…
     I also look forward to it and I believe that every Jew looks forward to it..
     But the ways of God are hidden. 🙂

     And really,
     Let's not talk about morality.
     You don't seem to understand what morality is.
     Especially when you defame the majority of the ultra-orthodox public without any justification, while spouting slogans that prove nothing.
     Generalizing an entire public and defaming it is never moral. Haven't you learned it yet?

207. anonymous,
     In my life I have met quite a few religious people (men and women) who are irresponsible, in many respects. I have also met such secularists, as well as many counterexamples. I don't know what you were actually trying to say and what you are basing it on. You are also welcome to answer my questions, which for the time being seem to be difficult to get a factual reference for.

208. K.
     "Moral distortions that hurt people"?
     Like giving weapons to the Palestinian police to keep the Jews safe? you mean like that?

     incidentally,
     Are you sure that hurting a person is on a religious basis?
     No harm to a person on a non-religious basis?
     Do the injuries to a person at the hands of another person stem from religious belief or from physical-biological-chemical processes?
     Do you have answers to these questions?
     Have you even asked yourself these questions?
     in the least,
     Before you commented on vulnerable people on a religious basis.
     please.

209. anonymous
     So according to what you say - I would expect the believers of Abrahamic religions to be more moral than Hindus, and the Jews more than Christians and Muslims, and the religious Jews the most moral. The ultra-Orthodox should be the glory of humanity.

     But - the ultra-Orthodox religious Jews are very moral people in my opinion.
     They discriminate against women
     They hate foreigners
     They hate gays and lesbians
     They hate disabled people
     They are not ready to serve in the army
     They are not ready to work and pay taxes, but have fun driving the state.

     I am of course making a generalization and of course there are wonderful people among them. But, I have ultra-Orthodox in my family and I have lived more than once in ultra-Orthodox areas - the inclusion represents a large percentage of these people.

     So - let's not talk about morality...

210. Rival and A
     If there had been a referendum with them, then I'm not sure what the result would have been either. Maybe it really is the majority. It seems that way to me too. But no one conducted the poll, so no one knows. Because it is appropriate to be careful about things.

     rival
     These books are not the Torah.
     It's like relying on the words of sages who read in "Hitchhiker to the Galaxy" to better understand the "Theory of Relativity" - so that you can make a better dish of soup.

211. A.
     I'm not trying to convince anyone yet, you are attributing wrong things to me and this is not the first time, stop it please.
     I'm not missing what you have to say, I'm just not ready to divert the discussion according to your wishes. The discussion started when I asked questions about very sharp claims made here (and which are made with a level of confidence as if it were actual knowledge, by many religious people). I'm trying to understand how religious people contain the obvious dissonance on this topic, and I'm waiting for those who are willing to address *my* question (as opposed to references to other questions that may also be asked and discussed, but *are* not my question). So far not even an attempt has been made to explain the position I asked about. The argument I made was not intended to convince someone to convert, but only to clearly present the dissonance that exists in my opinion. I don't understand what discussion you expect exactly when you announce that you understood the things I wrote and in the same breath announce that you choose to ignore the questions I asked and are surprised that I don't move on to discuss topics that you think are more suitable (to you). There is no obligation to answer my questions, but it is not decent behavior to try to drag the discussion to other places again and again and then claim as if I am missing the main point or have wrong assumptions about religion. If you think there is a flaw in the legitimacy of my questions, you are welcome to point it out.
     When someone makes a claim with great confidence I expect that they can at least justify it in a reasonable and reasoned way, which has not been done so far. And if a person is unable to do this, I would expect that person to acknowledge it in the first place, when the simple question still remains where did this so arrogant assurance come from that is contrary to so much evidence that is around us in abundance. I would demand this regarding any claim that is voiced with great confidence (which is characteristic of a large part of the religious who express themselves on the subject), and matters of religion and faith are not special cases and are not entitled to discounts or exemptions, if anything then the opposite, especially when the claims made have real consequences in the reality in which we live. Therefore there is no way around it, nor is there really a good reason to bypass it, even if I can speculate where the desire to avoid such a discussion comes from.
     If the security derives from an axiomatic assumption, please state it explicitly, if there is another explanation, you are welcome to ignore it. If you don't want to explain - don't explain, but also don't expect that this silence will allay the real concerns that people like me have about the ability of religious people to defend themselves against what I perceive as moral distortions that have already led to harming other people in the past and present, and probably in the future as well (and all I have written this several times in the past.

212. Anonymous + A,

     In the Torah and Gemara the subject is not mentioned, but in the Kabbalah and the Zohar they definitely talk about reincarnations, and as far as I know most religious people see these books as important holy books like none other.

213. anonymous
     In my opinion, more than half of the religious nationals accept the wheel of souls. (not sure with an overwhelming majority)
     All the Chasidim believe (the Baal Shem Tov spoke about this explicitly), meaning roughly half of the Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox
     I have no idea what is going on with the Lithuanians. In the past at least they resisted.
     I wonder what the situation is with the Sephardic ultra-Orthodox (Shasnikim)
     If there was a religious debate on the subject, I don't know what I would bet on.

214. Miracles
     and…?
     You wanted to say that the ant does not believe in God and is still moral - but you didn't say that (because you don't want to look ridiculous)?

     So, of course not! She is an insect. And so God created her. She is not a person who needs faith in Hashem.

     And how would you know that the ant is moral if it weren't for the wise verse of our king - Solomon - which was collected from the scriptures of the saints and joined together into the canon? How would you learn such a good moral from the ant if you didn't read it in the Torah?
     parable

215. anonymous
     You wrote "He talks about the fact that there is no one to be responsible for the ant - and yet, it will behave responsibly and perform its duty.
     This is wisdom and good morals that religious people learn since they commit crimes. Which cannot be said about the secular person."

216. rival
     Why do you think most people believe this? Maybe it's the other way around? Do you have proof that the religious majority believes in reincarnation? Most people don't understand quantum physics either. Does that mean most people are secular? It's ridiculous.
     There are many religious people (not to mention secular) who do not understand Judaism and the Torah. Some study it to understand.
     So there are religious people who believe in reincarnation. There are also secularists who believe in aliens.

217. A',

     Most religious Jews believe in reincarnation, how do you explain that?

218. Miracles
     Where did you see me say that?

219. anonymous
     Are you now claiming that morality is possible without the Torah? Interesting 🙂

220. anonymous
     Are you now claiming that morality is possible without the Torah?

221. K.
     I agree with you.
     This is indeed an important verse.
     He talks about how there is no one to be responsible for the ant - and yet, it will behave responsibly and perform its duty.
     This is wisdom and good morals that religious people learn since they commit crimes. Which cannot be said about the secular person.

222. rival
     Hazel were smart enough to understand what they were talking about.
     Every person is wise with the tools they have.
     Hezal were wise with the tools they had in their time.
     And we are smart with our tools, in our time.
     Our tools are of better quality - but the world is the same world.
     We can improve our knowledge with our improved tools - however, it would not be right to reject the old tools and put them out of use just because they are not suitable for one particular task.
     You wouldn't think of throwing away a toothbrush because you can't use it to fix a flat tire.

     Hazal's words are suitable for those who have just started studying the Torah.
     And for those who have the most difficulty understanding.
     The Hazal are also commentators of the Torah.
     The words of fortune that you bring are in the nature of interpreting - with the tools they had then - nature.
     It is clear today that they made some mistakes. As it is clear today that there were mistakes even among the great scientists in the past. And as it is clear that in the future - some of the scientific interpretations of natural phenomena will be delusional.

223. K.
     "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"...

224. rival
     Ah.. it is written in the "Sages" why didn't you say?
     Just a question from which year do they start and when do they finish.
     Because I don't know a clear definition (chazel is our sages whose memory is blessed. To me it is also Rabbi Ovadia Yosef he is chazel. He was a scholar and his memory is blessed)
     Please try to be more specific than when this spread

225. K.
     You are really missing what I want to say!!
     You don't get out of your head that wave of attempts at persuasion I have no intention of trying to convince you, if you want to have a debate where you try to convince me and I you, I have no interest in that.
     If you want to understand the believing "head" and correct your misconceptions about him, then I am ready to explain. I understood the argument you raised, I know I didn't answer it and I'm not interested either (there are many directions, none of them perfect and none of them I can summarize into a response)
     I ask again (please answer honestly) what do you want?
     Prove you're right or understand?
     You can't have both together. If you want you can stay with your basic assumptions about religion. But too bad

226. Anonymous + A,

     Are sages good enough for you? Or do they not understand either?

     "Sages point out that the initials of the first man's name allude to his incarnations: Adam, David, Messiah. After his sin, the first man was reincarnated in David, who committed a single sin in the words of Uriah the Hittite, and therefore your creator is reincarnated in Christ and thus completes his final correction. If the first man had not sinned, he would have been in the possession of the Messiah and would have fixed the world in the Kingdom of Satan.'

227. incidentally,
     Anyone from the religious who believes that the intentions of the divine being are good for all human beings, is invited to try to explain where the confidence in this belief comes from. The greater the security, it is appropriate that the argument in favor be backed up, convincing and unequivocal. In particular, I will ask for a reference to specific cases in which indescribable suffering was caused to the helpless, and how these cases reconcile with a divine being whose intentions are good.

228. rival
     Stop insisting, you're not doing well.
     Reincarnation does not appear in the Torah, nor in the Tanakh, nor in the Mishnah, nor in the Gemara (I hope you know the difference between each of these. Seriously, not with the intention of attacking. If you don't ask)
     At a relatively late stage, reincarnation was accepted by some of Judaism, especially Hasidism. The opponents of Hasidism did not accept it. Today I don't really know if the Lithuanians accept the reincarnation (many Hasidic ideas were absorbed in the end)
     *The Zohar was written according to research in the 13th century.
     *Rabbi Zamir Cohen is not proof of what is written in the Torah.
     And rival, I did not say that there was no one who said such a thing. But if someone tries to say it at home, he will probably leave with a shoe in his face. There are much more acceptable things to say.

229. The next verse is no less important... "which has no police officer and governor".

230. rival
     I understand you don't let the facts confuse you.
     Is it so you can keep your agenda?

     Are you not ready to accept the fact that what you are presenting is just a 'wise man's' interpretation of the words of the Torah?
     Do you know how many interpretations this verse has?

     Do you know how many interpretations the results of a scientific experiment have? Are all the interpretations correct? What should be done to understand and know what the correct interpretation is?

     Go out and learn!
     Go to the lazy ant, see its ways and be wise.

231. anonymous,

     Here is another quote from the article:

     "Where is the matter of reincarnation hinted at in the Torah?
     It is written: "The iniquity of the fathers falls on the sons - on thirds - and on fourths - the hater, doing kindness to thousands to those who love and keep my commandments" (Exodus XNUMX:XNUMX). [In this verse the secret of reincarnations is implied, and the answer to the question - how many reincarnations can a person go through.]

     One soul that [God] plants in a body that is dust... - the iniquity of the ancestors - is the first incarnation.
     On boys - is a second incarnation.
     On thirty - is a third incarnation.
     And on quarters - it is a fourth incarnation... [Therefore if a sin is committed, it is reincarnated up to four times]."

232. rival
     The Zohar is not the Torah.
     And all books of this type are a kind of commentaries on the Torah.
     Do you see that you really do not know the material?

233. K.
     The obvious conclusion is that the lawyer Mr. Cohen Zamir does not deserve to be a rabbi.

234. Miracles
     I'm sure the whole family was there... 🙂

235. rival,
     The obvious conclusion - Zamir Cohen is of Druze origin :-)

236. anonymous,

     You are not familiar with the material, until my response with the link is released. Here is a quote from an article on Rabbi Zamir Cohen's website:

     "Where is the matter of "reincarnation" hinted at in the Torah, and how do we know what our correction is in this world? …. According to the Holy Zohar, man did not come to correct his entire spiritual form at once. As long as the soul has not achieved in this world the desired degree of refinement and the completion of its form to be a vessel that can contain infinite light - it will continue to roll in different bodies.'

237. anonymous,

     Come on, you don't know the material:

     http://www.hidabroot.org/article/80303

238. A.
     There is no need to complicate matters and build straw man arguments like using the failed argument of the slippery slope for example.
     A certain person claims that he has complete trust that the divine being, if I understand correctly, he believes that the same being that created and operates the world in which we live, is interested in our good (and his intention is for the good of all humans, judging by the rest of his words). In the reality we live in there are direct observations of the existence of situations which, at least for me and for people I consider sane and have minimal morals, have no sign of being the result of concern. The opposite is correct. Those cases look more like laziness at best, or horrifying wickedness at worst on the part of a divine entity as mentioned above (under the assumption that such an entity does exist). The simple question arises - how can a case in which a baby was roasted to death be attributed to the concern of that divine being for all human beings. It is easy to understand that, at least in those cases like this one, there was no concern for the human beings, even though there is no apparent obstacle that should have prevented intervention for the benefit of the victims. If you want to claim that this behavior reflects concern/love, you have to convincingly show that this suffering is necessary. To say that we may not understand the accounts of the divine being is not only unconvincing about the necessity of monstrous and agonizing deaths of infants, but worse, it opens a worse can of worms, since admitting the inability to know what the motives of the divine being necessarily entails uncertainty Regarding her intentions towards humans. In this state of uncertainty, the thesis that is more suitable to the findings in the field is a divine being who, at the very least, is unable to prevent the suffering of that unfortunate baby, and it is possible that she is simply indifferent to his fate, and it is possible that she is even interested in his suffering. Whoever claims that he knows that that entity is interested in the good of all humans, has the responsibility to give a convincing argument for this "knowledge".

239. anonymous
     I have a Druze friend who told me one day that he was going to eat at his former grandmother's house...

240. rival
     Reincarnation is a widespread belief in the Druze religion. It does not exist in the Torah.
     This is a common mistake made by those who do not know the material they are arguing about.

241. A',

     You're funny, do you know how many religious people and rabbis I've heard use this argument? Haven't you heard about people returning to the world again to make amends for their sins from previous incarnations? Come on, this is one of their most common arguments.

     Just as you say they claim we only see part of the picture.

242. rival
     The accepted "excuse" is really not sins from a previous incarnation. If you show me someone who believes that their baby died because of sins from a previous incarnation I will be very surprised.
     The accepted explanation is that we do not know the reason for everything God does. And we as humans see only a very small part of the picture.
     ק
     You raise a very complex question in theology. You're basically saying that if God was moral there shouldn't be any suffering in the world. You mention babies all the time, but you can take the question further to young people as well as to old people. One can ask why there is death in the world or why the world works according to the laws of nature or why humans have the possibility to harm others. According to your opinion, I understand that if God was moral you would expect that no person would have the possibility at all to harm another or cause suffering. In fact, the world had to be created without free choice at all and you can continue with this line of thought on and on... (Of course you can say about death that it is necessary to prevent a population explosion, but it was also possible to completely prevent civilization.) In the end we will come to the conclusion that a world without life or Not to create anything at all.
     Of course you can say it's not an answer (it really isn't)
     This is at most a problematization of the question.
     For the most part, dealing with theological questions comes from the assumption that we do not know and understand or can understand everything (apart from a few zealous converts who know everything). I understand where the impression comes from that religious faith includes a full understanding of the world and full logical procedures to explain everything in it.
     But it is not so.
     Just like you have things that you will say are not clear to you (like you knew how to say that you know about my question about morality), religious people also have (there are those who deny this) every belief system every ideology contains contradictions and logical flaws. In general, the more extreme the person is, he uses and lives with fewer contradictions. And the more moderate he is, he must live in peace with more contradictions (I think you understand this. Regarding religious extremism, for example, if I say that by definition everything in the Torah is moral, you will not be able to argue with me at all. I, for example, will have to explain and twist about contemporary morality..) because of this Many times extremists are seen more as "real" people
     Hard logic is one way to understand things in the world (the only way when dealing with science) but no one can really live their whole life that way. For example, the decision to bring a child into the world. You can explain to me logically, but I'm sure I can knock down any logical move (or admit that it's a pure egoistic action, but remain in contradiction because your ideology is full of egotism, I assume)
     You can choose your beliefs and ideologies according to what you are convinced of. Do not expect that any way will leave you without questions or any logical contradiction. In my opinion, it is not serious to point out a contradiction and expect that I will turn to atheists (this is a common way of some converts)

243. Their well-known excuse for the baby's suffering is of course that it is because of his sins in previous incarnations.

244. waiting,
     You wrote many things that require explanation and justification. I will start with the question of trust and not with the question of justifying the existence of a divine being. You wrote: "The trust built between us is based on the fact that he is interested in our good."

     Could you explain what our benefit is in cases such as: a baby who was left in a closed car for hours on a hot day and died a horrible death in severe agony? What is our benefit in cases of children suffering from deadly cancer involving indescribable suffering?

     And you add: "...interested in the development of humanity and the world into healthy and sane places."

     On what basis do you base this when humans (like all animals) suffer tremendous suffering from disease, injury, hunger, exploitation, terror and humiliation. When at least with regard to health, it is mainly scientists and doctors who present significant achievements in the direction of treatment, while in connection with many of the other causes of suffering that I mentioned, there is a complete shortage of hands in the world. What is sane about the raging war in countries like Syria? What is sane about the hardships and torments that refugees from all over the world go through, during which they drown, are kidnapped, raped, murdered. What is sane in all this when it comes to boys and girls? in babies?

     "...interested in the development of science and human morality."

     On what basis do you base this when there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and education, when it is the religious who consistently fight the study of science (while using its fruits on a daily basis). If I understand correctly, you want to claim that all the scientific and moral advances that have taken place in recent centuries are the result of the hands of that divine being and not of masses of people who fought against all odds, and certainly against much stronger religious forces, in order to make our society better and fairer . I do not understand on what basis you are basing this claim when all the evidence points to the existence of unimaginable and in most cases completely unnecessary suffering, when these are human beings who with great effort find solutions that reduce this suffering, either through advanced medicine or by establishing more established moral rules of the game On the recognition of the basic equality of rights between human beings regardless of their sex, origin, religion, sexual orientation, occupation or thoughts, and this is in complete contrast to religions, including most currents in Judaism, which claim to represent the divine beings in which they believe, which from beginning to end are arms of separation, Exclusion, not accepting the other and persecuting him.

     Which of all the things I mentioned above supports the thesis that the divine being you believe in is interested in the good of the human race? Especially in light of her abilities attributed to that divine being. Does that unfortunate baby who was abandoned in the car and suffocated and slowly burned constitute a good support in your opinion for the thesis you proposed? Is it not reasonable to expect that an all-powerful, all-knowing divine being, who directs every atom and atom in the world we live in, and all things obey her, would intervene in such a case and prevent the continued suffering until death of that perpetrator? Why would it not be reasonable to interpret such a lack of intervention (assuming we accepted for a moment for the purpose of the discussion the existence of some divine being) as evidence for possibilities such as: inability to intervene or unwillingness to intervene. To me, these options make much more sense than the thesis you proposed, from which it is implied that this suffering is a positive thing and reflects the concern/love of that divine being for humans. In such cases, impotence (inability to intervene), or malice (unwillingness to intervene) constitute strong evidence against a being who cares for all human beings and is interested in their well-being. Please explain your position.

245. waiting (for Godot)
     May I ask why you decided that a beetle is not alive? Could it be just to justify your claim??
     If the sages were so wise, wouldn't they know that insects belong to the animal kingdom? It's just like saying "everyone who has scales has a fin", and when you learn that there are sea turtles, sea alligators and sea snakes, saying "yes, but...we only meant fish".

     We do not know today whether there is a source for the laws of nature or not, but we do know that the laws have existed since a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang.
     And what we also know, with the highest certainty, is that everything that happened, and is happening, starting from that fraction of a second does indeed operate according to the laws of nature.

     To refine the discussion - are we talking about what happened in that "Planck time" after the Big Bang, or what is happening in the 13.8 billion years that have passed since then?

246. waiting
     It seems to me that you are taking the bugs out of the game to support the claim. It's like saying "all birds have wings" and then saying "yes, but a kiwi is not a chicken". Or for that matter - "everyone with a scaly hand has fins" and then, when you learn that there are sea snakes, sea turtles and sea alligators, to say "Aaahhhh...we only meant fish...".
     If these kosher signs only talk about mammals - then I understand that a land turtle is kosher?

     Where did you infer that the laws of nature are supernatural? How come you don't have a natural law of explanation for this? As before - you go out of your assumption to prove your assumption. It doesn't work like that 🙂

247. K.
     I am ready to answer you, at least once a day or two, and try to have a discussion in the way you suggest. Go ahead and lead. If I still want to deviate from the path I choose, for some reason, I will ask for your consent.
     So that you will not be disappointed after you agree, I say in advance that I do not base my faith on any historical event, or on any miraculous writing, I do see them as support in the realm of high probability, and above all I see them as wealth and beauty that builds a worldview that is not indifferent to our blind destiny. But not as proof.
     The reason I believe is because I see faith as a hypothesis that is more logical and more plausible to me, for the entirety of life as it is.
     And in addition, personal experiences - including those I was born from home - and yet I stand and examine them - shaped my view of the world.

     What if the creator of this world asks me to blow up a car bomb tomorrow to sacrifice him, what will I do?
     It's ridiculous. he is not.
     The trust that is built between us is based on the fact that he is interested in our welfare. Interested in the development of humanity and the world into healthy and sane places. Interested in the development of science and human morality.
     If I hear a voice asking me to go back to the days of awakening thousands of years ago, I'll know it's not from him.

     Rival, at your request I have no explanation that convinces me. In general, I appreciate that some of the things relied on a scientific paradigm that was prevalent in those days, and which we now know is wrong.
     As for a bat, I believe it was walking around their neighborhood, and they could see if it was laying eggs or not, so either it's a phenomenon similar to egg laying (after all, it's a mammal, and there are various forms of reproduction, some of which are extinct) or it's not the bat we know. I don't know, but I don't think they were stupid. This is an interesting topic for research.
     Also take into account that there are things in the Talmud that were said as a legend, and the more absurd a thing is - the more you must assume that it would have sounded absurd even in those days, and therefore it is likely to be said that it was said as a parable and a legend that conveys a message, and that it was clear to the listeners that this is what it is about.
     In the last line you challenged my curiosity, and I will check.

     Miracles,
     A beetle is an insect, it is outside the scope of practice that distinguishes between animals that are candidates for kosher.
     I "believe" in nature. If I hang an iron ball on a rope, stretch it and release it, I will believe that it will not hurt me when it comes back, even if at that moment it says a few rude words.
     But I also believe in "the supernatural". After all, the very existence of the universe, the very existence of the laws of nature, is a "miracle", or in your words "natural god".

248. K.
     Exactly 🙂

249. agree It is clear that a main reason for a certain belief is the fact that the believer has absorbed this particular belief from a young age. I think that one of the biggest surprises I had in view of the answers of religious men and women (and especially of the ultra-Orthodox) regarding the source of their faith, is the almost blatant disregard for this simple fact, when the explanations almost always revolve around a seemingly-rational apologetics regarding their so-called knowledge about the existence, essence and desires of The divine being in which they believe and the history derived from this, when it is clear that this is primarily a simple social construction.

250. K.
     I don't have a problem with religious extremists, I mean it's easy for me to understand where they are coming from. These are weak and not very smart people, it is easy for them to accept that someone else thinks for them. Think for a moment why they are not ready to serve in the army: they know very well that they will lose customers that way.

     What I don't understand are the more intelligent religious people. I have good friends who wear kippah, and I got to serve and fight with amazing kippah wearers. On the moral and value level, most of them are amazing people that many secular people have something to learn from them. Most of them do not get into religious debates, and I think the reason is that they know they will "lose": they know they cannot bring an argument that will convince a rational person.
     What I don't understand is - why do they still believe? I'm sure one of the reasons is the environment they live in. Repeating the question constitutes disconnection from friends, community life and even family life.

     For me - there are two types of people: those who believe in the natural, and those who believe in the supernatural. The supernatural includes religions, homeopathy, astrology, superstitions, ghosts, naturopathy and the rest of the nonsense of alternative medicine.
     It seems to me completely natural to believe only in the natural...

251. Miracles,
     Obviously, it's a piece of dissonance that needs to be maintained... I don't blame them, it's just a bit of a shame that it is so. Nevertheless, I would be happy to try to receive from them a series of Mishnah regarding the sources of their faith, and also their response regarding the consequences for such a faith. It's clear that even in the best case we will end up with some kind of failed change (because it doesn't seem to me that they have their own original ideas, and I've seen a lot of old bad ideas), but at least it will be possible to place a little better where their faith is (it's in the gaps of course...) .

252. Instead, if at all, it is better to wonder carefully and patiently about the deep reasons for Mann Dehua's religious belief, which at least in my experience stem from a multitude of reasons, none of which are rational. In the rare cases where an orderly argument is attempted, it is usually easy to point out where the logical fallacy is that leads to a "conclusion", which in the best case is not necessary and in the common case - is simply wrong. The only way, as happens from time to time usually after a long and tedious discussion, is to admit the simple truth (and not so terrible in itself) that the religious belief base, not only does not rely on knowledge (by definition) but also does not rely on reason in the accepted sense. Of course, an apologetic was also found for this dissonance in the form of terms such as metaphysical logic, etc., but it is clear that these concepts have been hijacked and distorted and do not essentially represent the original concept of logic which is formally summarized in logic (theory of logic), just as "energies" and "frequencies" and "quanta" ” In New Age religions, they are concepts that have been hijacked and distorted from the field of physics, and not without reason, in order to achieve a scientific acetala that instills respectable credibility, or in sister words for the sake of plagiarism. It is easy to distinguish between the two categories if you look at the history of their use. While logical thinking leads to an increase in knowledge and understanding of the reality in which we live, religious "reason" is used for one thing only and it is a defense of the desired "truth" in advance, i.e. - the justification of religious belief.

     It is also possible, if desired, to deal with the consequences that arise from belief in a divine entity, omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, unlimited, or any other title given to it (despite the fact that it is supposed to be incomprehensible to us). One of these consequences concerns morality. Since perfect morality is attributed to that divine entity, and in particular that its laws and commandments are necessarily moral, the question naturally arises as to what religious people will do when that entity commands its believers to perform actions that are fundamentally contrary to the natural morality that exists in us (and which quite a few believers tend to despise in a rather puzzling way in my opinion ), such as eliminating vehicle occupants who violated Shabbat. It seems as if in such a case the believer has no reason not to fulfill as well as possible the commandments of that divine being, and it seems to me that it is important to ask religious people to explain whether this is indeed what they are expected to do, and whether they really believe that this is what they will do if they are convinced that the commandment is real (i.e. which originates from the same divine entity in which they believe).

253. K.
     Integrity is not the strong point of the religious extremists. What makes me laugh is that people like Yaron and Raphael make sure to emphasize this. I understand the reason - they are in a very difficult situation, and they have to lie even, and in my opinion especially, to themselves.

254. Smarting and waiting 🙂
     Many beetles have horns and legs, but no telepals. It is clear to me that there is a reason for this too...

255. Friends,
     You are wasting your time in the wrong direction. Religious apologetics has long since prepared for itself a safe retreat position for cases of contradictions with "rules" that can be found in the Torah, or anywhere else for that matter (see below). The "best" case that can be is that Shiron and his ilk will move to adopt the apologetics that will save them from having to change something in their basic belief (as many other religious people do without any particular problem, as presented by A. for example in the context of 70 faces...). In the case of religious fanatics, the renunciation of a single and absolute truth of the religious scriptures poses a certain problem because this concept is an important basis for their belief in the existence of a divine being. The (wrong) logic is: if the Torah contains, for example, information that is an absolute truth that could not have been known to any human being in the past, then it follows (wrongly and completely as stated above) that there must be a divine being who gave the Torah, etc. It is clear why in such a case the dissonance created is great, and why such religious people are ready to present their embarrassing salats.

     Here is an example answer from a religious person who presents a more advanced stage in the evolutionary development of religious belief, which dispenses with the failed attempt to present as if the religious writings contain absolute facts about physical things in the world, and at the same time drops the belief base, which is still prevalent among some religious people, in which the apparent truths that exist The religious writings seemingly prove the existence of a divine being:

     "There are no exceptions to the rule of law (Irovin XNUMX. and Kiddoshin LD., and in the Hashaba Council HA C. M. wrote this
     Even in the rules of halachic law, like every place where the Rashbagh had a similar halachic year), that is: all the words of the sages were said about the majority and they have exceptions, and certainly in natural matters,
     for example:
     1. The rule that a woman who marries at forty does not give birth (Ritba Baba Batra Kit: XNUMX Ha Nehem),
     2. The rule that a woman does not live for XNUMX months (Yam of Solomon C. XNUMX),
     3. The rule that the pregnant woman does not repeat and conceive again (Gan Hamelech Aut Kal, printed at the end of Garden of Roses XNUMX, although there are some who dispute this),
     4. The rule that a woman does not conceive unless close to her period (Tos. Sota XNUMX. XNUMX Eliba),
     5. The rule that the woman who conceives does not give birth first (this is how Shibat Zion understood it (C. Ag. D. H. in his letter) in the words of Rabbi Kidoshin Y. D. H. Gersinan and in the words of the well-known in Yehuda from the Dok Aha C. 39 and Mehdo) No. It is true that Sho'at Tishorat Shi Mahduot C. Eb interpreted the words of the well-known in Judah as the change of natures. The value of the change of natures was cited in the medical halachic encyclopedia note XNUMX),
     6. Nature that is small does not beget (Meiri Sanhedrin Sach: XNUMX AAP, in the interpretation of the opinion in the Gemara there that is small begets. Although it should be noted that in all these cases the word "all" was not used),
     7. Everyone who begets milks and everyone who lays eggs gathers (Rabbi Steinzaltz Bekorot XNUMX: and there the word "all" was also said).

     And in general it is impossible to include a rule about the cases that arise in the world, and certainly for every natural rule there will be exceptions one out of a thousand in one thousand years (Sefer Chulin Mb. XNUMX Bishesh), all natural affairs follow the majority and strangeness and wonder will fall into them ( Pihamash to Rambam Nida XNUMX-XNUMX).

     As an example, we can mention that a species of pig has already been found that some people claimed was a ruminant, and we discussed it
     The judges (and banned him), and we also discussed that perhaps he really does not raise a grudge (Ama Devar C. XNUMX). After all, the judges were not moved by the "contradiction" to the explicit words of the Torah (Leviticus XNUMX-XNUMX, Deuteronomy XNUMX-XNUMX) that a pig does not raise a pig.

     Indeed, some recent ones told about a fish that has scales and no fin, and wrote that the rule
     A mind that has scales has a fin has been said about the majority, which in particular in the affairs of the creatures there are many
     There are exceptions to the exception (Kreti Peg-XNUMX), and for an uncommon thing they did not notice them (Medani Yot on Rabbi Chulin Chapter XNUMX C. XNUMX letter XNUMX in his third excuse, and in his first excuse he wrote that it is possible that this fish was created after the giving of the Torah, and in his second excuse he wrote that it was not a fish but an animal of the sea) and there is no state among the exclusions (Shut halakhot Ketaton HC Rana and HV C. signed this, and earlier he wrote that it is possible that it is not a fish but that it runs in the water, and it is possible that it goes on land). Admittedly, the PMG (Mishvat Zahav Peg-XNUMX end of XNUMXth Veda) and the Aruch HaShulchan (Yodd Peg-XNUMX) disagreed with this excuse.

     We emphasize that the evidence is not from this or that species of fish or pig, but from the very fact that the possibility of such a reality did not bother the judges, and it is proven that they did not understand the rule "everything that has scales has a fin" as a law and will not pass."

256. smarting and waiting,

     At the same time as your request for miracles, I will ask you to bring an example of a bat that lays eggs, of a mouse that is half flesh and half dirt, and also an example of a hyena that became a bat.

257. Yaron,
     (I have a delayed response, so I will bring part of it here)

     You claimed: "Millions of Jews stood on Mount Sinai and saw and heard the Creator of the world speaking from the mountain." You have not given any explanation that even comes close to something that suggests how you know exactly what those people saw and heard, in the same event that allegedly took place. Could you detail the logical chain that leads you to your certain conclusion that what the people in that story saw was the "creator of the world"?

258. Yaron,
     I am still waiting for your answer to my question from here:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/darwin-vs-the-sun-0101112/comment-page-3/#comment-712005

     And my words here:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/darwin-vs-the-sun-0101112/comment-page-5/#comment-712061

     Until now despite repeated requests, for example here:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/darwin-vs-the-sun-0101112/comment-page-7/#comment-712127
     And here:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/darwin-vs-the-sun-0101112/comment-page-7/#comment-712137
     You did all kinds of eights in the air and evasive maneuvers, but you didn't give a factual answer.

     You claimed: "Millions of Jews stood on Mount Sinai and saw and heard the Creator of the world speaking from the mountain." You have not given any explanation that even comes close to something that suggests how you know what those people saw and heard in the exact same event that allegedly took place. Could you detail the logical chain that leads you to your certain conclusion that what the people in that story saw was the "creator of the world"?

259. Yaron
     So what are you doing on the science site? Don't you understand that this is a site for thinking people?

260. Come on miracles,
     I'd love for you to give examples because it's an interesting discussion, but you can't bring a snake fish that both have no legs, bring an animal with horns and legs but no talipes.
     Talfiim is cracked feet and this is a sign that the husband lives kosher to eat. Legless creature not in the game at all.

261. Good miracles, he convinced me, I repent.

     Sorry but his arguments are too strong so I can't continue living a lie, evolution is just an invention of infidels who don't want to believe in God.

262. Rival Nissim Shmulik
     "My firstborn children of Israel"
     Do the Jewish people need scientific studies to know that the Torah is from heaven?
     Who are you working for besides yourselves?
     Twisting lies and bluffs in all kinds of different excuses. You are like the lawyer who received money from a client to protect him at any cost and it doesn't matter if he is the criminal or not. You are not really looking for the truth, you are the lawyer!.
     Did you come into the world to spend 70-80 years and return to dust?
     Have you asked yourself what is the purpose of life? What is life anyway?
     After all, if there is a creator of the world, you wasted your life here on a bluff and a lie. After all, Yossi Sherid, the symbol of atheism, and the bluff thought he came from a monkey until reality slapped him in the face and he discovered that he has a soul! And you don't get a soul from a monkey!
     Generations of Jews gave themselves up to be killed for what on bluff? What nation had prophets who prophesied truly? No religion has prophecies for the future because only a nation that received it from the creator of the world could set up prophets to prophesy the future
     After all, no religion in the world has challenged the Tanakh because all nations know what Jews deny!

     What is a Jew? This question is not at all strange as it may seem at first. Let's see what special creature it is. All the rulers of the world and all the nations oppressed him and oppressed him and drove him out and trampled him, persecuted him, burned him and drowned him, and he continues to live and exist. What is a Jew - who was never able to be seduced by any temptations in the world, that his oppressors and persecutors offered him, provided that he renounces his religion and abandons the faith of his ancestors. A Jew is a holy being who obtained eternal fire from heaven and illuminated life on earth with it. It is a source and wellspring from which all other nations drew their religion and their faith.
     - Lev Tolstoy
     incidentally
     The burning and dark primitive Korans learn the "nonsense" of Hazal
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPfVINDPMkc&spfreload=10
     There is no limit to bluff!!!

263. You're right, every time they find something that doesn't fit their claims, they'll say that's not what the sages meant.

264. rival
     Don't fall for the trap - if you define "horn" as what is on the heads of mammals then the sentence must be true. It's like with the water animals - if you only look at the fish then it's clear that those who have scales will have fins because every fish has fins.

     The thing is - the fact that there is occasionally something true in the Torah is not surprising. What should be surprising is how many incorrect things there are.

     And what interests me the most is Raphael's thunderous silence 🙂

265. I didn't understand, are you saying that the two bumps on the head of the snake in the picture are made of the same material as a tooth?

266. Miracles,

     Do the bumps on the heads of the animals you brought meet the definition of "horns"? Are they made of the same material as the deer horn for example?

267. rival
     or the fish: https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/68/131068-004-40D0A612.jpg

268. rival
     or the snake: http://www.ddcr.org/florafauna/Images/Reptiles/Detail/Arabian%20Horned%20Viper/1.jpg

269. rival
     Yes - this horn is actually a tooth. But this is how this Australian bird (which is capable of killing a person):
     https://www.google.co.il/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiUv5jWwqHQAhVGtxQKHXSHB6wQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsavethecassowary.org.au%2Fabout%2F&psig=AFQjCNHVh5GaFcEGoD8uyQa1dfjmYhT_Xw&ust=1478981779843777

270. The full name is a unicorn innovator (one-tooth unicorn) but after further examination it became clear to me that this might not be the best example, not that there aren't good examples.

     By the way, according to Zamir Cohen's website Giraffe is kosher.

271. Miracles,

     I think that according to Halacha a giraffe is kosher, but ask him what about a innovator:

     http://data.ba-bamail.co.il/Images/2013/10/30/65868b8a-2fa5-4498-ab08-d85f6227fe92.jpg

     How does this fit with the Halacha which stated: "Anyone who has horns has talifs, and some have talifs but do not have horns"?

272. rival
     He doesn't understand sea animals. But - ask him what about a giraffe?

273. Nissim, you're really right, I didn't notice that he listed every marine creature, I'm just quite familiar with this argument of theirs and I know that they usually emphasize that it only refers to fish.

274. Miracles, I really didn't notice that he listed every marine creature, I just know their argument pretty well and I know they are fishers

275. rival
     And if he changes his position, and says that it's only fish, then he won't do well either - if he didn't have fins then he wouldn't be a fish...

276. rival
     for sure. After he emphasized that it was any marine creature...
     And there are turtles in the sea. And there are alligators in the sea. But, why confuse it with facts?

277. Nissim will tell you that the sages only talked about fish.

278. Yaron
     A sea snake has scales. A sea snake has no fins.

279. Yaron
     A sea snake has scales and no fins.

280. Yaron,

     Show me a scientific article in which it is written that Kima has a central star system that includes 100 stars, and show me a scientific article that says that without "the cold of the Kima system" (what is that???) our world would not exist.

     You keep trying to excuse the nonsense of sages, it won't work for you.

     Besides, since when did Rashi interpret other rabbis? What are they not speaking clearly enough? Rabbi Shmuel says very clearly that the Kima system is a system of 100 stars, I am not interested in Rashi's interpretation.

     (This refers to Yaron's new response that was released)

281. (It just reminded me that earlier you told me there was no point in arguing about it, but now it's clear)

282. rival
     This is the passage before me in the Gemara
     Shmuel Rami said, ``Job XNUMX-XNUMX'' says ``Amos XNUMX:XNUMX'' says ``Amos XNUMX:XNUMX'' and ``Amos XNUMX:XNUMX'' says ``If it wasn't for the heat of a fool, the world wouldn't exist because of the coldness of a moth, and if it weren't for the coldness of a moth.'' The world will not exist because of the heat of Kasil, that is, he talked about the essence of the star clusters, what their role was, and he was not really interested in how many stars are there
     Then later in the Gemara he asked Mai Kima? And answered 100 stars which are her main power
     So if you want to learn Gemara on Google, then fine, you probably won't learn anything there.
     K.
     If you find one creature in the water, not in the sea, on any day in the world that has scales and no fins, then the entire Torah falls because the Creator of the world cannot make a mistake! And there are no excuses. This is the idea that a human being could not know such a figure 3300 years ago and there are many other figures in the Torah that only the Creator of the world could know!
     If you learn Torah from Google, that's your problem. You probably won't learn medicine from Google, because I'm sure you won't be a doctor.

283. Ah, ok now I understand... 😉

284. rival,
     I felt obliged to use the opportunity for a play on words, don't take me for a joke... :-)

285. I'm really sorry to disturb you in your important private conversation, but with all due respect to the topic of God's morality (which, as mentioned, does not exist), even fish and scales and the other nonsense written in the Gemara is an important enough topic.

286. rival,
     As an ex-combat woman, stop ranting! :-)

287. A.
     I will try to summarize a possible argument from the point of view of a religious person, tell me if it is acceptable to you.

     1) Humans are limited creatures and cannot know what is moral in an absolute manner.
     2) There is a divine being, omnipotent, omniscient, unlimited, etc., who acts according to absolute moral principles.
     3) From 1 and 2 it follows that in order to behave morally one must always prefer the commands of the divine being.

     Is so far acceptable?

288. A',

     Where did I claim that these things are written in the Torah? If I said such a thing then it was of course a mistake.

     Secondly, religious websites (mainly those of converts like Zamir Cohen and his friends) do not stop presenting this knowledge as conclusive proof that these things were given to the people of Israel by God, since it is not possible (according to them) that a human being could know these things (that the earth is round, The number of stars, fish and scales...).

     It's a shame that you try to protect these religious people by force, Day.

289. A.
     I'm re-reading your last comment and you're wrong again by twisting my words, maybe you didn't understand, so I'll try to clarify. I did not claim anywhere that it is allowed to say I don't know and a religious person (like you for example) is not allowed. When I wrote that there is no symmetry between us at that point, I explained clearly that I am asking about your knowledge regarding the concept of God, the absolute morality that religious people attribute to him, and not your concept of morality. You asked me in response to my perception of morality, and there is no symmetry here. These are two very different questions. I'm guessing now in light of your last comment that you don't know what God's absolute morality is (not particularly surprising), but that's not what I asked you. You show great confidence that God is moral and therefore will not commit (or allow to commit - anyone say holocaust?) anything that is not moral. Such absolute certainty can arise from two possible reasons: 1) No matter what God does - it is moral. In such a case it is clear by this definition alone that God will indeed always be moral, even if he kills innocent babies. I really hope you don't choose this option because it is a horrible option. 2) You know for sure what God's fully objective morality is and you can guarantee that there is no such thing as murdering innocent babies. In such a case, I ask what your *your* claim is based on that you know this knowledge (especially in light of the fact that there are many reports from sources that are supposed to be reliable from your point of view that the same God has already performed such acts in the past - which proves at least willingness and ability).

     If you have another explanation (that is relevant to the question) I would be happy to receive it. If not, please consider retreating to the more plausible position that although you very much want to believe that God would be moral (in the sense that is consistent with the moral principles that we all share such as - not murdering innocent babies, and this as stated despite the reports indicating otherwise) you cannot know that this is indeed the case , and in fact, it is quite possible that sometime in the future, God will decide that he wants to appear and do similar things to what he has done so many times in the past, either by himself or by messengers. If it is indeed acceptable for you to retreat to this position, we can continue the discussion regarding what you think religious people would do in such a possible situation, in which they are ordered, for example, to perform acts which in the eyes of the prevailing morality in the civilized world (including among many religious people) are monstrous acts.

290. rival
     It is still not correct to say that it is written in the Torah because it is not.
     It is written in the Gemara or the Mishnah or any other treatise. But not in the Torah.
     It is a matter of accuracy that bothers me that you write that it is in the Torah.
     Apart from that, those who study the Gemara a little know that it tells about arguments about everything and every halacha. So it is clear that the intention is not really that it was said at Mount Sinai, otherwise there would be nothing to argue about.

291. They claim that both the Torah and the Oral Torah were both given to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai.

292. A',

     For the thousandth time (well a little less) there are too many believers who are sure that this knowledge came directly from God at Mount Sinai, and therefore there can be no mistake in it, this is how they even present it such as for example their claim that if a fish is discovered that does not meet this requirement then the entire Torah falls.

293. rival
     For the thousandth time it is not about things that are written in the Torah at all.
     Not the fish, not the scales, not the hundred stars, not the snake (which a check on Wikipedia really shows that it stores sperm but for 6 years. I couldn't find how much time is left to spawn and it doesn't interest me that much either.)

294. Yes I know, he's really thoughtful.

295. K.
     Is it really not nice to say something like that?
     I really try to answer you everything.
     Why exactly do you feel I didn't answer?

296. rival,
     It's because he doesn't want to harm freedom of choice 🙂

297. K.,

     Basically you are right, and it is the same with regard to the age of the world and evolution, they are simply not ready to accept reality if it contradicts their belief.

     But we will not stop presenting the truth to their face because, as you said, the dangers are many.

298. A.
     You consistently ignore what I asked… why?

299. God can't give an exact number? How ridiculous.

300. rival,
     Let's say tomorrow you find a marine animal that everyone agrees is a fish with scales and no shadow of a fin. Which possibility is more likely: 1) all religious people understand that the Torah is wrong and mass debauchery is occurring, or 2) one rabbi sits for five minutes on the "problem" and finds an excuse why it is not a fish, it is not scales, it is not what we intended or any excuse In another shekel? Apart from showing the blatant errors, there is no point in debating them in my opinion, because someone whose starting point is that the Torah is all truth is psychologically incapable of dealing with the possibility that it is not, and he will be ready to give up everything, the meaning of words, factual accuracy, logic , all to avoid cognitive dissonance which is beyond his powers. Think what it means for religious fanatics to be proven to have a mistake in what they believe to be a perfect thing without errors (and this is contrary to a popular opinion among other religious people), think what a broken trough this is that shakes the foundation for which they are sure they live. It is not difficult to understand that the chances that they will choose the path of finding one more excuse to the multitudes of excuses that already exist tend to 1.

301. Yaron,

     Never mind, I checked on Google, "Mai Kima" in Aramaic means "what is Kima" (meaning "what is the star system Kima") and the answer was about a hundred stars.

     Enough with the excuses.

302. Yaron,

     "But he asked Mai Kima?" In other words, he asked about essence and not about quantity.

     I don't know Aramaic, for a start tell me first what the exact literal meaning of the word "May" is.

303. rival
     Regarding chemistry
     It is said in the Gemara
     "May Kima? Shmuel said about a hundred stars. Tell her (some say) Damkanfi (that they are grouped and close to each other), and tell her (and some say) Dambadran (that they are scattered)." And see in Rashi's commentary that the question "May Kima" refers to "the power of Kima". That is, its main stars, but there are even more than a hundred.
     It is clear to you that if Shmuel wanted to talk about the number of stars, he would have asked how many in kimah? But he asked what in kimah? That is, he asked about essence and not about quantity. Then there are those who have never studied a page of Gemara and make fun even though they did not even try to understand Shmuel's words .
     At the time Shmuel said these things, at most 6 stars, maybe 8, were watching him, and probably his generation also laughed about it.
     So ok then laugh

304. K.
     And I don't agree with the lack of symmetry you presented. Just because I believe doesn't mean I have to know everything or understand everything. Every person's life contains certain contradictions. And a religious person is no different in this. I don't accept that yours will be allowed to say I don't know and I'm not allowed.

305. First of all, a really nice answer.
     Mainly the one you said you don't know.
     I can continue to pester you with questions about where you decide on the rules you gave (the accessible rule of the exchange principle is really problematic. Because in my opinion it is moral to give people the right to get rich of course if they also share in the taxes, but still I would not want to be born poor).
     And in any case, you'll need some kind of axiom about morality in the end.
     But that's not what I wanted to say.
     You have an opinion about religion that it doesn't change at all and that all morality in it comes only from the ritual. This is not true. The first thing is to understand that morality is a changing thing or rather something that develops and does not just change. I can say what seems moral to me today but can't really prove it, there are things that should be clear like this kind of universal knowledge. As you say that causing minimal suffering is a rule for morality, it is a kind of axiom that should be clear to everyone living today. It follows from the fact that morality in the developing world will be different and higher in the future (it's hard to know how exactly one can only expect the next step like global vegetarianism) and in the past it was also lower. It can be said that it is even immoral to expect the people of Israel to conquer the land according to the Geneva Convention, but they were expected to respect the alliance with the Gibeonites and to bury and not desecrate the enemy's corpses as was customary. Hazel yes, in each generation things were interpreted in a way that would be more appropriate and even achieve morality. When they did it, it should be understood that they did not slander those who preceded them, just as the Americans do not remove the image of Washington either. On the contrary, they freed the slaves because it is "against" the so-called constitution (how is it against the constitution if Washington signed it?) or they gave the right to marry to same-sex couples because that's how the court interpreted the constitution (you have to be stupid to believe that this was the intention of the legislator. The whole matter of the American constitution It's an image that comes to explain, don't start telling me why it's not similar) That's why they took verses and removed from them (or gave explanations like the prohibition of bigamy in the fear that if each woman is in a different country then two brothers might meet and get married without knowing that they are brothers, obviously that's not the reason)
     Secondly, you think that everything Chazal said stems only from technical rules without any consideration of universal moral logic. And that's not true either. I heard there are many examples of this. For example, there is a rule that something that is explicitly written in the Torah is a more severe prohibition than something that is not. It is written in the Torah that it is forbidden to eat a pig, but it is not written that it is forbidden to eat a person (not that it is allowed. A person is not a kosher animal) so they ask if a person is on a desert island and he must eat to live, what is better for him to be able to? On the face of it, it is better that he can eat human flesh. And all the sages agreed no!! And the explanation was not some verse they interpreted, they said that every time a halachic falsification reaches the point where it contradicts morality, morality prevails. And there are other examples but I won't bore you

306. A.
     Morality is not an absolute thing but I am sure that there are actions that both you and I will agree are immoral.
     One of those things is punishing a person for the crime of another. Another one is the ringing of babies…

307. A.
     Contrary to my (and your) limited knowledge, God, according to the religionists, is the only one who has absolute knowledge about what is good and what is not good, what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral. When the faith also holds that we, the limited human beings, cannot be like God, therefore there may be a situation in which God decrees something that we do not understand and may even seem unjust to us, but as mentioned this is only because of our limitations, because God cannot make a mistake in the definition. Precisely because of this (seeming) certainty, the problem arises. You claim that there is no problem because God is not immoral, but first of all you don't really know what is moral and what is not in God's eyes (you are welcome to convince if you think you have this knowledge), and in addition, the same God has already done things in the past for me and for many others (I don't care If it's also for you right now) this is monstrous behavior. Where is your assurance that such a person will not act like this again? (Regarding the same things he has already done in the past).

308. A.
     You are wrong, there is no symmetry in our questions. I am asking about your knowledge of what is moral in God's eyes and not in your own eyes.

309. A.
     I have no pretension to know what is absolute moral for the conduct of human society (I have no reason to think that there is anyone who has such knowledge), in the absence of absolute knowledge, it is up to us - human society, to find what are the rules that should be followed. I can only try to act according to rules of thumb that arise from considerations of symmetry (such as equality before basic rights - life, body integrity, freedom of expression, freedom of worship, etc.) and considerations related to quality of life (primarily reducing suffering). In my opinion, finding a way in which the maximum number of people has the maximum freedom, while causing the least suffering and disturbance to others is a proper principle. Religion in advance creates a symmetry breaking in a way that is neither justified nor decent in my opinion. Religion, at least the religions I know, do not work in the other directions I mentioned above either. One of the best tests of whether a certain behavior is moral is the lottery test. Would you be willing to accept any status in a society governed by certain rules if you did not know in advance what status you would be born into. If you take a simple example, then having slavery is not a moral conduct, because no one was interested in being a slave. It's on the edge, but remind you, that's not the question at hand.
     The question was how do you know what is moral and what is not in God's eyes?

310. I repeat my question
     How do you know what is moral?
     You had no problem expecting me to pull out an answer in a second
     So why don't you answer me?
     It can't be that hard.
     The truth is yes. If you can't answer that's fine, you can say I at least have a little trouble explaining.

311. I am not afraid of God any more than I am afraid of Russell's teapot, I am very afraid of those who believe in such an absolute being without apparent justification, and who base a significant part of their behavior on what is attributed to that being, which includes conduct that according to my moral standards is monstrous conduct. Saying this, if it turns out that the divine being that most religious people believe in does exist, I refuse to listen to it for reasons of conscience. Of course, all of this is nonsense because, as mentioned, no convincing argument has yet been presented regarding the existence of such a being in the first place.

312. K.
     Sorry to bring the question back
     How do you know what is moral?

313. A.
     How do you know what is moral and what is not in God's eyes?

314. A.
     Sorry - I didn't understand you! I also do not believe in the existence of an immoral god!

315. A.
     The God described in the Torah in my eyes is immoral. On the one hand - he punishes sons for the actions of fathers. On the other hand - Kane, who murdered, got to live a full life and even build a city and call it after his son. And I will not go into the story called "Noah's Ark story" at all.
     You can tell about Elisha, about Job, about the prophets of Baal, about the daughter of Jephthah...
     Maybe I have different standards than you, regarding what is a moral act? 🙂

316. I really don't understand your fear of an immoral god suddenly appearing. I thought you didn't believe in God.
     I'm not worried about this desert because I don't believe in the existence of an immoral god any more than you don't believe in God.

317. Appointing a prime minister or president is also dangerous.
     And I repeat and emphasize that Rabbi is not God's representative. He must not claim that he talks to God and there is no claim that he is never wrong (sometimes there are bugs and just as democracy can turn into a dictatorship religion is reduced to a messianic or a kind of cult. Then a group admires a lot even though it turns out that he is a miracle for example. Because it "could not be" that he A sin because he is a great rabbi.) You may have the impression that most religious people support the rabbis who committed a crime, but this is not the case, since the supporters always make more noise.

318. A.
     So I repeat the question regarding the scenario in which the divine being is revealed in one way or another (of course, not necessarily in the form of a loving grandfather) and commands to do actions that are not fundamentally different from the almost routine conduct that appears in the scriptures attributed to that being. In particular, what do you think a religious should do who has just been ordered by the highest authority as far as he is concerned, the same entity that will also determine his fate and that he believes wholeheartedly that he will be punished if he refuses to comply with the order. I have a little trouble understanding why this is a difficult question for a religious person who wholeheartedly believes in a divine being like that of Judaism.

319. A',

     In Judaism there is no human dictator but there are people like rabbis and clerics who represent a superhuman dictator.

     And as K. said it is dangerous.

320. What I wanted to say in the previous message is that it is wrong to say that religion was founded on "primitive" values, while democracy is based on high values ​​that just need not be destroyed. Specifically, the Jewish religion was built on high and innovative values ​​for the time. And precisely over the years the Sages continued and advanced them (yes also with the effects of worldwide progress) such as for example the ban on polygamy and the de facto abolition of the death penalty.
     Judaism has almost always maintained a moral statement at least one step ahead of the world. Who guarantees that they will continue? nobody. But I really believe it will happen. The last time there was such a discussion here it was about homosexuality. And I said that we are in the midst of a change, and indeed that month a letter was published by a large group of rabbis that shows the beginning of a change

321. American democracy was founded on the slavery of people of different skin color. Not only that the fathers of the nation who enslaved slaves are emblazoned on their bills even today. I personally live on the street named after Moshe Dayan and if he were alive today he would share a cubicle with the former president. Who guarantees that we will not go back. Who guarantees that they will not cancel the law forbidding the decline of stocks? Or will they return to the old interpretation of the sentence that all men are equal that appeared already then in the constitution? I believe it won't happen. Why? Because it is part of my faith. Faith of a developing world that is learning and becoming more moral and more advanced. And even when it doesn't seem like it, I believe that every drop is meant to create a bigger increase. And when the world radicalizes (really not just religion. Religious radicalization is just an expression of a much broader radicalization) I look back to the slightly more distant past and see that what used to be considered the order of the day is considered immoral and what was "a little ugly" today is criminal.

322. A dictator is a sole ruler
     There is no such person in Judaism. And the Jewish religion without centralized control like the Catholic Church. (not to be confused, the chief rabbi is not a supreme authority in the Jewish religion) It is true that intellectuals usually have less influence on the secular public than rabbis, but it was an image. And an image doesn't have to be the same. He came to try to explain. Before continuing, I just want to ask you to leave a moment in advance of an argument and an attempt to convince. I have no interest in convincing you just to answer the question I am starting from the premise that you asked out of a sincere desire to understand and not to be convinced. If it's not so, shame on my effort because I have no chance to explain. I mean that when I give an image to something that is in your mind, don't go into the mindset of explaining why it is not a good image and why the religious way of thinking is wrong, but try to understand the image and the fact that the thing also exists in the secular way, even if with a low intensity

323. A.
     Thanks for the clarification about the extremes.

     Definitely agree that this is a general problem in the conduct of human society. The point is that in a religious society of the type of Judaism there is a built-in problem that complicates matters beyond what exists in comparison to a democratic society for example, where (in a democratic society) the scale of values ​​is from the beginning striving for equality in fundamental rights on the one hand, the provision of freedom (including freedom of religious worship) on the other hand and the provision of protection against vulnerability Third party possibilities. In religion there is no maintenance of the value of principled equality, therefore it is prone to actions that are characterized by all the things I mentioned before such as coercion, exclusion, etc. So democracy at most has a *technical* problem of how to conduct itself in a way that will benefit the general public, but in religion this principle does not exist, and it certainly does not exist for everyone to an equal extent (at least in principle, let alone practically).

324. A.
     And just to add a small but important refinement to the previous things. A writer or a "great" (secular) spiritual person does not claim to represent absolute divine truth, even if they have firm opinions on the subject, and do not possess a control mechanism of the "fear of heaven" type. In this respect, the power possessed by religious leaders is much greater and more similar to the power of a dictator, even if he is only a representative of that dictator.

325. K.
     As for extremism, I meant something completely different. My intention is that, for example, as far as Raphael is concerned, I am extreme in that I accept evolution, and he is somewhat right, this is an opinion that is at the end of the scale of accepting science in Judaism. But there is still an opinion.
     Regarding your question about maintaining morality, first of all it is a complex and good question and I am not sure I will be able to explain it by typing on my cell phone. Kedem Kal means that the question is true not only about Judaism but about every social system. Who guarantees you that the majority in a democracy will not decide to violate your rights? A bunch of people chosen as judges? The only condition really to be a judge is law school. Not that I'm against democracy, it's the best system of government today, but of course it also can't guarantee your happiness 100%
     Continue for a few more minutes. ..

326. Raphael
     why are you so scared Do you have no confidence in your faith?

327. A.
     The definition of a "big" rabbi is not one of the important things I wrote about. Much more important is that, in a built-in way in religion, there is a problem of a moral compass, because on the one hand it is based on commands that the believers believe, without good justification in my opinion, that they come from a higher authority that must fulfill its will, and on the other hand the instructions, some of which are compatible with natural morality (such as not to murder, such as respecting the different, etc.), a morality that exists with great success even without a religious framework, and some of them are blatantly opposed to such morality. Since the supreme being is not available (and may not even exist at all), religious people are forced to choose the values ​​according to what seems to them to serve the particular Jewish stream to which they belong at that time, and there is no religious mechanism that can stop them even if their decisions include adopting a value scale that places high Coercion, exclusion, discrimination, cancellation and reduction of difference and other violent ways of acting, since all those invalid values ​​that are contrary to natural human morality are found and confirmed in the scriptures attributed to that divine entity (whether it is true or not). For example, if one day an important rabbi announces that a person or group is an Amalek, and everyone knows that there is an explicit commandment to erase the memory of an Amalek, it is easy to understand how religious people who consider that rabbi to be an authority representing God's will on earth, may understand that the Creator's will is to erase their memory of those people. In another case it could be a persecutory law or any other procedure that means violent behavior towards those who hold other opinions. From the lines of your answer regarding the issue of moderation/extremism, I get the impression that you don't think it's problematic (for example, to apply a Halacha state to the general public), is that correct?

     I would like to present you with a thought experiment. Let's say tomorrow the divine being shows up (I assume she's allowed to make up her mind even if told otherwise at an earlier stage, it wouldn't be the first time she's changed her mind). For one reason or another, all the great rabbis are convinced and accept that this is indeed the true divine being. The entity is removed, through a chosen emissary from one of the rabbis, that she is angry with the harsh people who have done evil in her eyes (with reference to the seculars, for example), and she commands all those who believe in her to unite and enforce her mitzvot. In particular, it commands that from this moment the death penalty for desecrating the Sabbath be applied to everyone, regardless of race, sex or age. The messenger tries to speak to her heart and begs for mercy, but she is mature, not ready to back down even a millimeter from her decision. The religious implore the seculars that they must repent immediately or they will be swallowed up, but the overwhelming majority of the seculars are not convinced. What do you think the believers should do in such a situation?

328. Raphael
     Can we please return to a normal form of discussion? No profanity.
     I don't think it suits you. Contrary to what you might think I have a lot of extension to go. Especially the fact that even though you live in an ultra-Orthodox environment and define yourself as ultra-Orthodox and most of your surroundings do not enlist in the army. Still you sent your natives to enlist.
     It disrespects you to call me a clown or a flatterer because of my opinions.

329. Raphael,

     A clown is someone who thinks that the world was created 6000 years ago, and that people who lived thousands of years ago did not make mistakes.

     Funny you call others clowns.

330. A. You have caught the art of twisting your friend the clowns. I did not say that today's bat lays eggs.

331. Sages were definitely wrong and I gave enough examples.

332. Raphael,

     It's just amazing that someone who believes in such delusional things that have no connection between them and reality calls others clowns, have you thought that maybe you are the clown?

333. The writer there is actually trying to say that the bat of the Gemara is not the animal simulating a flying mouse that we know. Nor did I say that Rashi was wrong. What is certain is that today's bat does not lay eggs and did not lay eggs 2000 years ago. I raised a possibility or rather I agreed with the possibility that it is really a different animal and not as Rashi says it is what we call a bat. You know that Rashi is not the only commentator. But no problem, you can believe that bats do lay eggs and science just hasn't discovered it yet

334. I am not Rabbi Nedel's advocate and I have no interest in explaining him. I'm talking about you. To say that Rashi was wrong is an understatement. First you will reach the millionth of his knowledge and holiness and only then maybe and maybe you will be able to reflect on him that he was wrong.

335. How much boldness is required to say that Rabbi Gedaliah Nedel, one of the senior students of Chazon Ish, and from my beginning including Chazon Ish. Goes beyond the Bible and is too simple. When he writes, "The description of the creation of man from the dust is in a metaphorical and suggestive way. The Almighty did not take a spoonful of dirt and fill it with water, as the children do in the garden... The creation of man in the image of G-d is the end of a long process, which began with a non-intelligent being, belonging to the category of animals, which gradually progressed because it was given the human mind, and at the same time also the form The human physiology we know... Darwin's evidence, and that of paleontologists, for the existence of such earlier stages, seems convincing. Darwin's mistake is in the general view of things, which avoids the question of how the changes came about. But with the recognition of the divine will working in nature through the angels - we have no need to rule out the description of the events as the scientific investigation presents them... The person about whom it is said "we will be made man in our image" is a final stage of gradual progress."
     What will you say now? Didn't I get to the bottom of his mind? That he basically says that there was no evolution?
     For a moment I am not saying that there are no other views in Judaism. You have the right to choose your opinion. What you have no right to say is the only legitimate opinion.
     All the explanations you yourself have brought show what I am saying. that the statement refers to the matter of determining the Halacha.

336. Raphael
     Maybe it will surprise you - but the "Yaden" is not a site for religious preaching.
     Trying to have a discussion here. I asked you a simple question and you are unable to answer it.
     You really can't have a meaningful discussion!

337. A.
     There is no Bible that simply says that if it is written that the world was created in six days and everything was created as it was, then it is impossible to interpret it otherwise. And it won't matter how much the religious-petty ones try to please the clowns of the generation - it won't change. What fierceness should one have who says that the Sages were wrong? After all, it has already been said that if we are first as angels, then we are as humans, and if we are first as humans, then we are as donkeys, and not as Pinchas ben Yair's donkey.

338. A',

     I'm sure if he wanted to he would have responded here, what's more, in the meantime there were enough articles on the subject of evolution. I remember he said he was nearing the end of reading the book and promised to return shortly to report. And then he disappeared.

     Maybe I'm wrong but I have the feeling that he entered into some kind of crisis of faith following all the discussions here and reading the book, it seems to me that he became convinced that evolution is true and it conflicted with the things he believed in until today.

339. Raphael
     All the examples you gave speak of Halacha only. I'll give you another example. There is a verse "A man who dies in a tent..." and there is a midrash that says it is a Torah tent. On the face of it, this is not a simplification, that is, it takes the Bible out of its simplicity. But that's not the case. Because as long as we agree regarding the Halacha that it is a normal tent and not a Beit Midrash then it is fine. The saying does not mean that everything must be understood only in the simplest way. Ella came to say that when it comes to Halacha, you really can't take things out of the ordinary. If it is written not to eat pork, you can make as many sermons as you want on each and every word and as much gematria as you want. But as for the Halacha, what the Bible should actually do is not too simple. There can be a sermon that a pig signifies, let's say, the nation of the world, and in order the saying does not disqualify the Pharisee as long as he does not change the Halacha, and to the question of what is not allowed to eat, the answer remains pig and they do not come to say that it is forbidden to eat Gentiles.

340. rival
     Out of the Box never responds to articles that are not already on the home page. In my opinion, he is surfing on a cell phone and doesn't know that he needs to turn the device over. You should see recent comments.
     K.
     It is true that the definition of a great rabbi is "problematic", but also a definition of a great man of spirit and a great writer (as opposed to a popular writer, which can be measured)
     I guess you mean it when you call me moderate
     But moderate is really something relative and subjective in many ways and in many ways you can say that I am rather extreme.

341. http://www.hidabroot.org/article/83047

342. Speaking of old commenters, I wonder where "outside the box" went... the last time we talked to him here about a year ago, he told us that he was nearing the end of the book "Why evolution is true", and promised to come back and report as soon as he finished it, and then he suddenly disappeared.

     Could it be that the book and all the discussions we had here with him undermined his faith? I wonder what's going on with him.

343. A.
     In other words, what is decisive for religious people right now is what religious people who are wise and good in the eyes of God (I don't even know where to begin to explain how problematic such a definition is, because in fact it is in their own eyes) will decide that this is the right thing to do. For example, if religious people think that from an honest interpretation of God's will the best thing for the Jews is for a halachic state to be established here (why if, there are quite a few who talk about this openly) and that within the framework of an honest and true interpretation lifestyles that are contrary to the halachic must be rigidly enforced (such as in matters of modesty, observance Shabbat, homosexual relations, etc.) so I am not clear what the moral boundaries are that protect me from those religious people. Since I have no reason to think that any divine being exists, and as mentioned, I have never been presented with an argument that meets the minimum criterion of being logically correct or non-trivial at the level of presupposing that God exists as an unreasoned axiom, I see with increasing concern how a trend of religious extremism is taking place before my eyes when I have no reason to think that there is something supernatural that will at some point set a limit to this extremism. In fact, the darkest and most extreme religious groups that exist today are clear evidence that even such crazy things can pass. Since the religious community sincerely believes that its leaders are the best interpreters of God's will, it is easy to understand that in fact there is no barrier in the form of a natural internal moral compass that protects those who do not belong to the extremist current on duty against extreme acts that will come and multiply with a probability that tends to 1. When a parent neglects his children, and does not give them clear feedback and boundaries, some children tend to develop extreme behavior that ultimately hurts the whole family. How many times does it take for the "temple to be destroyed" for the religious to realize that they have a serious "navigation" problem?

     Beyond the question of the existence of a divine being, a question that, as mentioned, interests me in terms of the justifications that believers have to provide for their private faith, I, and many others, have a serious concern about the consequences of this type of faith, where in the end good and bad are determined according to the ephemeral interpretation of *Beni- Adam* based on texts that allow in principle and depth to reach value scales the likes of which are only seen in dark countries. Don't you think that moderate religious people should not stand on their hind legs in the face of this rising extremism, not out of concern for the secularists, but out of the understanding that they will very quickly become victims themselves, as has happened time and time again in the history of religious extremism?

344. A.
     certainly! I'm only talking about the current discussion.

345. Miracles
     What you said is absolutely not true. Commented here (on the site) several believers with opinions not far from mine.
     Mostly maybe for a shorter time but there were.

346. Raphael
     Maybe be more specific about what you are angry about

347. Raphael
     Among the religious people here - A is the only one who speaks from his head and you can have a discussion with him and learn from him.
     You - just belittle the difference from you and avoid questions.

348. A.
     Stop your pathetic condescension to these clowns already

349. A.
     Stop your pathetic condescension to these clowns already
     Here you will read a little about what "no Bible is too simple" (from the Talmudic micropedia):

     In the entire Torah, there is no scripture that goes beyond the simple hand (Shabbat 2; Yavmot XNUMX), that although the scripture is required in the sermon, in any case it is not taken out of its simple meaning (Rashi Yavmot Shem)[XNUMX].

     Examples:

     And the daughter of a priest, because she begins to commit fornication with her father, she commits adultery (Leviticus XNUMX), even though they demand the same fate for her father, in any case there is no scripture that comes out of the hand of a simpleton, to say that if they treated her father as holy, they treat her with dirt, honor, they treat her with lewdness (Thus. Sanhedrin N. B. D. A. when he. And I. Rashi there who did not interpret it that way).
     And you shall not give a scratch to the soul (Leviticus 3:XNUMX), that even though the soul is required for a sermon, in any case it does not come out of the hands of its simple, who is only obligated to scratch the dead person only (Rashi Mechot XNUMX end of XNUMX), and the like in the matter[XNUMX].
     There is an exception in one place, where the sermon completely takes the verse out of its context: And the firstborn that you give birth to will stand in the name of his dead brother (Deut. We learned that it means that the son will inherit the estate in the name of his dead brother and his brothers will not divide it with him, and the plainness of the Bible is completely uprooted, that it should not happen to his son in the name of his dead brother (Yavmot XNUMX), and so it was for them in the Kabbalah from their Rabbis (Rashi Shem).

350. K.
     Yes. Judaism believes that when the Messiah comes, he will say what the Halacha should be.
     And of course everything is based on the fact that the rabbi is sincere and honest and really tries to understand and rule correctly. And also that he will really be a good person with good qualities, etc.

351. A.
     You wrote: "The Halacha is determined according to human beings and God has already "straightened out" (they demanded the verse "It is not in heaven")"

     Can you tell what are the settings for this mode? In other words, will a situation happen in which God will say something like this - friend, so far, you have exaggerated! I don't accept that! : – )

352. rival
     I tried to explain the meaning of the statement. In any case, it was said about all non-biblical Jewish content. The Gemara is a small part of it. This saying was said even before the Gemara was written. And you have to understand that the intention cannot be in the physical sense of the thing. The saying also appears in a slightly different form "these and these are the words of the living God" meaning when there is a dispute and against Hillel says that the verse should be understood this way and Shamai says exactly the opposite then the two things are as if God himself said. So it is not meant that they are both prophets (the Sages have already said that prophecy has ceased and none of the sages claimed to be a prophet) and how can that be true, since they say exactly the opposite? Those who have a spiritual statement here that both opinions have a place in Judaism as if God said them even though in practice we will have to decide and do only one of the things. And not only that, they continue to teach and learn the second opinion even though they don't act as it says.
     The point is that Judaism contains complexity and sometimes it is exactly the opposite of what converts are looking for. They want simplicity and absolutes. "One truth and no questions at all, everything is true and there can be no mistake. There is one way to understand the Torah" (as Raphael said, "There is no Bible that is too simple" it doesn't matter that it means something completely different) all the plurality of opinions in Judaism only bothers them.

353. anonymous,
     You wrote: "You don't think you'll go to the science website and get all the answers about religion, do you? After all, you can't really argue about religion seriously through this site. This is not the place and there are no knowledgeable people here."

     Did I ever claim it was my will? Again you are distorting reality... I am simply asking for answers from religious people who enter here regarding their justifications for their belief in something that seems to me illogical and completely unnecessary. So far, I have not received any argument on the subject that did not already contain an embarrassing logical error at the beginning.
     Why do you think there are no knowledgeable people here? Again you pretend to know the secrets of people you don't know? And besides, when I'm interested in knowing what a certain person's justifications are for his private belief, shouldn't he be able to answer such a simple question himself? Do you really think that religious people are so ignorant that they are unable to explain to themselves why they believe in the main thing that their whole life revolves around? Also for this they need a rabbi to tell them what to do? I really hope not…

     So here you are invited to answer, why do you believe in a divine being (of course there is no point in answering this question if you do not believe in such a being, just say it clearly so that it doesn't look like you are evasive).

354. anonymous,

     1. You said something and its opposite, if God is indescribable, then how do you know that he is "the greatest of all"?? You just described him!

     2. I am still waiting for your answer regarding the Nissim fossil, why are you not willing to accept it as a transition fossil between monkey and man? What do you think such a fossil should look like?

355. anonymous,
     You wrote: "But the real truth is that everyone in the secret of their hearts is preparing for that God who is the greatest of all and indescribable.."

     I don't know what everyone means in the secret of their hearts (and you don't know it either, a little modesty won't hurt) but it is implied from your words that you believe in "a God who is the greatest of all and indescribable". Since "everyone" includes you as well, can you confirm this or do you prefer to deny your previous words?

356. here read here –

     http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/halacha/abiogenesis.html?print

357. A',

     Check that again, they also claimed that mice are made of mud, and that's regardless of the lice issue.

358. A.
     What is this nonsense that every fish with scales has fins? Even fish without scales have fins.
     If it doesn't have fins then it's not a fish.... Dhahaha

359. A',

     I do not know about new laws established in our time, but they insist that the words written by Sages in the Gemara originate from the Mount Sinai situation, as I have shown this is not possible.

360. rival
     Why not dwell on the snakes. I'm really interested in whether it's finger-sucking or true. And lice come from the mud not mice.
     And it's not nice to laugh about it. The entire scientific world thought so (until the great experiment with the rotten meat and the net) and it is not written in the Torah that these Sages were dealing with a halachic issue either. More often than not, when there is a halachic issue, it is said that sages went and studied and asked to know information based on which they would judge, they did not sit and wait for God to tell them the answer. Sometimes the information they received was incorrect. Even then, by the way, they do not cancel their ruling according to the principle that God accepts the ruling of the sages even if it is wrong, and therefore even today it is permissible to kill lice on Shabbat. Sometimes their information is also correct. For example when there was a question about when I see a piece of fish with scales but I don't know what kind it is and whether it has scales. can i eat it Sages checked and based on this that no fish with scales without fins was found (that is, this was the scientific truth of the time, just as all white swans were once the scientific truth) and even today it is scientifically true as long as no such fish is found (there is no difference between then and now and there is no scientific knowledge It's missing that they miraculously overcame it. Even today we don't know all the varieties of fish that exist.)

361. rival
     The issue with Mount Sinai is about the entire oral Torah, not just the Gemara. That is, also about what is written today and about different opinions in Halacha up to our time. And we are talking about a saying that came to give effect and not the intention that everything the sages said will always be true (am I reminding you not to get confused with the Pope?) but I don't blame you for that being the impression you got.

362. Yaron
     Is it acceptable to you that all the information about a living creature is first contained within a single cell? And in particular - is the information in the genes and proteins that are in the same cell?

363. A',

     It's not that important, there's so much other nonsense written in the Gemara (pregnancy time of wolves and lions, the number of stars in the chemical system, mice that are formed from mud... should I continue?) that it's a shame to dwell on this subject of snakes.

     Again, they claim that the Oral Torah was given to us by God and therefore there can be no mistakes in it.

364. As far as I know no animal's sperm can survive that long (unless you freeze it)
     Yaron
     I would love a scientific source on the subject.
     If there is anyone else who can confirm or refute the matter of the seed being kept by the serpent.

365. rival
     If it is true and I don't think it is true. It would be really petty to get caught up in the word pregnancy. And the word pregnancy doesn't even appear at all. Read the link again the word pregnancy appears only in the "translation" in the original it says "for how long does it take to give birth.." meaning how long it takes for an animal to give birth.

366. Yaron,
     No, it's the font and the red one that offers me. I trust A and Rivid to enlighten my eyes to interesting elements.
     By the way, after tanning, you return to your original color, you haven't really changed, and even if you did, this change will not affect your offspring!!!!!
     The change of the animal is through its offspring and over hundreds and thousands of years!!!! Are you serious with your answer???

367. A',

     I am merely repeating the claims of some of the believers here who claim that all knowledge in the Gemara originates from Mount Sinai, i.e. from God, so there can be no mistakes there.

     And let's say they are really right and there are snakes in which the female can keep the male's sperm for six years in her belly, calling it "pregnancy" is a joke. Pregnancy is from the moment of fertilization until birth or until the eggs are laid, to call keeping sperm in the stomach (without fertilization) "pregnancy" is ridiculous.

368. The halacha is based on the fact that, for example, if the court determined Rosh Chodesh on a certain day (Rosh Chodesh was determined by people who testified that they saw the birth of the moon), even if an error is discovered in the determination, those who celebrate the holidays in that month supposedly at the wrong time do not change it. Why? Because the Halacha is determined according to the people and God has already "straightened out" (they demanded the verse "It is not in heaven") and the Mishnah even tells about such a case. So if sages didn't present themselves as popes who can't be wrong why would we do that?

369. Rival and Iron
     Can any of you explain to me what the argument is about? Where does the statement that Sages cannot be wrong come from? They never said anything like that. Not even on Halacha.

370. Yaron
     To turn from an egg layer to a breeder with a placenta like a bat is a small change. And the change took about two thousand years, so really what is your problem with evolution. Just to be clear, this is a huge change that has no chance of happening at this time. And this damages the author's general credibility
     Some of the answers there make sense because the questions are initially weak. Like the venom thing in predators. If you look at the context of the discussion, is an animal that has been scratched considered prey, meaning that there is or is not a fear that it is considered dying and then it must not be eaten. And they state that there is concern and that any scratch is considered poison. It is not so unreasonable that an animal sick with, say, rabies and scratching will definitely cause death. Regarding the snake that the female can keep sperm for several years. I have never heard of such a thing and it sounds strange and untrue to me. I would love a scientific source for this.
     But the explanation I liked the most was the last explanation about the tiger being the bastard of a lion and a pig.
     Regarding the names of animals there can really be differences (the rat we know for example is certainly not the one in the Torah because it came from the East much later) it may be that the Torah does not speak of a bat today, it may be that it does and the Gemara thinks of a different animal and it may also be Sharshi Wrong and the Gemara does not speak of a flying mouse-like. But you still have to find according to it a mammal laying eggs. There is the duck, but it is in Australia, so it cannot be that the Gemara was talking about it, and there is a type of pigeon that secretes a kind of substance for its chicks, but there is no reason to call it a bat and not a pigeon, nor is it certain that it was common in the area. And there is also the possibility that the scientific knowledge back then was wrong. And again this does not mean that there is a God or there is not

371. Yaron,

     Evolution never claimed that a person who basks in the sun will suddenly become a different creature, or that an animal will suddenly give birth to a different kind of animal. If this is what you understood from evolution then you understood nothing.

372. Shmulik, Yaron,

     Yaron - the answers in the link you gave are a joke, in addition to what Shmulik said, ask any snake breeder how long it takes from the moment of conception until the snake lays eggs, it is much less than 3 years. What's more, I asked you in general about a wolf bear and a lion and there is no answer to that.

     By the way, Sages were also wrong about the number of stars in the "Kima" system and they were also wrong about the number of stars in the universe, many more stars were found than the number they stated, both in the universe and in Kima.

     what do you have to say about this ?

373. http://www.hidabroot.org/article/83047
     Snakes

374. Shmulik
     You can be an interpreter of this change in an existing thing. I basked in the sun. I underwent a change. I remained a human being
     Evolution according to science is a development from something to something completely different
     As a person who worships science it is puzzling that you ignore a quote from a scientific data and that is already a problem.
     It's interesting that you always get tired of reading things that contradict your opinion

375. rival,
     I assume you will go through the link Shiron Natan, I don't have the strength, but something is still terrible that amuses me
     "2 Who said it is in the consciousness of today's animals?. Besides, they may have undergone changes"
     Changes, that is, evolution?
     Thanks that's hysterical

376. K,
     I see no reason to answer anonymous. He deliberately derails the discussion so as not to address the claims presented in an honest and serious manner.
     After all, Carroll did not claim that there is no God, but through the considerations he details, he demonstrates the problematic nature of the theory of God according to the reality on the ground. He conducts a fascinating discussion that one can disagree with his claims, but it is impossible to present it in such a superficial way that, at most, indicates the surface

     A'
     I would be happy if I could watch the lecture and hold a discussion about it with us

377. About the snakes
     http://www.hidabroot.org/article/83047

378. rival
     About the snakes
     http://www.hidabroot.org/article/83047

379. rival
     In the matter of luck
     https://www.fxp.co.il/showthread.php?t=13295813

380. The snake's litter after seven years of gestation as another evidence of the Torah from Heaven:
     Claims that the snake gives birth after two months to 14 months, while the Sages write that it gives birth after seven years, and the Sages emphasize that this is a special quality only for a snake that gives birth after the longest pregnancy of all animals, and this is the intent of the Torah: "Cursed are you above every beast and every beast of the field."
     Answer: After several hundred years of the illusion of "all-knowing science", researchers "confirm" the sage's words that the snake can - in the unique way only a snake can - give birth after seven years of reproduction, because they discovered that the female snake can store the male's sperm in a special pocket in her intestine Many years after mating with the male, and after this time she can fertilize herself and get pregnant! See in "The Fauna and Flora of the Land of Israel" vol. 5 p. 30 regarding the snakes: "In many species of reptiles there is sperm storage in the females, which allows fertilization after months, even years have passed, from the time of mating, etc. Six years"! Here, add to these six years another year for conception, and you have seven years from mating to birth! (And in the answers in detail we brought more types of snakes with this feature. While the few other animals with this feature cannot preserve more than two years. Researchers still do not know how many types of snakes there are with this feature that was only recently discovered). And during this time you will not get pregnant from another snake. And Sages bring this biological fact to express the magnitude of the curse on the snake, and really you have no greater curse than this on the snake species that only gives birth once every seven years! How did the Sages "guess" this miraculous thing that all the sages of the world did not know until recently?!
     (And what is the reaction of the poker players? 1. Every "Falakh" can know this. Sages did experiments. Answer: It is interesting that what "every snake" can know, the greatest biologists in the world did not know about this phenomenon in snakes until a few decades ago. After all, without rigorous experiments of isolating the female for years, it is impossible to discover this. And like the philosopher (=scientist) in Midrash Rabbah in Genesis XNUMX who worked hard to reach this, at the time Rabbi Yehoshua knew this from the verse. Those who know a little about the diligence of sages in the Torah understand that none of them devoted seven years to researching this phenomenon... 2. No preservation of sperm in the female body is called "pregnancy". Answer: "Pregnancy" is the definition intended by the speakers, and not a zoological definition invented by Man Dahu thousands of years later. And see that it is said in the book of Genesis XNUMX XNUMX Gabi HaNash: "A snake for seven years", and it is not written that conception takes place with a child, and in the same name Gabi, "He is born for seventy years" which Rashi wrote: "He conceives after seventy years of being born". So there is no intention in the GM there to stay in a state of birth in the intestines. And Ibid. Ibid. that Rashi writes in the Bible "For how much he conceives and begets": "How much his womb dwells in his bowels"! In the Midrash Rabbah he wrote: "For how many snakes give birth", that is: the time from mating to birth. 3. Only some snakes delay sperm for seven years, and only under certain conditions. Answer: This phenomenon has been discovered in several types of snakes (the type of anger, the trickling python, etc. And there is no knowledge that the other snakes do not have this phenomenon, because it is difficult to investigate this phenomenon as this phenomenon is the "will" of the female snake and zoologists continue to investigate this in recent years, and just as there is nothing of this phenomenon in any snake until recently, surely many innovations have been made in this matter In all snakes. Because the Sages probably meant the maximum time that the female can delay herself from giving birth, as we derived from Rashi's language: how long does she stay, etc. And of course she can give birth even before this time, so it is not difficult than seeing snakes give birth 7 years ago. And the meaning of the verse is the curse that exists in this phenomenon, that the female prevents herself from impregnating until the time that is convenient for her within the seven years, and during that time she cannot impregnate with other snakes. And this causes the depletion of the snake population, which is a great curse for that animal. And it is a huge wonder how sages knew about the rare possibility of such a late birth. And the fact that even before we publicly discovered the latest research on this possibility, "Deat Emet" counters number 3 scoffed venomously at such a possibility and firmly claimed that no snake can give birth after a year of spawning and a year and two months of fertilization! Here is a quote from his "wise" words after quoting the sage's words about seven years: "There was not and was not created. Most snakes in general lay eggs and the time, from the time of fertilization to the hatching of the eggs, is between two and fourteen months (according to the type of snake). The spawning snakes have a transit time of up to one year and usually three months. Every XNUMXrd grade textbook contains these realistic facts in detail." The Sage came to mock this and was ridiculed. Until someone asked on the opposite website: maybe the birth is later than seven years, they just cut the snake's belly before the time... (which is stupid, because they discovered this phenomenon not only by cutting the belly but by observing the maximum time of natural births!). And even if the Sage's intention is simply that all snakes can give birth to 7, and it will be discovered in research today that not all snakes are able to do this, then the nature will change in this, that there is no such thing now in permanence in all snakes, like other things that have changed in nature, especially in matters of the time of insemination, such as the time of insemination The dog and the cat mentioned in Genesis XNUMX. And even in the case of humans it has changed, A' Nada XNUMX OT that once a woman who gave birth on the ninth month would not give birth to the first part but at the end of the ninth month in full, and nowadays many women give birth at the beginning of the ninth The third taste" that natures have changed). Prof. Steinberg's medical halachic index, vol. 244, p. XNUMX onwards, many things that have changed.

381. anonymous,

     Why are you avoiding an answer? You asked for an intermediate fossil between ape and man and Nisim gave you a link to a fossil that meets exactly this requirement, a fossil that represents a skeleton that is exactly in the middle between ape and man, do you accept this fossil as an intermediate fossil? And if not why?

382. rival
     I actually answered. for miracles You are welcome to read. (He fails to understand that these are still hypotheses and not proofs. This is only a theory).

     K.
     You have no idea what I believe and what I don't believe.
     Every time you come across a situation where you remain unanswered in the face of the evidence, you begin to move into personal lines. And it's a pity.
     I would like you to maintain a uniform line in your responses.

     Regarding all your questions about religion, it is advisable that you contact the authorized authorities and devote a lot of time to study the subject.
     You don't think you'll go to the science website and get all the answers about religion, do you?
     After all, you can't really argue about religion seriously through this site. This is not the place and there are no knowledgeable people here.
     Here you can only pour out what is in your heart on the religious world..

     Anyway, regarding your statement that you described God, how exactly did you manage to describe something that cannot be described? If you succeeded then maybe tell us what he looks like?

383. Yaron
     did you hear Sean Carroll claims that God is not necessary... come on, we can close the basta 🙂 🙂

384. rival
     God didn't say any of the things you said. And neither does the Torah.
     Yaron
     Did you manage to publish what you wanted?
     I also know many "proofs" of this kind. (For example, the one in the Zohar says that the world is round) but on deeper research it is revealed that they are based on ignorance (Rashvi Hai after they even calculated the circumference of the earth). Hazal never claimed to learn science from the Torah. They learned science from experts and were not ashamed of it.

385. Yaron,

     You can try to divide the message into parts, send the first half first, then the second half, half of the censored part... like that until you reach the word that caused the censoring.

386. rival
     Regarding the Gemara, I answered, but it is filtered

387. Yaron,

     I can't understand you, if the one who created the world can't be wrong about a fish with fins and scales then how could he be wrong about bats that lay eggs? And regarding a 3-year gestation period for a wolf, a lion and a bear? And about a hyena that after 7 years turns into a bat?

     I would appreciate it if you could explain it.

388. A,
     Why is this a paradox?
     Democracy cannot accept an opinion that wants to eliminate democracy by virtue of its support for a variety of opinions. First of all, you have to accept the rules of the game and then play by them. The rules of the game cannot be used to destroy the game.

389. A.
     You probably don't really read what I write.
     This prophecy for the future given about life in the water is a description of an existing fact. Obviously I did not mean that the Torah stands for this I gave a total of two prominent examples out of hundreds.
     The idea that the Torah falls away comes to say that there is no way that the one who created the world can make a mistake, that's all

390. There is no room for inappropriate words

391. K.
     A completely legitimate interpretation (that doesn't mean I can't point out flaws I think it has or come up with contradictory charges)
     Alas all this as long as his approach does not see itself as the only legitimate approach (it's a kind of paradox of pluralism)
     Pluralism is ready to accept the legitimacy of opinions as long as they are also pluralistic. ?

392. Yaron
     Filtering is only by keywords. It also happens to me sometimes and to the opponent.
     Go through the message and try to look for problematic words. It's either words that can be related to inappropriate content (even if it's not the use you probably don't intend) or also to political content.

393. Yaron
     I really don't know what your knowledge of Judaism is, it could be that you are a scholar and it could be that you are ignorant.
     But where do you come up with "You will find one creature in the water, not in the sea, in every day in the world that has scales and no fins and the whole Torah falls away"
     Why would the entire Torah depend on this? And you claim that God himself said such a thing. God didn't say that. Sages said this and they never claimed to be prophets, on the contrary, they said that prophecy had ceased. They also disagreed more than once with each other and said that it is possible that they are wrong (but that nevertheless one should follow the majority ruling for example). All in all they said that if you see a piece of fish with scales of a certain type you can be sure it is kosher. Because all fish with scales have fins (an empirical scientific saying of their time. And you will be surprised, there are also scientific facts that existed in ancient times and turned out to be true)
     Where do you say that every scientific information that every sage once said must be true? (Sages also disagreed with each other so much)
     As someone who has studied quite a bit of Gemara, I can assure you that there are many scientifically inaccurate facts. So what? How is this supposed to undermine the existence of God. Even in Halacha the Sages didn't say they couldn't make mistakes, so it's easy in science

394. rival
     The Torah does not fall on one fin or the other. I gave two prominent examples with the idea of ​​showing that there is no way for a human being to know them. There are hundreds of such examples in the Torah.
     Regarding Chazal quotes, you take some quotes that have dozens of pages in the Gemara that some atheists who never bothered to study Gemara made fun of and you draw conclusions. Gemara and Torah are not learned that way
     The Gemara is loaded with hundreds of issues, each issue on tens of pages and the page is too short to explain

395. Yaron,

     Probably God doesn't want us to read your comment, you know everything from above.

396. I try to reply but unfortunately I'm filtered

397. rival
     Absolutely not about fins. There are dozens if not hundreds of examples. I brought two prominent ones. You chose to get caught up in it. The idea was to show that there are data in the Torah that a human being could not know.
     According to Hazal, the Talmud is full of issues in hundreds of pages, you take some quotes from Hazal that some atheists who never bothered to study really made fun of them and you get caught up in it like that, you don't study Gemara and certainly not Torah

398. rival
     https://youtu.be/_s0XacfkarQ
     Absolutely not about fins, there are dozens more examples, I brought two prominent ones
     Gemara is thousands of issues, every example you brought from Hashel dozens of pages, then you heard from atheists who make fun and you were convinced that way you don't learn Gemara or Torah just as you don't learn medicine from hearsay and parts of such and such quotations

399. https://youtu.be/_s0XacfkarQ
     Absolutely not about fins, I brought two prominent figures, there are dozens more

400. rival
     There really aren't dozens, I brought two that stand out in the Torah, but there are dozens including prophecies that have come true
     https://youtu.be/_s0XacfkarQ

401. There really aren't that many, I only gave 2, but there are dozens if not hundreds, including prophecies that have already been fulfilled and are being fulfilled before our eyes right now, you are welcome to be impressed
     https://youtu.be/_s0XacfkarQ
     and that's it

402. A.
     Yaron is simply a mouthpiece of a perception, or interpretation if you will, that exists in religion, where they claim that the Torah is absolute truth and that there is not a single factual error in it. Why is this claim not part of a legitimate interpretation? (in addition to being factually incorrect of course)

403. A.
     It is implied from your words that Judaism does not have a hold on objective truth and that in fact anyone who truly invests his time in studying and researching the Torah has the right to interpret things to the best of his understanding. Not only does he have a right, but it would also be okay if others accept his words and act according to his recommendation, even if other sages interpret differently and in contradiction to his interpretation and even if the other interpreters oppose the same interpretation. Moreover, even if the interpretation does not correspond to God's true intention (which is not accessible to us), we must accept the interpretation as legitimate in examining seventy aspects of the Torah. is it true?

404. Yaron,

     Why does the Torah fall only on fins and scales? Why doesn't it fall on bats that supposedly lay eggs and a 3-year gestation period for bears and wolves?

405. anonymous,
     Let's assume that we agree that there is something that is greater than it is and that cannot be described (even though we have just described it...) and that we postpone the occupation of justifying this assumption to a later date. The simple question is asked, what next? What can be deduced from the existence of such a thing, which by definition we have no ability to know anything about it other than its existence?

406. anonymous,
     No one is trying to disprove the existence of the entity you call God. All that is said (and they back it up with sound arguments) is that so far no convincing arguments have been presented for its existence or necessity, and as I have already mentioned, I know of several such famous "proofs" (such as Anselm's Proslogium, Spinoza's, Descartes's, and many others) and they all fail , at least all the ones I know. For the simple reason that they all make at least one forbidden logical leap at a certain stage (sometimes early in the argument and sometimes further down the argument) in which certainty is attributed to something that is generally not certain but only possible. What Sean Carroll, for example, presents is an argument that shows that there is no need for any divine being (and not that it does not necessarily exist as you and some other scared religious people insist on claiming while grossly distorting the facts), it also shows quite convincingly in my opinion, that the knowledge we have about the reality in which we are Haim does not support the thesis that a divine being, certainly one of the "classical" religious believers, exists, but the opposite.

     In any case, the burden of presenting the correct arguments in favor of the existence or necessity of a divine being rests on the religious, and when I seek to find out the reasons why a certain person believes in such a being, I expect him to be able to provide such arguments. In the meantime, what I was able to get from "normal" religious people with great efforts and with a lot of patience is a night of wishful thinking, a wild imagination that has no grip on reality and above all a deep inner conviction devoid of any visible justification or reason, which in other words is a fixation on a fanatical belief devoid of a realistic basis. If you have a serious argument, that is, an orderly and reasoned argument in all its stages and based on logic and supported by facts if possible, that you would like to share with us, you are welcome. If you fear (rightly in view of the previous attempts here) that you are unable to provide such an argument, then the question arises as to why you still choose to believe what you believe.

407. A.
     Where did you get blasphemy d.
     You will find one creature in the water, not in the sea, every day in the world that has scales and no fins and the whole Torah falls because the Creator of the world can never be wrong! In total it is said that a human being could never know this figure by himself 2500 years ago
     What is the blasphemy here on the contrary

408. seance
     Hundreds of thousands of séances around the world, including in Israel, most of them with gentiles or secular Jews, if there is no soul and continuation as Judaism claims, where exactly do souls come from? According to Darwinism we evolved from monkeys so where does the soul come from? Have you ever heard of a séance for a monkey or a dog?
     Clinical death
     Millions around the world describe how they came out of their bodies and looked down on everything that happened to them Gentiles, non-Jews, according to science after 6 minutes the damage to the brain is irreversible and they came back and they all describe the same thing and are alive and functioning even though there were some who had already been clinically dead for over half an hour.
     Yossi Sherid is the symbol of atheism, the Enlightenment and secularism
     Describe the same thing, how does it work out, because according to his worldview there is no such situation and it happened to him himself. By the way, Reid is not suspected of naive religiosity and stupidity with a beard

409. http://www.nrg.co.il/online/archive/ART/353/824.html

410. Yaron,

     In the link you gave, there are only flimsy excuses, and there is also no answer to most of the sections I have listed here.

411. rival
     The fact that the Oral Torah was given at Mount Sinai is a spiritual idea.
     The Oral Torah also means things like "Rabbi Yehuda said this... and Rabbi Yossi said the opposite... and Rabbi Meir did so and so..." All of this is part of the Oral Torah. The saying that everything was said on Mount Sinai means that every side in the dispute has a place and importance in Judaism, even if we do not behave as he said (for example Beit Shammai) the image that the sages brought to emphasize the point is that it is as if everything was said right on Mount Sinai. In addition, there are some specific laws that the Sages said they did not even have a clue in the verses such as the color and shape of the tefillin and on the other hand they knew for sure that this is how they should be built (this is how their father's and their grandfather's tefillin looked...) about this they said a halacha to Moses in Sinai. It is important not to mix things up. Between saying pluralism and a plurality of opinions in Halacha and saying that every scientific error said by this or that sage shows the incorrectness of Judaism.
     On the other hand, I understand where your mistake comes from. From trying to prove the existence of Judaism from the Sage's article about fish scales. (That's why I ask Raphael Viron to stop with these claims that only lead to the blasphemy of God) Understand, unlike Catholics who believe that the Pope is never wrong, Judaism and the Sages did not claim that.
     They also addressed the possibility that they are sometimes wrong. What they did say is that God gave the human beings (specifically to each one of Israel who will study and deepen the Torah) the authority to interpret the Torah and establish Halacha. And even if they err from God's original intention, God will accept it. Therefore you can bring as many scientific errors as you want from wise men. These are mistakes that stem from the scientific knowledge of the time that the Sages then were not ashamed to teach in depth (a bit in contrast to today's rabbis who are mostly clueless about science)

412. http://www.hydepark.co.il/topic.asp?topic_id=2925696&forum_id=4142

413. Yaron,
     Your last post doesn't update anything. The verses are very clear and this speaks for itself.
     You want more verses, search Ezra the writer. You decide that there were always people who knew the Torah, fine, but the Bible does not agree with you in specific verses. problem. You say that there is a Torah in the Hebrew Bible that says otherwise, wow, what luck, but again, this is extremely loose hearsay whose entire purpose is to reconcile the problematic Torah with reality (a most ingenious and blessed mechanism. The story of Achnai's oven is foundational, no doubt)

     I do not agree that the commentator is a denier. First, establish the claim that there was Mount Sinai or at least provide some archaeological evidence and then we will talk about denial. You want to believe there was something like that, fine. You cannot change the Hebrew and call your claims that there was a Mount Sinai stand, testimony.

     I once heard that when we conquered Sinai, Ben-Gurion sent archaeologists to find evidence of the Exodus. We dug and dug and nothing was discovered. By the way, for you, what I wrote is hearsay

414. Correction, proof that the Oral Torah was written by humans.

415. Yaron,

     1. There is no room for interpretation here, it is written in black and white that the people of Israel did not know about the status of Mount Sinai, therefore your whole argument about a testimony that passed from father to son simply falls flat, what does this have to do with the fact that the Torah did not stop there?

     2. Please, here is a simple rebuttal to the fact that the Oral Torah was written by humans, only humans would write such nonsense as:

     – Bats lay eggs.

     - The gestation period of a wolf, tiger, bear and monkey is 3 years.

     - A hyena turns into a bat after 7 years.

     – The trachea splits into the heart and liver.

     - Lice are formed from mud and sweat.

     Did God also give this information to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai?

416. rival
     You are the enlightened atheist, yes, and I'm not mocking, God forbid, just for the sake of the discussion, and I'm the stupid, delusional, phlegmatic religious person, and I'm really not offended by the many nicknames that are thrown here, because the bottom line is that we're all virtual here, the discussion will end and everyone will continue their lives as they see fit.
     Now that the symbol of atheism, enlightenment and secularism in the last generation, Yossi Sherid Zel, you and many of the site's visitors identify with him with his worldview, etc. Maybe you also voted for him at some point
     At the end of his days he throws a bomb and I quote
     "We were driving in the car and suddenly I felt faint and a huge burst of heat and suddenly I felt like I was flying up and down. I felt a very deep sense of the exodus of the soul. And as a flying soul I looked across the globe and saw my family continue to drive in the car while my wife continued on the drive to the hospital. The soul separates from the body," said Reid.
     You, as a complete secularist, will not stop for 10 minutes and ask yourself what is going on here? Maybe the whole path I'm following is a mistake? Maybe it is? After all, Yossi Sherid is not suspected of dark and delusional religiosity with a beard.
     If I gave you a glass of water with a one percent chance that it contained a deadly poison, you wouldn't dare touch it. So if there is a one percent chance that the Torah is true and there is a soul and reward and punishment, wouldn't you as a Jew at least go and check?

417. incidentally
     Content is filtered on the site, which is inappropriate

418. Shmulik is a rival
     The Tanakh does not stop there. The Tanakh continues until the end of the book of Chronicles. It is impossible to take two verses and give an interpretation as we see fit. The commentator is part of those who deny acceptance from the Sinaitic rebels and do not want to keep it in perfect order. But there was always the core that remained loyal to his ancestors and accepted from them, and the continuation of the Tanakh and reality prove this.
     As for the testimony, as far as I'm concerned, you continue to testify, testify, and ignore the written Torah, and when you deal with the text, refute it, prove that a person wrote it, and you and I will go eat pork on Yom Kippur

419. Yaron,
     I don't know how to tell you this, but verses XNUMX and XNUMX say exactly what the narrator says in the video that Riv brought

420. rival
     You are the enlightened atheist, yes, and I'm not mocking, God forbid, just for the sake of the discussion, and I'm the stupid, delusional, phlegmatic religious person, and I'm really not offended by the many nicknames that are thrown here, because the bottom line is that we're all virtual here, the discussion will end and everyone will continue their lives as they see fit.
     Now that the symbol of atheism, enlightenment and secularism in the last generation, Yossi Sherid Zel, you and many of the site's visitors identify with him with his worldview, etc. Maybe you also voted for him at some point
     At the end of his days he throws a bomb and I quote
     "We were driving in the car and suddenly I felt faint and a huge burst of heat and suddenly I felt like I was flying up and down. I felt a very deep sense of the exodus of the soul. And as a flying soul I looked across the globe and saw my family continue to drive in the car while my wife continued on the drive to the hospital. The soul separates from the body," said Reid.
     You, as a complete secularist, will not stop for 10 minutes and ask yourself what is going on here? Maybe the whole path I'm following is a mistake? Maybe it is? After all, Yossi Sherid is not suspected of dark and delusional religiosity with a beard.
     If I gave you a glass of water with a one percent chance that it contained a deadly poison, you wouldn't dare touch it. So if there is a one percent chance that the Torah is true and there is a soul and reward and punishment, wouldn't you as a Jew at least go and check?

421. Yaron,
     As far as I'm concerned, we stopped when I responded to your outlandish claim that everything is hearsay. I wrote and showed you that this is not the case. Here is the situation:
     You say that we have a document (the Torah) and this is proof. But this is not proof of anything or it is proof like Conan Doyle's stories, in which London exists, are proof that Sherlock Holmes existed. You say okay, we have evidence that a whole nation was at the level of Mount Sinai, but that is not true. We have very high order hearsay for this hearsay so it's not really reliable evidence. You tell me not to get excited because everything is hearsay and I tell you wrong, absolutely not everything is hearsay. I showed why this is not true in my previous post. This is where we stopped and that means that in terms of the discussion, you have, at most, such loose hearsay evidence (that even an opponent does a good job of challenging) that there was some event. Let's take a second look at this testimony. This testimony cannot say anything except that the people saw sights and heard voices. that by itself it cannot testify to the existence of God. This can indicate that the people saw and heard voices. Hollywood can convince a remote village in Africa that there are gods, quite easily. Well? It is so simple to take burned out, illiterate people and work on them. It happens every day even to people who know how to read and write and are skeptical and cynical. In fact, all over the world, 5000 years ago and more, religions developed precisely because man is an animal that tries to give an explanation to phenomena even if they have no explanation. There is no explanation, so they invent. We are Skinner's believing pigeons (go read about it on Wikipedia)

     By the way, if you saw Yariv's video, video number 3 or 4. In videos 1 and 2, the narrator talks about quite a few other religions, some of which are still with us, who saw sights, heard voices and received objects (which are still with us!) in the presence of all the people. Well?

422. Yaron,

     No, the picture from the quote you brought is really not different, on the contrary it only reinforces my words. Because the people of Israel did not know about God and the miracles he supposedly performed for the people of Israel and the status of Mount Sinai, they started worshiping idols and switched to foreign work.

     On the contrary, you only gave further reinforcement that the testimony from the Mount Sinai status did not pass continuously from the Mount Sinai status to the present day.

423. rival
     Now honestly you are the enlightened atheist and I, God forbid, am not mocking the opposite just for the sake of the example and I am the stupid and delusional dark religious and I am not offended by the epithets that are thrown here because the bottom line is that we are all virtual, the discussion will end and everyone will continue their lives as they understand.
     But when the symbol of atheism of the last generation, the symbol of secularism, the symbol of the Enlightenment came, yes, Yossi Sherid Zel, probably admired, appreciated, maybe even voted for him at a certain point, and throws a bomb and I'm quoting"
     "We were driving in the car and suddenly I felt faint and a huge burst of heat and suddenly I felt like I was flying up and down. I felt a very deep sense of the exodus of the soul. And as a flying soul I looked across the globe and saw my family continue to drive in the car while my wife continued on the drive to the hospital. The soul separates from the body," said Reid.
     Won't you ask yourself what's going on here?
     After all, Reid is not suspected of dark religiosity in stupidity and ignorance

424. not Yaron,

     The picture from the quote you brought is really not different, on the contrary it only reinforces my words, because the people of Israel did not know about G-d and the miracles that he supposedly did for the people of Israel and on Mount Sinai, that is why they started worshiping idols and idolatry.

     On the contrary, you only gave further reinforcement that the testimony from the Mount Sinai status did not pass continuously from the Mount Sinai status to the present day.

425. Yaron
     Can you tell me how many people left Egypt? I ask because there are two contradictory numbers in the Torah. It really confuses fools like me.

426. anonymous
     How do you know what is true and what is not? From what you've said so far, you don't sound like a person who has his own opinion.

427. rival.
     The reality mocks the interpretation because according to his interpretation the Kabbalah from generation to generation should have stopped and then there is no Torah, no Talmud, no conditions, no geniuses and subsequently no Jewish people.
     But wonder and wonder after 2000 years, Jews are returning from dozens of countries, there is no question that there was no connection between them with the same Torah that you will learn it, you will learn it, you will circumcise it, and on the eighth day! Not every community, one day after another, everyone on the eighth day, slaughter Nida, etc. So if they did not receive it from generation to generation, there is no way to this reality

428. rival
     The narrator took one verse and ignored a whole chapter, the truth is I definitely understand him.
     XNUMX And the people worshiped Jehovah all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who lived after Joshua, who saw all the works of the great Jehovah that he had done. To Israel:
     XNUMX And Yehoshua the son of Nun, the servant of Jehovah, died at the age of one hundred and twelve years:
     XNUMX And they buried him at the border of his estate in a clay pit on Mount Ephraim, north of Mount Geash: who did not know Jehovah and also the work he had done for Israel:
     XNUMX And the children of Israel did what was evil in the eyes of Jehovah and served the Baalim:
     XNUMX And they forsook Jehovah, the God of their fathers, who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and went after other gods than the gods of the nations around them, and bowed down to them and worshiped them. Worship Jehovah:
     XNUMX And they forsook Jehovah and served Baal and Ashtoreth:
     Yad And Yahweh's hand was strong in Israel, and he fell into the hand of Shusim, and they were crushed, and they fell into the hand of their enemies all around, and they could no longer stand before their enemies:
     Now the picture is a little different, right?

429. Yaron,

     What interpretation? Write it down in black and white:

     "And all that generation was gathered to its fathers and another generation arose after them who did not know Jehovah nor the work he had done for Israel."

     What is more obvious than that?

     The Torah contradicts your words regarding testimony that passed in succession from the days of the giving of the Torah.

430. Rivals in every generation, people rose up and claimed this. This is exactly what is happening in this generation as well. But there were always Jews who gave their lives and did not turn right to left like Hezekiah, like Shlomo David, etc. There were generations who worked for God like in the generation of Elijah and foreign work like in the days of Ahab, Jeroboam and Manasseh. Unlike other religions, Judaism puts everything on the table without sweeping and presenting everything as rosy. The video you showed me before is funny because the narrator who gives an interpretation of the Tanach from his imagination does the same thing as except that they rebelled against Hashem and are mentioned in the Tanach

431. rival
     http://vitaminim.org/1/index.php?topic=24156.0
     If you take the data it contains from the creation of the world, you can easily date all the generations

432. And again,

     How can these be things that have been passed down from generation to generation since the Torah was given, if the Torah itself claims that this was not the case?

     "And all that generation was gathered to its fathers and another generation arose after them who did not know Jehovah nor the work he had done for Israel."

     What do you think about this ?

433. K. Shmulik
     The example of a witness who heard a testimony is not relevant to the Jewish people. The Jewish people have a written Torah document and a written Torah. The first saw and accepted and passed it from father to son. From generation to generation. That is why in Judaism it is said Kabbalah from Sinai and not hearsay from Sinai. You present it as if in the last 50 years a group of people arose that claims We heard from our forefathers and it is not like that. You can disagree or disprove dealing with the document but you cannot under any circumstances deny its receipt

434. By the way Yaron,

     Can you give me an example of the conditions that lived 2500 years ago? What century did they live in? And please try to be precise without rounding numbers.

435. anonymous,

     I've already asked you twice about the fossil that miracles showed you, why don't you answer me?

     Yaron,

     Can you give an example of something in the Torah or an oral Torah that according to you, humans could not know? But only things that the Greeks did not claim before, for example, they claimed that the earth was round many years before the sages.

436. K. Shmulik and whoever wants to
     The examples you bring of hearsay are ridiculous in the Jewish context. Judaism has a Torah document in the written Torah that is oral. It is not a group of Jews who come now after thousands of years and say "we heard" this is Kabbalah from generation to generation of the first generation see! And pass the document on. As well as elements related to it, a tefillin tassel, Shita Nida, etc.
     You and many others choose to deny it in a legitimate order but to deny its acceptance there is no one in the world including the Gentiles who can do it.
     There is too much evidence in this document that there is no way that a human being wrote it.
     Shmulik the Zohar context that you bring claims that it was written in the 13th century, after all the Zohar talks about Rabbi Shimon Rabbi Haya Rabbi Yitzchak Rabbi Eliezer Tanaim who lived 2500 years ago, so what is the claim at all. In other words, maybe it was written down in an orderly manner later. But the Tanaim that are spoken of in it certainly lived 2500 years ago.

437. Miracles
     But the truth is that everyone in the secret of their hearts is preparing for the same god who is the greatest of all and indescribable.. and this thing even science cannot describe..

438. anonymous
     I'm serious. Every religion describes God in a different way. There are those who change God even here during the discussion. In the best case - only one of them can be right.

439. Miracles
     come on…

440. anonymous
     No scientist tries to disprove the existence of God. The religious have already done this.

441. By the way, no matter how many times you present a scientist who tries scientifically to disprove the existence of God - you will not be able to disprove this belief. You simply do not have the tools to disprove any belief. This is a basic mistake that sometimes even famous scientists in the world of scientists fall into.

442. K.
     And again, you (Vashmulik) say this from a position that has no trace of fully understanding the religion. You don't have knowledge and understanding of the Jewish religion as does that scoundrel who was born into the study of this knowledge.
     It's like a stupid ten-year-old who has no idea about biology will argue with you about the ribosome.

443. K.
     I don't think there is a problem with the definition of God. The basic question, in my opinion, is whether there is a phenomenon that cannot be explained naturally. If there is none, then there is no need to assume the existence of God (this is actually Laplace's approach).

     If there is a phenomenon that cannot be explained naturally - then we would have to know about it in order to conclude that there is a supernatural power (god, supreme power, the power...).

     Throughout history this is the religious approach - finding a phenomenon that cannot be explained naturally. In the Bible it's "creator as sil and chemistry", with Aristotle it's the "primary cause", with Descartes it's the soul and with Bihi it's the undecipherable complexity.

     Unfortunately for the religious, there are natural explanations for all these phenomena. Therefore, they move to personal slander against scientists. They are right - what is left for them?

444. Raphael
     It is true that the question has been asked many times, but at least Nisim and I have not yet been able to figure out what the answer is. It could certainly be that we're both idiots and then there's no way we'll understand, but it could also be that you didn't explain yourself well enough.
     I would really appreciate it if you could explain again once and for all.

445. The question of how the heavy elements were formed arose when there was a debate between the Big Bang theory and Hoyle's static universe theory. The explanation of the formation of elements and the proportion of hydrogen and helium in the universe came from there.

446. And thanks for the link... :-)

447. Shmulik,
     I agree, these are two different questions. Arguments can be made for and against the existence of a divine being (and then it is better to define it), but it is also possible to refer to the actual effects that can be attributed (and indeed religious people actually attribute) to a divine being, and then the discussion (logical and empirical) is about those consequences without necessarily having to do with the exact or comprehensive definition of that entity. In my opinion, the second part is more interesting because by definition it is subject to scientific criticism (for example, does prayer actually help in something). The first part is also interesting because I got the impression that it reveals the great and surprising diversity (at least to me) that exists among religious people in terms of the perception of the essence of the divine being and in terms of the nature of the explanations for why they believe in it, which seem to be influenced by strong rationalization processes while ignoring almost trivial factors that have a large if not decisive effect . For example, I have met few religious people (who grew up in a religious home) who gave some weight to the fact that one of the main reasons for feeling natural in believing in a certain divine being is the simple fact that they absorbed this narrative even before they were born. They were simply led to this particular belief, regardless of the apologetics processes that exist in that tradition. The empirical evidence on this topic is overwhelming.

448. k
     Regarding what Anonymous wrote about some who believe and some who don't and think that by doing so they disproved God's existence, the physicist Sean Carroll held a very interesting discussion in which he does not insist on the definition of God, but he examines the consequences of God's existence in logical and empirical ways. In a very basic way, he says that if a scientific theory is tested by its implications and its suitability to reality, then God as a theory should also be tested. I recommend watching his lecture:
     https://youtu.be/ew_cNONhhKI

449. Raphael
     Are you unable to answer or don't want to answer?

450. Unbelievable how many times you can ask the same question in different ways?!!!

451. Raphael
     With your permission, I will ask in a different way: Do you think it is justified for scientists, based on what they see, to think that the theory of evolution does describe the origin of species?

     Ditto - regarding the Big Bang

452. I missed a small detail, it should be "religious" instead of "unlike religious..."

453. Raphael
     Please show me where one of us has tried to change reality to fit his views.

454. anonymous,
     Too bad you distort reality. Many religious people clearly state that they have knowledge, not just faith. I am trying, so far without success, to understand from those religious people what this knowledge is that they wave about with so much passion. There are religious people who claim to have different proofs for the existence of a divine being, for example logical proofs. I have not yet been exposed to a proper argument that presents a proof as above, and I have already been exposed to a lot of completely wrong arguments or trivial arguments that revolve around the assumption of God's existence and then after some completely unnecessary waving of hands, how surprising, it is discovered that he seems to really exist.
     I, by the way, am not claiming anything about the non-existence of such an entity, I am simply trying to understand why those who claim that it exists came to this conclusion. I have no objection in principle to the belief in some miraculous being, provided that this belief does not become a quagmire to dig into and infringe upon the rights of others.
     Unlike certain religious people who intentionally enter this website in order to harm and harass, one religious person for example declares his intention explicitly even if he wraps it in a flattering wrapper in his opinion - he is here to protect innocent religious people who may have arrived here by mistake, do you understand? Another religious makes stupid announcements about areas of science in which he has zero understanding and as a supplement he embellishes with the garbage of Christian creationists, "arguments" that are an insult to intelligence. This is not an attempt to learn about science, God forbid, nor is there any intention to participate in a discussion based on rational principles to be clear. And despite this, those religious people receive a factual reference in the overwhelming majority of times, even when they abuse the stage time and time again. So yes, it is true that I and others are not willing to tolerate such devious behavior and remain silent, and therefore *parallel* to a substantive discussion, those religious people will get to hear how ignorant they are, how unwise they are (as in the case when they bring a video clip which clearly shows implying the opposite of what we claimed, which happened only recently), how limited their capacity for sound rational thinking is, and yes, even worse things when they lie or present damaged integrity. I, for example, will not enter an ultra-Orthodox website to attack religious belief (and not in the guise of defending secular people who may have entered there by mistake), do you know why I would not do so? it's simple. Because this is really ugly behavior. And a moral person with a conscience would not act like that and produce gratuitous hatred. But it seems that there are religious people who do not understand this, and somehow in some wonderful and strange moral distortion you feel the need to preach specifically to me, and along the way you are a little inventing and a little distorting the reality.
     But as I wrote before, all this is nonsense. There are still simple orphan questions that have been asked and have not been answered, and no diversionary exercises will be of any use here, because the discussion is built on actual content, at the very least on reasoned arguments and also on facts if possible, and anyone who can contribute to the discussion is welcome, and those who cannot (because there is no (if he knew or because he does not have the minimum required discussion skills) is welcome to ask in a dignified and respectful manner, just as he would like to be treated elsewhere.

455. Raphael
     You claimed that there are ten stages in Jewish literature. I ask about this - what are these steps, and what is the evidence?

456. Raphael
     You wrote "I think I have already answered all your questions in great detail. And in summary - I accept that if you look at the world as it looks today and with the knowledge we have today, then it seems that there was a big bang about 14 billion years ago and that there was evolution."
     So do you see that there is evolution, or are there flaws in this Torah?

457. anonymous,

     I am asking you again because I did not receive an answer from you -

     You first asked to see an intermediate fossil between ape and man and miraculously you got an excellent example of such a fossil of an intermediate creature that is exactly in the middle between ape and man! And there are dozens more fossils! What do you not like about this fossil? How did you expect an intermediate fossil between ape and man to look?

     And if you think we've lost our fur, it means you haven't gone to the beach in a while, or you haven't looked at your feet in a while... and also see this video:

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsGX9LvgUHI

     Well, he has fur or he doesn't have fur, what do you think?

458. K.
     Your condescending attitude (which has no justification) towards the religious, simply disgusts and disgusts.

     How many times have you been told about your devious way of speaking towards the religious public? Why didn't you change your behavior for the better?

     To remind you, most people in the world are religious people. And you act arrogantly and turn your nose up when it concerns most people in the world. As if you imagine yourself smarter than any of them. What immoral behavior... no no no k. (After all, you yourself preach morality).

     You are not a doctor of theology and you are not well versed in the material on which you argue with such fervor. Therefore, this behavior of yours does not distinguish between you and those whom you call derogatory names.

     You make a classic, logical error when you choose to use scientific tools to disprove belief in God.

     Obviously you will not find proof of God using scientific tools.
     What did you think, that you would be born and be the one who refuted the belief in God? What a wild imagination...

     It is about faith.
     Some believe that God exists.
     And there are those who believe that he does not exist (but think that in doing so they disproved his existence).

459. Miracles
     "So now does that mean there are no flaws in the theory of evolution?" - Where did I say that?

     "And if you claim that the world was created in different stages, then shouldn't there be clear signs of these stages?" - There is. That is why the scientists who study the world see stages of development. Otherwise, as I have already said, no scientist would have had any possibility of seeing any signs of development in nature.

     "None of us adapts reality to our opinions" - the opposite is true.

460. Yaron
     If the witness tells about what he saw and we hear it is called eyewitness testimony (the witness tells what he saw)
     If the witness tells about something he heard from another witness that he saw, it is called hearsay testimony (the witness tells about what he heard from a person he saw)
     On historical events we have not only A tradition of hearing from person to person, these are also records and proofs of address.
     It is true that it will always be possible to claim that this or that piece of evidence is falsified or even claim that they are all fake (for really ancient things the luck is that it is almost impossible to falsify) but the claim will already be completely improbable. For historical events researchers usually want at least two sources. A tradition can also be a source as long as it is backed up by another source. Let's say an archaeological site. For example, about Masada's story we have both Jewish and Roman sources.
     It is impossible to see every tradition as a proof in itself. If you take our cousins ​​for example, you can see live how they change their tradition. While 100 years ago it was clear to them that there was a temple for the Jews on the Temple Mount, even today the majority will tell you that it was not and that their family lived between the Jordan and the Sea of ​​Gaza forever (which by the way is not true. There are a majority of those who arrived in the last hundred years) and it would not be a lie for them and even if Plug them into a truth machine and they won't turn out to be liars.

461. Yaron,
     Well, it's all hearsay. What is up?
     If I testify in court about something I saw you steal, that's not hearsay. If I testify that I heard from K that you stole, that's hearsay. It is in the most principled way possible, not the same.
     I said here: you can believe what you want, that's your right. It is not your right to change definitions for words and concepts. Hebrew is not your property to do with it as you wish and the words have meaning. Not everything is hearsay.

462. Yaron
     None of us adapts reality to our opinions. Why should we be tolerant of those who do?

463. ק
     Where have you seen disdain for science? The only disdain here is from you towards people who don't think or live like you

464. Yaron,

     https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%99_%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%94

     Instead of rambling on about subjects you don't understand a thing and a half about (like in science and law and law), maybe you'll try to answer the questions about things that I hope you have some idea about?

465. Shmulik
     I do not understand this claim. After all, there is no evidence that is not hearsay. The first saw and the other judges are sworn lawyers, etc. They heard from him, this is the reality. All the laws of the law collapse according to this claim

466. Raphael
     First of all, it's a shame that I seem belligerent to you because I'm not.
     But you really need to understand more deeply the concept that the Bible is not too simple. And he certainly does not contradict the words of the Raya regarding evolution. And you also cannot cancel and forcefully interpret in the opposite way words greater than you. The fact that you know a different approach in Judaism regarding supposed contradictions between science and the Torah does not mean that it is the only approach. Not only that you also cannot dismiss and disregard other approaches. At most, humbly say that this approach seemed to you to be better or more consistent in your opinion. "Make you a rabbi" does not mean disrespecting other opinions or denying their legitimacy.
     And again I repeat the concept "no Bible is too simple" speaks of the ruling of the Halacha (and even if there are exceptions to the rule that the Halacha is ruled not according to the simplicity of the Scripture)
     Regarding the big bang and evolution I am already really confused.
     So one last time I will ask
     Do you think all the evidence in this world that scientists have found and will find leads to the conclusion of evolution and the big bang or not, and in fact it is a matter of putting together trending facts and only wanting to create an atheistic theory and these are unfounded theories?

467. Raphael
     So now does that mean there are no flaws in the theory of evolution?
     And if you claim that the world was created in different stages, then shouldn't there be clear signs of these stages?

468. Shmulik,
     Your answer is within your question. If what Sean Carroll said is true (and I think it is true), then it is not about information versus hearsay but about *limited and partial information* versus testimony of an event that happened in front of the eyes of millions of people who passed it down from generation to generation.

469. Raphael,
     Looks like there was a big bang and there was a big bang it's the same for me. You add additional claims in your opinion, because of your religion, fine and as long as you don't argue about the scientific fact, everything is fine. Just note what Sean Carroll said about the big bang: the big bang is not the beginning of the universe but the end of our theoretical knowledge. It is quite possible that the bang is not the beginning of everything
     What about rumor versus information? Do you agree with her that giving Torah is hearsay testimony of a high order?

470. Shmulik,
     I think I have already answered all your questions in great detail. And in summary - I accept that if you look at the world as it looks today and with the knowledge we have today then it seems that there was a big bang about 14 billion years ago and that there was evolution. Why does it look like this - because it is true that the world was created gradually. So what are we left to argue about? how long did it take Did it happen by chance or by God? Well, I don't think we can convince each other on these points at this point.

471. A.
     Did you learn how to rant like K.?

472. Raphael,
     This line of defense "You can say the same about any historical event." He is very problematic.
     OK, you can say that about any historical event. Does this mean you have no information? Does this mean that every piece of hearsay is true information? What makes your rumor unique?
     Wrong, you can't say that about every event. There are more recent events, more documented, with witnesses who are still alive, with documents whose correctness can be verified in independent ways...

     I want to mention that I haven't heard why you don't get the bang? What do your calculations say?
     really? Is this true for every historical event?

473. Yaron, Rafael,
     The questions I asked are not really complicated. Waiting for answers, again.
     You don't have to answer the explicit questions I asked (and also those asked by others) matter-of-factly. Ignoring, diverting the discussion, slander and other tricks do not constitute legitimate answers. The contribution to the discussion is measured here first and foremost by the content, and content is not just a collection of words without connection and meaning as you are wrong to think (perhaps because it is good enough in other places where you are used to debating), content is the expression of an argument, basing it on logical reasoning and facts. A pleasant attitude is an important part of a serious discussion, but contrary to the necessity of the existence of content, a pleasant attitude is not necessary, especially when a condescending and condescending attitude is demonstrated (in science and scientists for example) or when dishonesty is practiced. The basis is still that I asked questions and still got no answers, everything else is nonsense. The least you can do is act honestly and answer or at least say that you are not knowledgeable enough or even that you do not have a solid position yet, this is completely legitimate.

474. Yaron
     Also about me you want to say that my knowledge of Judaism inspires compassion?

475. K.
     Your knowledge of Judaism inspires compassion.
     Do yourself a favor and talk about things you know about

476. Raphael
     Rabbi Kook and Rabbi Gedaliah Nedel did not imply or derive from their words. They said plainly! With what impudence do you say I didn't understand them or you start to interpret them. Or says that in no way should you say what they said. You are throwing concepts in the air that you probably have no idea what they are saying, such as "no Bible is too simple". It turns out that not only do you know more than all the scientists in the world (because you read a little on the Internet?) you also know more than all the rabbis (because you learned a little Torah Hasode?) A little humility won't hurt you. Regarding the rule that you wave without a hint of understanding, let me explain to you. It is clear that there are interpretations that are contrary to Pesht (this is the whole idea of ​​the sermon. Otherwise it would only be Pesht) but the intention is that even if he gave a new interpretation to the mitzvah verse in the verse and the mitzvah alone cannot change no matter how many interpretations you give to the verse. But apart from that there are many interpretations for all kinds of stories in the Torah that the sermon can and has brought out from the hands of a simpleton.
     In short, don't just use phrases that you probably have no idea what they mean.
     You can open Wikipedia under "Judaism's attitude to evolution" and read there all the explicit quotes (and if you think things have been taken out of context, there is a reference to the source and you can see for yourself) of major and minor rabbis who support evolution. Along with quotes from dissenting rabbis. And you can also choose who to go by. But you cannot deny explicit things that rabbis wrote or interpret them to say the opposite. And he certainly cannot present the opposite as the only opinion in Judaism or the one in favor as contradicting the Torah.

477. tion.

     Raphael
     Rabbi Kook and Rabbi Gedaliah Nedel did not imply or derive from their words. They said plainly! With what impudence do you say I didn't understand them or you start to interpret them. Or says that in no way should you say what they said. You are throwing concepts in the air that you probably have no idea what they are saying, such as "no Bible is too simple". It turns out that not only do you know more than all the scientists in the world (because you read a little on the Internet?) you also know more than all the rabbis (because you learned a little Torah Hasode?) A little humility won't hurt you. Regarding the rule that you wave without a hint of understanding, let me explain to you. It is clear that there are interpretations that are contrary to Pesht (this is the whole idea of ​​the sermon. Otherwise it would only be Pesht) but the intention is that even if he gave a new interpretation to the mitzvah verse in the verse and the mitzvah alone cannot change no matter how many interpretations you give to the verse. But apart from that there are many interpretations for all kinds of stories in the Torah that the sermon can and has brought out from the hands of a simpleton. Just for example, Jacob says in the passage about Reuben that he slept with his mother and sages interpret it differently (doesn't go into it here)
     In short, don't just use phrases that you probably have no idea what they mean.
     You can open Wikipedia under "Judaism's attitude to evolution" and read there all the explicit quotes (and if you think things have been taken out of context, there is a reference to the source and you can see for yourself) of major and minor rabbis who support evolution. Along with quotes from dissenting rabbis. And you can also choose who to go by. But you cannot deny explicit things that rabbis wrote or interpret them to say the opposite. And he certainly cannot present the opposite as the only opinion in Judaism or the one in favor as contradicting the Torah.

     November 7th, 2016

478. tion.

     Raphael
     Rabbi Kook and Rabbi Gedaliah Nedel did not imply or derive from their words. They said plainly! With what impudence do you say I didn't understand them or you start to interpret them. Or says that in no way should you say what they said. You are throwing concepts in the air that you probably have no idea what they are saying, such as "no Bible is too simple". It turns out that not only do you know more than all the scientists in the world (because you read a little on the Internet?) you also know more than all the rabbis (because you learned a little Torah Hasode?) A little humility won't hurt you. Regarding the rule that you wave without a hint of understanding, let me explain to you. It is clear that there are interpretations that are contrary to Pesht (this is the whole idea of ​​the sermon. Otherwise it would only be Pesht) but the intention is that even if he gave a new interpretation to the mitzvah verse in the verse and the mitzvah alone cannot change no matter how many interpretations you give to the verse. But apart from that there are many interpretations for all kinds of stories in the Torah that the sermon can and has brought out from the hands of a simpleton. Just for example, Jacob says in the passage about Reuben that he was lying down and sages interpret it differently (doesn't go into it here)
     In short, don't just use phrases that you probably have no idea what they mean.
     You can open Wikipedia under "Judaism's attitude to evolution" and read there all the explicit quotes (and if you think things have been taken out of context, there is a reference to the source and you can see for yourself) of major and minor rabbis who support evolution. Along with quotes from dissenting rabbis. And you can also choose who to go by. But you cannot deny explicit things that rabbis wrote or interpret them to say the opposite. And he certainly cannot present the opposite as the only opinion in Judaism or the one in favor as contradicting the Torah.

     November 7th, 2016

479. Raphael
     Rabbi Kook and Rabbi Gedaliah Nedel did not imply or derive from their words. They said plainly! With what impudence do you say I didn't understand them or you start to interpret them. Or says that in no way should you say what they said. You are throwing concepts in the air that you probably have no idea what they are saying, such as "no Bible is too simple". It turns out that not only do you know more than all the scientists in the world (because you read a little on the Internet?) you also know more than all the rabbis (because you learned a little Torah Hasode?) A little humility won't hurt you. Regarding the rule that you wave without a hint of understanding, let me explain to you. It is clear that there are interpretations that are contrary to Pesht (this is the whole idea of ​​the sermon. Otherwise it would only be Pesht) but the intention is that even if he gave a new interpretation to the mitzvah verse in the verse and the mitzvah alone cannot change no matter how many interpretations you give to the verse. But apart from that there are many interpretations for all kinds of stories in the Torah that the sermon can and has brought out from the hands of a simpleton. Just for example Jacob says in the passage about Reuben that he slept with his mother and sages interpret it differently (doesn't go into it here)
     In short, don't just use phrases that you probably have no idea what they mean.
     You can open Wikipedia under "Judaism's attitude to evolution" and read there all the explicit quotes (and if you think things have been taken out of context, there is a reference to the source and you can see for yourself) of major and minor rabbis who support evolution. Along with quotes from dissenting rabbis. And you can also choose who to go by. But you cannot deny explicit things that rabbis wrote or interpret them to say the opposite. And he certainly cannot present the opposite as the only opinion in Judaism or the one in favor as contradicting the Torah.

480. tion.

     Raphael
     Rabbi Kook and Rabbi Gedaliah Nedel did not imply or derive from their words. They said plainly! With what impudence do you say I didn't understand them or you start to interpret them. Or says that in no way should you say what they said. You are throwing concepts in the air that you probably have no idea what they are saying, such as "no Bible is too simple". It turns out that not only do you know more than all the scientists in the world (because you read a little on the Internet?) you also know more than all the rabbis (because you learned a little Torah Hasode?) A little humility won't hurt you. Regarding the rule that you wave without a hint of understanding, let me explain to you. It is clear that there are interpretations that are contrary to Pesht (this is the whole idea of ​​the sermon. Otherwise it would only be Pesht) but the intention is that even if he gave a new interpretation to the mitzvah verse in the verse and the mitzvah alone cannot change no matter how many interpretations you give to the verse. But apart from that there are many interpretations for all kinds of stories in the Torah that the sermon can and has brought out from the hands of a simpleton. Just for example Jacob says in the passage about Reuben that he slept with his mother and sages interpret it differently (doesn't go into it here)
     In short, don't just use phrases that you probably have no idea what they mean.
     You can open Wikipedia under "Judaism's attitude to evolution" and read there all the explicit quotes (and if you think things have been taken out of context, there is a reference to the source and you can see for yourself) of major and minor rabbis who support evolution. Along with quotes from dissenting rabbis. And you can also choose who to go by. But you cannot deny explicit things that rabbis wrote or interpret them to say the opposite. And he certainly cannot present the opposite as the only opinion in Judaism or the one in favor as contradicting the Torah.

481. Raphael
     Rabbi Kook and Rabbi Gedaliah Nedel did not imply or derive from their words. They said plainly! With what impudence do you say I didn't understand them or you start to interpret them. Or says that in no way should you say what they said. You are throwing concepts in the air that you probably have no idea what they are saying, such as "no Bible is too simple". It turns out that not only do you know more than all the scientists in the world (because you read a little on the Internet?) you also know more than all the rabbis (because you learned a little Torah Hasode?) A little humility won't hurt you. Regarding the rule that you wave without a hint of understanding, let me explain to you. It is clear that there are interpretations that are contrary to Pesht (this is the whole idea of ​​the sermon. Otherwise it would only be Pesht) but the intention is that even if he gave a new interpretation to the mitzvah verse in the verse and the mitzvah alone cannot change no matter how many interpretations you give to the verse. But apart from that there are many interpretations for all kinds of stories in the Torah that the sermon can and has brought out from the hands of a simpleton. Just for example Jacob says in the passage about Reuben that he slept with his mother and sages interpret it differently (doesn't go into it here)
     In short, don't just use phrases that you probably have no idea what they mean.
     You can open Wikipedia under "Judaism's attitude to evolution" and read there all the explicit quotes (and if you think things have been taken out of context, there is a reference to the source and you can see for yourself) of major and minor rabbis who support evolution. Along with quotes from dissenting rabbis. And you can also choose who to go by. But you cannot deny explicit things that rabbis wrote or interpret them to say the opposite. And he certainly cannot present the opposite as the only opinion in Judaism or the one in favor as contradicting the Torah.

     November 7th, 2016

482. Raphael
     I meant specifically nonsense about the big bang and evolution.
     And I have another message that for some reason we filtered out

483. Raphael
     Instead of attacking - maybe answer someone's question for once?

484. A.
     stop lying. I never said science is bullshit.

     Shmulik
     "At most you have hearsay from your parents, your rabbis and your surroundings and they have hearsay from their parents, their rabbis, etc. to infinity that the Creator once spoke to them. It didn't know. This is hearsay that you choose to believe" - ​​you can say the same about any historical event.

     K.
     Are you unable to write a substantive comment without slurring your mouth?

485. Raphael
     Rabbi Kook and Rabbi Gedaliah Nedel did not imply or derive from their words. They said plainly! With what impudence do you say I didn't understand them or you start to interpret them. Or says that in no way should you say what they said. You are throwing concepts in the air that you probably have no idea what they are saying, such as "no Bible is too simple". It turns out that not only do you know more than all the scientists in the world (because you read a little on the Internet?) you also know more than all the rabbis (because you learned a little Torah Hasode?) A little humility won't hurt you. Regarding the rule that you wave without a hint of understanding, let me explain to you. It is clear that there are interpretations that are contrary to Pesht (this is the whole idea of ​​the sermon. Otherwise it would only be Pesht) but the intention is that even if he gave a new interpretation to the mitzvah verse in the verse and the mitzvah alone cannot change no matter how many interpretations you give to the verse. But apart from that there are many interpretations for all kinds of stories in the Torah that the sermon can and has brought out from the hands of a simpleton. Just for example Jacob says in the passage about Reuben that he slept with his mother and sages interpret it differently (doesn't go into it here)
     In short, don't just use phrases that you probably have no idea what they mean.
     You can open Wikipedia under "Judaism's attitude to evolution" and read there all the explicit quotes (and if you think things have been taken out of context, there is a reference to the source and you can see for yourself) of major and minor rabbis who support evolution. Along with quotes from dissenting rabbis. And you can also choose who to go by. But you cannot deny explicit things that rabbis wrote or interpret them to say the opposite. And he certainly cannot present the opposite as the only opinion in Judaism or the one in favor as contradicting the Torah.

486. Raphael,
     It's amazing how there are religious people who constantly limit the almighty God they "believe" in and don't see the ridiculousness of it. If the God you believe in existed, he would have had no problem creating an entire universe in one article so that nothing like you (relative to him) would recognize a gradual development in the world. There are so many crooked and illogical nonsense things you believe about things that can happen, while at the same time you have equally arbitrary and stupid beliefs about things that cannot happen. The only thing they have in common is the blind belief in those things and the inability to justify these delusional claims through common sense or an objective grip on reality. How do you know what God can and cannot do? Do you think she asks permission from some rabbi before she performs any action in the world? Once an essential part of your faith is the acceptance that you cannot understand the considerations of a divine being, it means that you have given up the right to claim what makes sense to you and what doesn't. You can of course interpret to the best of your understanding the desires of that divine (perhaps imaginary) entity, but you have no ability to know whether your interpretation is a good approximation or a complete contradiction to those desires. It is a dangerous psychological state to find yourself in, because to quote Frankl, the person is looking for meaning and when there is no feedback the person is doomed to wander in space and invent outposts to cling to. Sometimes he will invent an angel figure in the cloud, sometimes he will invent a punishment for his sins (instead of taking responsibility for his failure to abandon his son to die in severe agony in a parked car during the day), and once he will invent an almighty protector for him when he attributed an earthquake with many casualties among the Gentiles as the long hand of God punishing for treating to the Temple Mount.
     Raphael, seriously, do you think that you or any other human being in this world has the ability to truly understand, let alone determine, the considerations of some divine being? Do you understand that there is no obstacle in the world that there is a divine entity that sustains you and your friends for reasons that you do not know about and that perhaps you would not be willing to accept if you knew about them? How do you deal with this uncertainty other than turning a blind eye and denying it?

487. A.
     You have never heard me say that the scientists or science are talking nonsense.

     Shmulik,
     In the same way you have no knowledge of what happened in the Holocaust. All in all you heard it from people. You can choose to believe or not. Photos? Movies? documents? - You can say it's a fake. Prove no.

488. Shmulik
     I'm sorry, apparently I didn't understand that Raphael has a "double security" that the world was also created as if it had existed years before and the scientists are talking nonsense by definition.
     I'm not entirely sure why both approaches are needed.
     That is, if everything a scientist says is most likely not true, why should one invent an interpretation that the world was created when it appears as if it existed for billions of years and as if it was created by a natural process without leaving a sign of the creation event. And if there is this fringe then why should it be said that science is talking nonsense and come off as ridiculous?
     I really don't understand
     Maybe he feels that each of the approaches does not hold water?

489. Raphael
     You have no other knowledge received from the Creator of the world. The Creator of the world never spoke to you and I bet you will never claim that he spoke to you. At most you have hearsay from your parents, your rabbis and your surroundings and they have hearsay from their parents, their rabbis, etc. to infinity that the Creator once spoke to them. It didn't know. It is hearsay that you choose to believe. Your right but not your right to disrupt Hebrew. The concept of knowledge has a definition and what you wrote does not meet this definition.

490. Raphael,
     I didn't understand what Brian Greene was saying. OK, in a few trillion years there will be a lack of empirical information to guide whoever will be around then, if they don't have historical evidence for wrong conclusions. Makes sense. The point is that today we have enough relevant information to say that something called the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. We say that if the Big Bang event occurred, there are other predications that must also be adjusted. We go looking for them and we *find* all the smoking guns (in all sorts of frequencies). That's all you can ask for from a theory.
     Are you trying to claim that there might once have been empirical information that if we were exposed to it today we would think differently? I don't really see how empirical data would contradict what we've already found but there might be some chance of it. I would think that additional empirical information would change our descriptive understanding or add to it, but what has already been discovered will not stop being discovered (in the field of our lives). Background radiation is a fact. The expansion of the universe is a fact.
     In any case, the Big Bang has a theoretical background and solid empirical evidence. For what you wrote, there is none.

491. Raphael
     Unlike you, I know exactly what Green is talking about.

     And we both know, like everyone who reads here on the site, that you have no example of a flaw in evolution.

492. Miracles,

     Al Green's review makes me laugh. If you had thought a little deeper, you would have understood that he is giving a parable about the current period. Even now we interpret everything only according to what we see *now* and only according to what we know *now*.

     Regarding your question, what do I have to lose - a lot of time of idle arguments with you on a subject that does not interest me and is not important to me.

493. Raphael
     try me. What do you have to lose? There are other readers here who might learn something.
     The last thing you can accuse me of is dishonesty, right?

494. Raphael
     What Green said misses an important point, which is worth understanding. Our universe started with low entropy, is today in medium entropy and will end in high entropy. Life needs complexity - and what surprises many people is that complexity requires moderate entropy. That is, we live in the only time when life is possible. By the time Green speaks to him, there will be no more life.
     Green obviously knows this, but he has a tendency to oversimplify things.

495. Miracles,

     I have no interest in getting into it. For me it is not important whether or not there are flaws in the theory. And if you still want to know - there is a lot of material about it on Google, but I have a feeling that you will dismiss all of this as "nonsense of creationists", because anyone who doesn't think like you must be stupid.

496. A',
     Why do you suddenly have to interpret Raphael? He wrote: "I don't accept the big bang". What else is there to interpret here? I wondered why and what his calculations say.

     Regarding the other things you wrote about the bang, Sean Carroll (for example) often talks about the bang in his lectures. Here is a written excerpt, from his website:
     https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
     One sometimes hears the claim that the Big Bang was the beginning of both time and space; that to ask about spacetime "before the Big Bang" is like asking about land "north of the North Pole." This may turn out to be true, but it is not an established understanding. The singularity at the Big Bang doesn't indicate a beginning to the universe, only an end to our theoretical understanding. It may be that this moment does indeed correspond to a beginning, and a complete theory of quantum gravity will eventually explain how the universe started at approximately this time. But it is equally plausible that what we think of as the Big Bang is merely a phase in the history of the universe, which stretches long before that time - perhaps infinitely far in the past. The present state of the art is simply insufficient to decide between these alternatives; to do so, we will need to formulate and test a working theory of quantum gravity.

     In my understanding, in lectures for enthusiasts like me, they will say over and over again that the bang is the beginning of the universe. In more advanced lectures, physicists refer to the Big Bang as a placeholder, the end of their theoretical knowledge rather than the beginning of the universe. He developed a model that the bang is a kind of middle. There were events before and there are events after him, according to his model.

497. Raphael
     Please give one flaw in the theory of evolution. A real flaw - not creationist nonsense...

498. Shmulik,

     "When you say you don't get the Big Bang, can you please explain why?" - because it is what the scientists see today and can explain according to the theories accepted today. We have a different kind of knowledge received from the one who created the world. Search on Google for Brian Greene's TED lecture on why the universe is perfectly adapted to life, at the end of the lecture he talks about a time when all the galaxies will move away beyond the limit of the visible universe and the conclusions that the scientists will reach at that time when they see one solar system without stars and without galaxies.

499. A.
     Pay attention to what Raphael wrote." It is written in the chapters of Avot that the world was created in ten articles, that is, in a manner of gradual progression and not in one article, because if it was created in one article then there would be no possibility for anyone to recognize any matter of gradual progression and development in the world. And the reason for the creation of the world in the form of a succession - see there in the chapters of Avot."
     That is - he claims that his "theory" can be refuted.

500. A.

     "Then why look for flaws in the theory of evolution?" - I didn't look and I'm not looking, but there is a lot.
     Regarding Rabbi Kook ztzel - as someone who also studied and continues to study the secret Torah, allow me to assume that you have not reached the bottom of his mind. After all, it is known that there is no Bible that comes out of the hands of a simpleton, and God forbid that Rabbi Kook would say such a thing.

501. Shmulik
     I don't think you understood Raphael at all.
     According to what Raphael says, it actually makes sense that all predictions of the bang will turn out to be true.
     And according to what I understand there can't be anything that preceded the big bang because with the amount of mass that was then time cannot move and in fact it cannot be said that there was any time at all before the big bang. An interesting point that Hawking brings up in the short history of time is that in the past there was a question of atheists (a bit like "Can God create a stone that he cannot lift" of ours)
     "What did God do before the creation of the world" meaning if the world was created at a certain time then why wasn't it created before? And the interesting thing is that certain theologians answered that time was created with the world and this question cannot be asked because before creation there was no time at all. (An idea that was ahead of its time I guess. That time is a relative thing and that it can be stopped, I guess it didn't convince many people back then but that's what science says today. The world was created at a certain point in time before which time did not exist)

502. Raphael
     The Big Bang theory has 4 predictions that it fits:
     The expansion of the universe, many light elements, the background radiation and why it is dark at night.
     Here is a nice link
     http://www.bartol.udel.edu/~owocki/phys333/Lec-02May.pdf

     The big bang, which is not the beginning of the universe but the end of our theoretical understanding as of today (and there are many who are trying to decipher what came before, although it is quite possible that there was nothing before) stands on very solid feet.
     When you say you don't get the big bang, can you please explain why?

503. Miracles
     On the contrary, according to what Raphael says, there shouldn't be any signs of this. If you did find signs it would weaken the theory.
     Understand unlike the Matrix created by a super smart but not infinite intelligence or the Earth recreated by mouse-shaped aliens in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Here we are talking about God Almighty, so there is no need to expect mistakes or defects in the compositions.

504. Raphael
     OK, so according to what you say, tell me if I understood correctly.
     A doctor who would examine a person would say that he is 20 years old (let's assume for a moment the question why 20) and you say that at least in a certain sense she is right. By the same weight, a scientist who studies the world will conclude that there was a big bang billions of years ago and a biologist who studies animals will conclude that life was created from a long evolutionary process that started from a single cell and that man evolved like other animals, and he would also be right. So why look for flaws in the theory of evolution? Assuming that God did not make any mistake there will never be any proof of any creation before 6000 years. And from the point of view of science, if it wants to understand nature, it has to start from the assumption that there was evolution. In fact the creation of the world less than 6000 years ago becomes a purely philosophical matter without any scientific interest.
     In any case, my question came because I had the (perhaps mistaken) impression that you doubt the evidence for evolution.
     (I have no problem in principle with this way of thinking. I personally do not agree with it and in my opinion it misses all understanding and spiritual discussion of the story of creation and insists on returning it to a technical description that is of no importance to us. By the way, if you could bring redemption and say something in the name of Omru, in the name of who is the explanation This one?) I personally prefer the explanation in the style of Rabbi Kook who accepts evolution and sees the story of Genesis as a spiritual story that needs to be delved into rather than a technical description.

505. Raphael
     You speak without understanding how science works. Add to that your mysterious beliefs - and you got a terrible epistemological mess.
     Science is not suddenly going to discover something revolutionary. What we will discover are things that existing science relies on. In particular - the standard model is not going to change and neither is general relativity. Trust me Raphael - physicists understand this better than you, if all the best...

     And your idea of ​​ten steps …. If it was true, there had to be signs, right? What are these signs?

506. Yaron
     Let's say that science does not know about the singularity moment and the creation of the first life.
     This does not detract from the other things he knows and has proven. Science is not prophetic words that if one detail falls, they are all invalid. Even with science not being able to explain how the first life was created, this does not mean that there was no evolution. It could also be that these are changes in the theory, the theory of evolution has undergone many changes since Darwin, who did not know DNA at all. But you have to understand something. Science doesn't just change, it progresses, this means that every new theory is a better approximation of reality. You can believe that God steps in wherever science doesn't have an absolute answer like in the creation of the first life. But this does not contradict the rest of the evolution of the species or the origin of man. And certainly not the scientific dating method. Apart from this the place of God will go and decrease. Maybe in the future they will be able to repeat the process of creating the first life (not that we are close to it but you never know) it is not worth basing the faith like that. On the other hand, you can choose to see divine providence and design in every process even if it is natural and consistent with the laws of science, even if it is seemingly random. And in relation to writing the Torah, in any case, you will have to adopt any kind of interpretive approach to the stories of Genesis (Judaism has interpreted the biblical story in this way since time immemorial and even knew how to live in peace with different interpretations and different midrashim) because even if science does not know everything, it does not mean that it knows nothing. And there is no reasonable scenario to explain one tenth of the findings by saying that the world was created less than 6000 years ago. You have to understand that the creation story that appears in Genesis is a conceptual text with a conceptual message and that this is the main thing in it. What you lack is that rabbis will approve it and that you and I are supposedly not allowed to interpret. So remove worry from your heart because everything I said was already said by the great men of Israel. In the past, I have already led this discussion on the website and brought a variety of quotes, among others, from Rabbi Kook and his equals. But you don't have to accept one or the other exactly. Just please don't present Judaism as if it is all opposed to science and logic in general or to a specific scientific theory (specifically regarding evolution, for example, Rabbi Kook even enthusiastically supported it and said that it is compatible with the Secret Doctrine, at least in his view)

507. Miracles

     "seriously? Suppose we find a pair of particles that can be used to build both the quantum theory and the theory of gravity - will this somehow affect the world?"

     If you think you have a green idea what will be revealed to us when the theory of everything is discovered and how it will affect the world - this also indicates your complete lack of understanding.

508. A.

     "What do you think scientists will say in the future about evolution? All life was created suddenly less than 6000 years ago"
     Not related to the theory of everything. Even now it is impossible to prove whether something has existed for millions of years or just one second. We can only say that according to what we know - the same object looks so and so years old. If a doctor had examined the first man immediately after he was created he would have said he was 20 years old. The doctor is not wrong, and neither is he who says he is of his age.

     "And the second question is why do you accept the big bang (or at least its perfect illusion to the extent that it is already a scientific truth) but firmly oppose evolution."

     I don't get the big bang nor evolution. What I do accept is that the scientists examine the world according to what they know - this is what they see. See my answer to the first question above. I don't have a problem with it. It is written in the chapters of Avot that the world was created in ten articles, that is, in a manner of gradual progression and not in one article, because if it had been created in one article then there would be no possibility for anyone to recognize any matter of gradual progression and development in the world. And the reason for the creation of the world in the form of a succession - see there in the chapters of ancestors.

509. ק
     The ignorance you demonstrate regarding Judaism in general and religious people in particular inspires compassion not to mention the arrogance. But of course it's in the name of "enlightenment" so that's fine. There were "enlightened" peoples in history who thought like you and later became more dangerous than dangerous!

510. Yaron
     Do you have something meaningful to say? Other than showing a lack of knowledge in everything you say, what have you contributed to the discussion here?
     What are you even doing on the science site? Do you really think your religious preaching will affect anyone intelligent?

511. Miracles
     This is exactly what Sharid thought, but imaginations and reality!
     By the way, a troll said wiser than me that the disqualifier in Momo disqualifies! And every word is unnecessary

512. anonymous
     This "sudden" was 3 million years.
     A wolf became a poodle and a chihuahua in 6000 years.
     Wild cabbage became broccoli and kohlrabi and cauliflower in 2500 years.

     In 3 million years maybe Yaron will get some sense and stop being a troll.

513. Yaron,

     Yossi Sherid had hallucinations, this does not prove anything.

514. Yaron,

     Yossi Sherid had hallucinations, this doesn't prove anything, he dreamed that he was going out of his body, but it's just a dream, it's a hallucination.

515. "But there is no creature that was an astral monkey and suddenly became a man without fur.. right?"

     No one claimed it happened suddenly, it happened gradually and took millions of years.

516. anonymous,

     You asked for an intermediate fossil between man and monkey and you got an excellent example of such a fossil which is exactly in the middle between man and monkey! And there are dozens more fossils! So it's not good for you either? Are you complaining about this too??

     And if it seems to you that we have lost our fur, it means that you haven't gone to the beach in a while, and that you haven't looked at your feet in a while... and also watch this video:

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsGX9LvgUHI

517. When you return to the starting point and there is nothing, there is a space where the singularity was "created" and erupted into the space we know. What is this space? - No answer! You don't know, you can't ask because there was no time and you have different excuses.
     Then matter "became" life in processes between which there is only imagination and reality.
     Then Darwinism
     The truth is that Yossi Sherid also believed the bluff and believed in this nonsense until reality slapped him in the face, but at least he was an honest person to come and tell it, and I quote: "My soul separated from my body. I saw everything from above. What happened to me is not in line with my worldview."
     I believe that there is no one who thinks that Yossi Sherid was a stupid dark religious with a beard.
     The imaginations and the bluff is good for business, it is also limited to 70-80 years, only that in the end you pay for imaginations

518. Miracles
     But there is no creature that was an astral monkey and suddenly became a man without fur.. right? This whole hypothesis is just a hypothesis. She is in theory. So what are the signs of its readiness? There were also stupid scientists who stated that all the signs indicated that the sun revolved around the earth.
     Please respond gently

519. anonymous
     If you look at the "tree of development" from ancient apes to humans and chimpanzees, you can see two distinct branches of creatures. In one branch, the creatures become more like modern man. The second branch is more interesting - you see a clear series of creatures that increasingly resemble chimpanzees and then you see a split into two branches. On one branch the chimpanzee and on the other branch the bonobo.

     Now - if you look at the "DNA clock" you see that the splits in the branches happen at the times we would expect them to happen.

     Obviously, if what I say doesn't fit your preconceived notions, then you'll scoff in embarrassment...

520. Miracles
     It was quick.. What are you, sleeping here?
     Well look, you worked on me. It's just some creature that looks like a monkey. What does it have to do with man? Because he looks a bit like a human? A chimpanzee is also similar to a human, even if that astral one is a bit more similar.. Is it because of the DNA? The DNA of the banana is also not far from the DNA of man. So what are we bananas?
     Please respond gently

521. anonymous
     For you - https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A1_%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A1

522. rival
     There is a situation where you bring some link that will show these fossils..? In Hayat Dink we have no money to go to the Louvre in France.
     It is very interesting to know what those creatures were that were the intermediate stage between the monkey and the primitive man.

523. A.
     I understand what you are saying. I was not offended 🙂

524. Miracles
     And it's not my charge, it's charge that Sharon mentioned and I've read it before. I had some guesses for the answer and wanted to know what the prevailing answer was.

525. ?

526. Miracles
     I hope you are not offended. On second reading, what I wrote seems rude to me.
     What I wanted to say is that the debate about the claim that if there is a tradition about something then it is true is quite unnecessary. Because it's pretty clear that it is. To verify this when the discussion is in depth about an argument against evolution, even if it was brought up for a religious reason and not sincere, the discussion can still be interesting and instructive. To verify this, a debate that focuses on charged blooms on fish with fins is, in my opinion, less interesting. And it was not intended to preach, I also get dragged sometimes.

527. A.
     Unfortunately, a culture war has broken out between religious people (not all religious people, but enough of them that have a destructive effect) and secular people on the image of the State of Israel. For me, the increasing religiousization process is the most dangerous factor for democracy in the State of Israel, more than any other factor whether outside or at home. The main characteristic of these religious people is the belief in the existence of a dictatorial god, the willingness to be completely enslaved to this god (but also to his human "messengers"), which means, among other things, a willingness to consciously renounce a humane or natural moral compass. If, for example, God (or a "speaker" on his behalf) decrees that in order to bring redemption closer, the religious must stand up and take action (say, eliminate men who have sexual relations or eliminate a person who desecrates the Sabbath or violates one of the other prohibitions that apply to the Israelites), there is no A true religious person, one who sincerely believes that the Creator's will must be carried out even if it is incomprehensible to us humans, has no ability to protect himself and others from committing the act, because the hands holding the moral compass of that religious person are not his and do not correspond to the humane moral compass that exists in us Naturally and based on identification with the suffering of others and the understanding that we all share basic rights, regardless of our gender, our tendencies, our origin, our status, etc.
     At the same time, the best method we have to objectively examine the reality we live in is the scientific method based on the principles of rational thinking. In particular, this method is particularly effective in testing phenomena that have real effects on our lives, including claims regarding the existence of supernatural entities that are claimed to affect us in a *real* way.

     Therefore, the discussion about the existence of the entity known as God, which as mentioned is a main basis in the belief structure of religious people, is an important discussion, and there is no more suitable framework for this discussion than rational thinking and science precisely because on the basis of this belief religious people make (far-reaching) claims regarding matters that concern in our actual lives. When, for example, a claim is made that Torah studies are equivalent to combat service, this is a claim that may have a "spiritual" origin, but it has an actual expression in our lives, an expression that can be checked objectively. If it is claimed that observing Shabbat or praying prevents cancer or leads to finding a quick match, this is a claim that has an actual expression that can be tested objectively. Beyond examining the correctness of claims that are antecedents of the belief in God, one should also discuss the question of what the rational justifications are for believing that this God exists in the first place. To date, my experience has shown one of the two - either a religious person holds to his beliefs while giving them a failed rational justification, or he is forced to admit after countless twists and turns that his belief is not based on logic or rational thinking (for some reason only in rare cases that can be counted on one hand have religious people declared in advance that they hold their belief without any rational justification but from other considerations). For the avoidance of doubt, there is no problem with an irrational belief as long as it does not harm the rights of others, therefore I do not seek to convince any of the religious to change their beliefs. I do require religious people to acknowledge that their beliefs are irrational or to provide a proper rational argument if they believe they have one. To date, I have not been presented with an argument that is not seriously flawed by fallacies and logic.
     I respect your lack of interest in a discussion that you think is of low level. To me, precisely the low level of the discussions on this topic, which was mainly due to the inability to present a reasonable logical argument on the one hand and due to the multitude of logical failures (some of them extremely embarrassing) on ​​the other hand, taught me a lot about the sad situation in which we find ourselves. To be fair, it means that even on the secular side of the debate there are responses that are plagued by the same failures, although it is easy to see that this is a small minority compared to the abundance of miracles that some religious people insist on producing.

528. rival

     "You don't believe what the Torah says?"

     Indeed. This is exactly what is needed today to be a religious Jew. Something ironic isn't it?

     The most religious today, so to speak, do not know at all what is written in the book on the basis of which they believe. The part with the Mount Sinai status is really funny because in the story there, all the witnesses specifically did not believe and did not accept what they supposedly witnessed and "God's" solution to this was to send some company and slaughter people arbitrarily until everyone lined up and accepted the "truth" of The thing they witnessed. Or in other words ISIS 101.

529. A.
     In science - there is no debate, and no debate, about the correctness of evolution. The argument you made, about missing fossils, also does not exist in science today.

     Personally, I think that those who believe in God, or astrology, or homeopathy are wrong. The reason I am talking about these things is - not only is there no scientific basis for these things, and not only are there serious reasons to think that these things are not true - in my understanding, these things cause serious damage. You can write a book about it... and indeed many books will be written.
     I'm not saying and I don't think religious people are bad!! But - it is known that groups of people cause radicalization and religion is radical.

     And the thing that jumps me the most here is the chatter of religious people about the lies of the wicked scientists. People who understand nothing - know that evolution is a lie, know that cosmology requires a creator and that the entire Torah is scientific truth.
     sad….

530. Yaron,
     I am trying to understand the facts and your argument…
     You gave a quote from a story whose origin we do not know and in which it says that someone in the name of God turns to someone named Moses and instructs him to tell a group of people that they saw the man of God speaking from heaven. There is no information in these things about the identity of the narrator/author (I guess you would like to argue that it is God, right?) and why we should believe what he says. The preservation of a cultural tradition for thousands of years is not related to the degree of truth of the contents that this tradition includes, just as the preservation of the Greek tradition or that of any other people does not indicate the truth of the Greek mythology or that of any other people. In addition, in the things you quoted there is no testimony from the people themselves if they did see or hear something, in fact it is quite suspicious that God is the one who provides the "testimony" that they saw/heard him. In addition, there is no detail in these things about what exactly they saw/heard, so it is also difficult to assess what happened there at all (if anything happened there in the first place). Before you were talking about millions of testimonies and now it seems that you are actually talking about one testimony, from an unknown source, about unclear things that may or may not have happened. About the Holocaust, for example, there are tens of thousands of detailed testimonies, written, recorded and photographed, so that even if they try to turn the camps into warehouses and obscure traces, and even when the last of the survivors dies, their *original* experiences and memories will remain in our hands for the time being. Here the situation is very different, there is one story, not millions of testimonies as you claimed, which may have been passed down from father to son for a certain period of time, at least in part, but not in sequence (as the story itself makes clear). It is not clear who authored the story (the fact that there is a claim within the story regarding the author's identity does not mean that this is indeed the case, and one has to be frighteningly innocent to believe such a claim), nor is the credibility of the claims there clear, and to be clear, there is no way that exempts the need to provide justification It makes sense for each and every claim presented there separately. It goes without saying that if you are willing to give up logic then it would be perfectly fine for you to believe anything you want, but then there is nothing to talk about knowing but simply believing in something that does not make sense.
     Do you have additional direct evidence for the story you believe? Maybe something like a Holocaust survivor testimony page?

531. A',

     When so much in our country revolves around religious matters, then the debate about the existence of God is definitely in its place, if you want to call it a kindergarten debate, that's your problem, don't try to shut people up.

532. anonymous,

     "Rival, perhaps you know, where to find the 'missing link' between the ape and the primitive man?"

     Dozens of intermediate fossils have been found that show a gradual transition between an ancient monkey and an ancient man, most of which you can see in museums around the world, you are welcome to visit there and see for yourself.

533. Miracles
     What interests me is the science and not the debate in your Ramat Gan if there is a God.

534. Yaron
     What will be the next charge? Is it written in the Zohar that the world is round?
     (According to research, the Book of Zohar was written in the 13th century and according to tradition, after the destruction of the Second Temple, in any case, after the Greeks had already calculated the circumference of the earth with incredible precision relative to the time and not only knew that it was round. And yet I often hear this as proof.)

535. Yaron
     As a believer I tell you enough!
     You are just making the religious fools with these "proofs". what are you trying to say You take one saying of a sage as if it were scientific. Let's say it's true. So a. Hazal said so many scientific facts and many of them are not true, so Nissim can definitely tell you that a broken watch is also... b. And if he finds such a gad then the Torah is incorrect? third. You throw out so many incorrect "facts" such as there was no connection between the communities or that tefillin were everywhere the same (Ethiopians did not have tefillin) and the claim of the Khazarian on Mount Sinai may have convinced the King of the Khazarian in the story but it will not work for anyone today. Broaden your horizons a little. There are other books of Israeli thought besides the Khazari one that everyone studies because it is the easiest to understand.

536. A.
     You are not the only one with these speculations. Steven J. Gold, a very well-known biologist, advocated the approach of evolution in steps, which is called in Hebrew "fragmented equilibrium".
     In my opinion - the point is, as I said earlier, that evolution is a process of time and place. Dawkins also thinks so, I understand. There are several ways of species formation, with two of the most important ones being the allopatric process and the sympatric process. An allopatric process happens when a species is separated geographically and the two populations are separated genetically. In the sympatric process, development happens in one place.

     What is important is that there are explanations for what you see, and you don't need to invent "God" to explain the situation, certainly when the religious explanation provides many more questions than answers...

537. Miracles,

     Let's say they were really right about the fish, what about all the nonsense they wrote?

     – Bats lay eggs.

     - The gestation period of a wolf, tiger, bear and monkey is 3 years.

     - A hyena turns into a bat after 7 years.

     – The trachea splits into the heart and liver.

     - Lice are formed from mud and sweat.

     Did God also give this information to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai? Why do believers only look at what is convenient for them?

538. Yaron
     Now should the scales fall off? Where is it written in the Torah? And when do Eilat fish scales, for example, fall off?

539. A',

     What you wrote is in my opinion exactly the right explanation, the animals are only forced to change if the environment changes and that doesn't happen every day. For example, the evolution of man was really, really fast (6-7 million years, which is nothing in terms of time), so obviously we won't find many intermediate fossils of this transition, the transition from a terrestrial animal to a leviathan was also really fast, and we were still lucky to find a few transitional fossils of this stage.

540. But Yaron,

     If the Torah itself tells you that the testimony regarding the status of Mount Sinai has not been passed down to the present day, then what relevance does everything you just said have? You don't believe what the Torah says? The Torah contradicts your words.

541. rival
     When millions of Jews return after 2000 years of exile
     Dozens of countries in the world with the same Torah!!! The same tefilin, the same tassel, the same circumcision, the same prohibitions (nudity, nidah, slaughter, kosher), etc. when it is indisputable that there was no connection between them, no cell phone, no internet, no means of communication that is sold today, so what more is there in their people?

542. Miracles
     Obviously there are explanations and I can think of a few too but I wanted to hear an answer from experts. The answer of only a certain location and only a certain time is problematic because many building blocks appear in many remote sites and date back to a large period of time. What I can think of is that apparently evolution is not a continuous process at a more or less constant rate but goes through accelerated periods and stable periods. And the fossils are from the stable periods. Or the big changes are called when there is some environmental change and then the species is reduced but manages to survive and evolve until it reaches the shape of the next vertebra and then becomes common again. But these are all just my guesses

543. Yaron,

     It is also written in the Torah that the testimony regarding the status of Mount Sinai has not been passed continuously until today, so what is the debate about anyway?

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcDHHPdM0eY

544. Miracles
     You are not suspected of stupidity. On the contrary, it's true, not a fish, but any creature in the water.
     Any creature that lives in water and has scales must have fins dot.
     The creatures you speak of do not have scales that fall off while being peeled! You're smart and that's fine

545. By the way, the symbol of atheism of the last generation and the bastion of secularism Yossi Sharid Zel admits to the eyes of the cameras and it is documented that contrary to his faith and contrary to his entire worldview until that moment he was in clinical death his soul left his body and he saw his body and the entire journey to Bihach! Is there anyone in this country who suspects that Yossi Reid Zel is a dark religious man who hallucinates?
     So there is one secularist in the country who does not need to ask himself questions? What is going on here?

546. Yaron
     What about the fish thing? Do you go back on the nonsense you said, or do you continue to deny what is written in the book you believe in?

547. ק
     Everything is written in the Torah, but you probably didn't bother to check
     And Jehovah said to Moses, thus you shall say to the children of Israel
     You have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven.
     Book of Exodus XNUMX
     And you spoke to the children of Israel, saying, "But my sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between me and you, so that you may know that I, Jehovah, sanctify you.
     Book of Exodus no, XNUMX
     By the way, this is the only religion in the world where it is not a question of faith but of knowledge because those who see also know! Unlike other religions, a single person came and told that the prophet in Islam or the Holy Spirit in Christianity appeared/transcended without any witnesses!
     In general, it is amazing to see Jews who are knowledgeable about all teachings, science, Darwinism, and all their religions and religions, lacking basic knowledge.

548. A.
     I explained to you why fossils come in groups.
     Now - imagine that the fire in your library did not damage the lowest shelves on the bottom floor (because instead of carpet there are tiles on the second floor) - then there will be relatively many books of a certain type left. It is much less likely that there will be few books of any kind left, isn't it?

549. Raphael
     seriously? Suppose we find a pair of particles that can be used to build both the quantum theory and the theory of gravity - will this somehow affect the world?

550. A.
     Biologists who study evolution have no problem with "intermediate fossils". They know it's an argument, really shallow, by creationists who don't exactly understand what they're talking about.
     Who do you think should be listened to?

551. Strange.. I wrote a comment to "Yriv" and it disappeared... I wonder why... well here it is again:

     K.
     They are also interested in knowing exactly (but - exactly) where is the "intermediate stage" between the ape and the ancient man (Neanderthal and the like)? do you have proof Because if not - then it's still a theory. A cute theory indeed, but still a theory.

552. Raphael,
     Would you be interested in helping Yaron explain his words?
     I asked him:
     You wrote: "...Jews stood on Mount Sinai and saw and heard the Creator of the world speaking from the mountain" - let's just assume for the sake of discussion that a similar event did take place. I do not understand the source of the assurance that what those Jews saw and heard was the creator of the world. It will help us to know first what exactly they saw, what exactly they heard and how we know about it. Can you share this knowledge with us?

553. A.
     Are you sure this is what Shiron asked/said? It seems that there are questions that bother you, there is no need to hide behind others 🙂
     The "problem" even as you present it is a bit false to the truth about the huge variety of types of fossils that have been found to date, but let's assume that there really was such an apparent problem:
     Imagine that big library you described. In the same library there are many copies of each type of book which are placed close together, entire shelves of the same book (except for minor changes between editions). Now imagine a librarian whose job it is to scan the books and back them up on a hard drive. The librarian is a bit lazy and scattered, so each time he goes to a different area of ​​the library and there he scans a few books from the same shelf. A supervisor of the libraries comes to visit and tries to learn about the state of the library by examining the contents of the hard drive to which the books were scanned. She discovers that there are few books relative to what there should be (to the best of her understanding, this is a large library). She also discovers that in fact this number is even lower because she sees that in most cases there are several copies of the same book. After a brief examination of the behavior of the lazy librarian, things become clear. The fact that the librarian sampled a small number of places in the library, almost at random, explains why there is not a complete representation of books from the library, and the fact that when the librarian already bothered to scan books in a certain place, he actually scanned copies of the same type of book, explains why the scanned variety does not represent the total variety that exists in the library .

     To return to reality, fossilization events are relatively rare and difficult to find even after they have occurred (for example, because they are buried deep in the soil/rock). Many times the suitable conditions to produce fossilization events result in many individuals of the same type being trapped and fossilized (such as a large mudslide or a seasonal lake during its existence the skeletons of the creatures that lived in it sank to the bottom and fossilized over the years). Here is a very easy to understand scenario that can create a missing fossil record in exactly the sense you describe: Think of a valley near an ocean that every few tens of millions of years fills due to sea level rise. During this period (when the valley area and the ocean are connected) some types of creatures come into the bay. With the lowering of the water level, a land barrier was created between the sea and the lake in the valley. A few million years pass and the lake recedes, natural weathering of the land surrounding the valley causes layers of sediment to build up on the bottom of the lake and create conditions that allow the fossilization of the small sample of creatures (although there are many individuals of each type). A few tens of millions of years later, the ocean level rises again and a connection between the sea and the valley is formed again, and again some types of creatures that are different from the previous ones naturally spread into the gulf. In such a situation, for example ten such cycles, it is possible to discover thousands of fossils of very few types of creatures. Note that in any case the fossil record is quite rich even if it does not represent everything that has existed on Earth during the course of evolution. More importantly, contrary to the not so successful analogy of the library, the fossils that are found tell a clear story about certain evolutionary processes (as I mentioned in my previous response with many examples), and even if there are certain processes in which there are important parts that have not been found yet, there are already enough processes in which they have been found There are enough stages that amazingly support the evolutionary prediction, and beyond that also strengthen our expectation that those important parts that have not yet been found do exist and that it makes sense to look for them in the Mishna Meretz.

554. Raphael
     If I really have to focus the question on one sentence then:
     What do you think scientists will say in the future about evolution? All life was created suddenly less than 6000 years ago
     And the second question why do you accept the big bang (or at least its perfect illusion to the extent that it is already a scientific truth) but strongly oppose evolution

555. Miracles
     The attempt to downplay the tremendous impact that will have on our lives as a result of the discovery of the theory of everything is the result of arrogance and vanity.

     א
     You had a lot of unfocused questions. If you've noticed - I don't usually write comments as long as the exile. Please try to focus me on one clear question and without a doubt you will get a clear and convincing answer.

556. Rival, perhaps you know, where to find the 'missing link' between the ape and the primitive man?

557. By the way, Yaron claimed that we don't have fossils at all.

558. A',

     I'm not sure I understand your examples... but let's talk about it, the argument is that reptiles evolved from fish that came onto land, we have a lot of fossils of fish before the transition, we have a lot of fossils of reptiles, and we have a much, much smaller amount of tictalic fossils that represent The transition is demonstrated for reptiles.

     I think this is exactly what we expect to find, what's wrong with that?

559. K.
     There is no doubt what bothers Yaron, but nevertheless it would be more interesting and beneficial for everyone to deal seriously with the claims than to attack the claimed weakness of the tradition as proof of God (admit that I also fell for this?)

560. rival
     The argument is not that there are no intermediate links, but that there are more details in each link than the number of links.
     For example, if I find five vertebrae of different species that seem to be an evolutionary process of hundreds of millions of years, but I find hundreds of individuals of each intermediate species, each species spans, say, a few million individuals. So there is a question.
     The image I read was let's say there is a library and I say I had a hundred thousand different books in it, but it burned down and I only had a few hundred books that were scattered randomly in the library.
     So it will sound strange if they are all copies of only five books. You may suspect that I am lying and that I did not have such a large variety.

561. A.
     The fossil record is rich enough to provide strong confirmation of significant evolutionary processes that the theory of evolution predicts, for example the transition from fish-like creatures to land creatures with four limbs (tetrapods), the later transition back to water from tetrapods to whales, the transition from reptile-like creatures to birds, the transition from ape-like creatures to creatures Humanoids and more. A partial (and somewhat old) list that mentions some such processes, including the names of the paleontological findings, their location and their description, can be found for example here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
     Beyond the correct fact that we do not have (and we do not need to have, although we would of course wish to have) full access to each and every generation in the sequence of changes that have occurred in the development of creatures on Earth since the appearance of life, there is no fundamental problem in the fact that no evidence has yet been found for all the changes that have occurred. The facts are that many invest considerable efforts to locate paleontological findings, and that these efforts bear many errors that, meanwhile, correspond in an excellent way to the prediction that emerges from the theory of evolution. Due to the uneven distribution of fossils (in time and space) and due to the nature of our relatively limited access to these findings, it is not improbable that uncovering the exact puzzle is a slow process in which sometimes new findings are required, not because of caprice or because of convenience, but because of scientific integrity which first considers the facts, slightly change the order we thought we understood in light of the previous findings. The fact that these changes are minor in relation to the big and very clear picture that emerges from the set of findings in this field (and another stunning collection of facts from other independent fields) is a strength and not a weakness. Anyone who has put together a puzzle in their life knows that there is an updating process, where sometimes you realize that pieces that we thought were found/connected in a certain place are actually supposed to be found a little to the side. Only in a few cases are the errors regarding the location of the part large and in such isolated cases it is relatively easy to identify and standardize them. Anyone who has put together a puzzle in their life without having the original box with the target image (recommended!) knows that even when quite a lot of pieces are missing, one can be impressed with great success regarding the content presented in the puzzle. Despite the absence of some very interesting pieces in the puzzle, the picture that emerges is a relatively gradual development of creatures. The claim that there are no intermediate steps to this understanding is silly and stems from simple ignorance. Let's just be honest, please, and acknowledge that what bothers Yaron is not the "problematic" gap in the fossil record (an invention of creationists, as Nissim pointed out).

562. A',

     This claim is simply a lie, many intermediate fossils have been found between a terrestrial animal and a leviathan, the same with regard to humans and birds, and perhaps Yaron has not heard of fossils of the tiktalik fish that show a transition between fish and reptiles.

563. Miracles
     Regarding the geographical location, this is not really a satisfactory answer. The same species are found in wide distributions in different regions and date back to wide periods of time. Regarding the fact that we may not notice subtle differences, this sounds logical but not entirely satisfactory. Because there are also anatomical differences from dehumidifiers sometimes.

564. A.
     This is exactly the point, today they are already convicting with one witness, which is another thing that is against the Torah, because according to the Torah, according to 2 witnesses, a thing will be established. But let's leave that aside
     The first ones who transferred from Sinai did not hear, they saw, that is why they agreed to accept the Torah with all the duties in it, otherwise there is no way they would agree to the word for slaughtering, wearing tefillin Shabbat, etc. After all, they could live freely. Now in every testimony there is the first one who saw and all the rest heard from him, including the judges. This is a reality .
     By the way, in a hundred years this will be the claim of Holocaust deniers for example. The Jews invented a line to supposedly gain legitimacy and we are not interested in the fact that there is a holocaust day passed from father to son to this day, what do I care if he heard from his father who heard from his father until the first survivors. Then they will be able to claim that they were for the purposes of storing goods and scientific experiments. Then there are photos and documents and they will tell you that it is not a problem for the fabric, there is no end to it

565. A.
     The concept of "intermediate stages" is a creationists' slur and nothing more.
     It should be understood that a small number of items are appetizers. This requires very specific environmental conditions. These conditions happen rarely and in small areas. Therefore - it is reasonable to find many (relatively) items of the same species. Don't forget that evolution has two dimensions: time and space. That is, at the same place and at the same time we do not expect to see "intermediate stages".
     Now, think how do we differentiate between species? A fossil can be as little as a piece of hip bone, or a tooth. Therefore, to say that a fossil is a new species, you need a large difference between this individual and the other individuals of the same species. Therefore - there is no such thing as "intermediate stages".

     One last thing - remember that the concept of sex is a human concept, contrary to what Plato thought! For existing items, we make minute diagnoses to differentiate between species. For ancient species, we lack a lot of information, so the distinction between species is rougher. Think for example of cabbage, kohlrabi and broccoli. All three (and several other types of vegetable) are considered the same species today (call them "intermediate species" if you like), but if they did not exist today, then we would probably call them different species.

566. To all the other commenters, I would like to say that it is worth seriously answering the arguments of the opponents of evolution. Not because you will succeed or fail to convince them that the discussion could be more fruitful.
     Yaron made a really interesting claim at the beginning of the discussion that I would be happy if people who understand would seriously answer it (to remove doubt I am not one of the opponents of evolution) and that is the "lack" of fossils of intermediate stages. That is, if we refer to, say, the period of the dinosaurs, we find a certain number of varieties (please do not correct regarding the exact nomenclature, I apologize in advance that I did not yet understand the division into species, gender, etc..) and we repeatedly find the same species but much less intermediate stages. The number of individuals from each species is greater than the number of intermediate stages they found. And it's not just about the time of the dinosaurs. I can think of some logical answer, but I'm more interested in the researchers' answer to this.

567. Raphael
     I'm glad you're still with us. You did not respond to me about what I wrote to you.
     Besides, the fact that I don't think the Khazari's argument is convincing doesn't mean I don't believe it..
     I really think you can't put all your faith in him

568. Raphael
     Did we say something that you don't think is true?

569. Yaron
     It's a shame to waste your time on them. Believe me. from experience
     good week.

570. Yaron
     A small detail. A court convicts on the basis of even one person if it has the impression that he is trustworthy, but only if he tells about what he saw himself. If he tells about something that he heard that someone saw, then there is already a small chance that they will be convicted. And if he tells about something he heard from someone who heard from someone else who heard from someone else that he saw himself...

571. Yaron,
     A demagogic salad added to the first does not really answer the simple questions I asked. I will repeat them again:
     You wrote: "...Jews stood on Mount Sinai and saw and heard the Creator of the world speaking from the mountain" - let's just assume for the sake of discussion that a similar event did take place. I do not understand the source of the assurance that what those Jews saw and heard was the creator of the world. It will help us to know first what exactly they saw, what exactly they heard and how we know about it. Can you share this knowledge with us?

572. Nice Yaron,

     You showed us the wonderful news of sages, now explain to us all the nonsense they wrote:

     Bats lay eggs.

     The gestation time of a wolf, tiger, bear and monkey is 3 years.

     A hyena turns into a bat after 7 years.

     The trachea splits into the heart and liver.

     Lice are formed from mud and sweat.

     Was this also given to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai?

573. Yaron
     The word "fish" is not mentioned in the kosher signs. There are animals in the sea that have scales and no fins. Two examples that even you probably know: sea turtles and certain eels.

574. Nice Yaron,

     You showed us the wonderful news of sages, now explain to us all the nonsense they wrote:

     http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/halacha/showmywife/showmywife.html

575. Miracles
     The Torah exists and you are welcome to refute it!
     Second, you probably didn't read what I wrote, if there are scales there must be fins!
     That is, a fin without scales does exist, but if there are scales there must be fins! And there is no fish that has scales and does not have a point fin!
     More than that, for example, a Jew who is on vacation in Japan is approached by a Japanese fisherman with half a fish! The half without the fin If the fish has scales you can eat it for sure because it is impossible for it to have scales and not have fins!!!
     Now it is clearer. And you are welcome to bring such a fish that has scales but no fin and you and I will go eat pork together on Yom Kippur.

576. Yaron
     "Anyone who has a fin and scales" ....
     There are animals in the sea that have fins and do not have scales.
     There are animals in the sea that have scales and no fins.

     That's why (!!!) the Torah emphasizes that there should be both fins and scales. Your knowledge of the Torah is nothing 🙂

577. K.
     What is problematic about the testimony of millions of people? In courts, a person's verdict is passed on the basis of two witnesses, and this is admissible testimony, so the testimony of millions of people who are handed down from father to son suddenly becomes the ruling and they heard something?
     Furthermore, when Moshe brought the Torah, any sane person who did not see or hear the Kabba speak from the mountain would have thrown him from all the steps because thousands had to send away their wives because of the commandment of celibacy in the Torah to change their entire way of life, nidah, slaughtering kosher, tufting, tefillin, learning Torah, etc. and they received All the "decrees" just because Moses said or because "they heard something near some mountain"? ridiculous!
     More than that it is written in the Torah that everything that has fins and scales you shall apparently eat it. What did you discover here? Any person who took a fish out of the water and it had fins and scales could write that, but in the Oral Torah it is written that everything that has scales must have fins! This is a discovery that at that time no person could write and commit to it for generations because no one suspects Moses that he explored all the oceans in the world! In other words, if science finds some kind of fish anywhere on earth that has scales but no fins, the whole Torah is a bluff!
     And again it is written that every one who splits a hoof and drives a horse and goes above and beyond it shall eat it, that is, 2 marks for the animal's tithes. There is nothing in this because anyone who had animals could write that. Not found the fifth! So the conclusion is that a human being could never have known this 3300 years ago and commit to it for generations, that is, if some person or scientist comes along and proves that there is a Thursday, the entire Torah is a bluff and was not given by the one who created the world, man, animals, etc. To this day, no one has been found and there are 2 million There are many types of animals and there are more and more examples in the Holy Torah that prove beyond any doubt that a human being could never but never write it!

578. Yaron
     The ancient straits recorded every grain of wheat.
     So how did they not document that close to half of the residents left Egypt at once?
     Millions of people lived and died in the Sinai desert, and there is no trace of it.

     A wise person would ask questions…. No?

579. Yaron,
     What a salad... Let's start with the second problematic statement:
     "...Jews were standing on Mount Sinai and saw and heard the Creator of the world speaking from the mountain" - let's assume for the sake of the matter that the above event did take place, meaning that a group of Jews were standing near some mountain and saw and heard something. Beyond the fact that a long-standing tradition that tells the same story is not in itself proof that the story is true (and those who learn about other traditions, many of which exist in the world of human culture, quickly understand this), I do not understand how certain it is that what those Jews saw and heard was the creator of the world. Could you shed some light on this point? In particular, what exactly did they see, what exactly did they hear and how do we know about it?

580. Eran,
     This determination relies on models in a field called astrophysics (search on Wikipedia), and in particular in the context of: the life cycle of stars (search on Wikipedia). The models were developed by scientists based on lots of data collected by other scientists. Part of the massive body of data collected is organized in what is known as the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (according to the scientists), see for example here:
     https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/HRDiagram-he-.gif

     As in any scientific field, the models explain well a variety of phenomena and also produce many predictions, which are tested if possible. When such predictions are tested against reality and found to be correct, our confidence in the models is strengthened. The models that exist today regarding the course of life of celestial bodies such as stars are quite well established and hence the relatively high confidence in what is expected to happen to our sun, which is a fairly normal planet from a physical point of view (search for 'the sun' in Wikipedia).
     If you want to convince yourself how good the existing models are and why you should trust them, you'd better get an education on the subject from professional sources. It is impossible to transfer courses in astrophysics and the minimal preliminary knowledge necessary to understand such a course within this framework.

581. ק
     Millions of Jews stood on Mount Sinai, saw and heard the Creator of the world speaking from the mountain, etc. This is absolute evidence that cannot be refuted, and the evidence of the Jewish people with the same Torah everywhere that they are fringed with tefillin, etc. The Torah is the absolute truth and the revelations that come regarding the universe and life in God have never been refuted and will not be refuted Never, because a human being could never know and write them. The Jewish people do not need scientific proof that there is a Creator! He knows that there is a non-believing creator. Those who choose to live in lies and imagined dreams. There is only one problem with dreams that one day they shatter and then you have to pay for them.

582. Eran
     In the abstract: in the sun there is a process of cutting - hydrogen turns into helium. In this process, some of the sun's mass is converted into energy.
     In five billion years, almost all the hydrogen will already be helium, and then the sun will cool down (relatively) and become a "red giant". This is a complex phase and in part the helium will be cut into carbon and other heavy elements will be formed.
     After that, the sun will turn into a "white dwarf", and at the very far end into a "black dwarf". At this stage - the sun will lose about half of its original mass.

583. The science of 2016 does not mock the science of 2015, not the science of Francis Collins, not the science of Feynman, not the science of Einstein, Schrödinger, Isenberg and Bohr, not of Newton and Darwin, not of Galileo and not of Pythagoras and Archimedes, where did you get it from? On the contrary, they stand on the shoulders of giants to promote the ideas that enable the best prediction. Einstein, for example, did not contradict Galileo and Maxwell but managed to combine Galileo's principle of motion with Maxwell's speed of light. This is his greatness.
     Science did get rid of unsuccessful ideas, such as God, that do not allow the shadow of the shadow of predicting the future.

584. Yaron,
     You wrote one exact thing: "If there is a Creator..."
     I hope for you that you don't assume there is a creator just like that, it's too important to presuppose arbitrarily without solid reasons and possibilities for testing, otherwise, one day you might realize that you've wasted a significant portion of your short and precious life believing in nonsense. It's worth checking out, isn't it?
     Contrary to the finding of intermediate stages in geologically suitable layers (it won't hurt you to visit nature museums so that you don't remain religious in the dark) I have never received a reasonable explanation (even one that would be logically correct to begin with), for the assurance of religious people in the existence of God. I would appreciate it if you could explain why *you* believe such a thing exists. Of course, it would help if you could define what God is for you, otherwise we won't be able to understand what it is actually about, because after religious people presented me with hundreds of different definitions, attributes and characteristics of God (some of which contradict each other), it unfortunately became clear that I actually have no idea about what is it about Worse, my impression is that all those religious people really don't have a clue either, and everyone just repeats the version of the mantras that they learned from other religious people who I doubt had any reliable knowledge on the subject. In fact, the thing that best explains the huge variety that exists today on this topic is the evolution of ideas 🙂

585. Miracles
     It still doesn't work out for me. The sun is a closed system if in 5 billion years it has lost only 0.05 of its mass (zero) and has energy for another 10 trillion years how exactly will it turn off in 5 billion years what is this statement based on

586. Yaron
     Which fossil exactly are you missing?
     Turning the dead back to life? Have you ever heard of the flu?

587. Nissim, you are saying something and vice versa if in 5 billion years it is the mass it lost (zero) and the sun is a closed system and there is energy for another 10 trillion years as you claim, then where does the assertion that it will turn off in 5 billion years come from, a clearly improbable claim

588. In short, blah blah blah blah, if there is evolution, there must be intermediate stages in layers, as Darwin claimed. If there are, they will bring pictures that will be published. Apparently there are none, and they are philosophizing about all kinds of nonsense in the hope that in the meantime they will find them. It's good for business there are institutes and universities with famous names the money flows and there are also many phlegmatics who drink the nonsense if only to justify their life of promiscuity and satisfy their lusts because if there is a creator then you also have to obey his commands and this is not appropriate

589. Raphael
     I didn't understand what exactly you think will happen. That in a few years scientists will "discover" that there is no evolution? This is highly unlikely. There may be many new discoveries and new mechanisms of animal development and all kinds of changes in the theory, but no cancellation of animal development from animals that preceded them. I'm having a little trouble understanding you. If I'm not mistaken, you are a believer (meaning the same Raphael who responded until now)
     And you are ready to accept the big bang (or at least a complete illusion of it. So complete that no scientist will ever discover it and in fact the world was created as if it was created billions of years ago without any defect or sign that would indicate that it existed less than six thousand years. So scientifically it can be said that there was The Big Bang (that is, God hides the miracle of creation as if it was created according to the laws of nature) (on the one hand, this is quite logical, as a person of faith you must believe that God runs the world and that there is private supervision even without God changing the laws of physics, for example.)
     So I don't understand why you think that in biology it is different. What is your view? That in a few years scientists will find evidence that all birds were created on one day and all land animals on another day? Why do you think that God created the earth and the sky so that, at least apparently according to the laws of nature, but not the animals?

590. Raphael
     Do you know the concept of "affiliation"? The idea is that there is no hierarchy of sciences: sociology relies on psychology, psychology relies on biology, biology on chemistry and chemistry on physics. Physics is divided into two: the classical world which includes the theories of relativity, and the quantum theory. There are attempts to find a "theory of everything", on which the two worlds of physics will rely. But - no one thinks that it will cancel the existing physics.
     As an example: all the particles we know are composed of two types of particles, quakers and leptons. All these particles have a charge that is zero, one third, two thirds and whole. So - it is possible in principle to build all leptons and quarks (there are six from each family) from their two subparticles - one with zero charge and the other with one third charge. Prof. Haim Harari "chaos" and "boho" happen to them...
     Another example is quantum gravity. And another example is the teachings of the strings.

     But - all these do not change the physics we know, - certainly not all the reliable sciences.

591. miracles,

     The "theory of everything" (or any other name they call it) has not yet been discovered and everyone is convinced that it is there and it will change the face of science from end to end.

592. Miracles
     Religion is indeed a way of understanding the world around you.
     She sets before you rules according to which you should act. And the way you choose to drive will be involved in retaliatory action from the law (the ruler). This is a primitive way for man to understand how he should behave in his environment - but it is much more effective than barbarism and the way the Mowgli child grew up.
     what did not you understand?

593. Miracles
     Religion is indeed a way of understanding the world around you.
     She sets before you rules according to which you should act. And the way you choose to drive will be involved in retaliatory action from the law (the ruler). This is a primitive way for man to understand how he should behave in his environment - but it is much more effective than barbarism and the way the Mowgli child grew up.
     what did not you understand?

594. anonymous
     If you mean religion, then religion is not a method of studying the world. If you think otherwise - what is the religious method?
     And if you meant something else, then just say so.

595. Raphael
     There have been no revolutionary changes in physics for over a century. There are many discoveries, but they are additions to the solid foundation of the first half of the last century.
     At the level of what is happening in the time we live in, it is very unlikely that there will be coups. So will they discover another particle? So will they think of more details about the big bang? It won't change the physics.

     And regarding what you said about Darwin (Kerry 1859), I would love to hear who mocks his teachings.

596. Miracles
     It is true that science is not going to change.. if only because science is a method for studying the world and the reality revealed to us. The method can change, but then, the new method will not be called "science".

     In fact, a different method for exploring the world - exists. And to be honest - it has existed since before the invention of the scientific method.
     (I guess there is no need to clarify what the method is).

     Raphael

     You are right when you claim that: "that the science of 2011 mocks (though not loudly) the science of 1859
     This is how the science of 2150 will mock the science of 2011."

     You can even say that: the science of 2017 will mock the science of 2016...

     This is the way of science. to confirm or refute preconceived claims and assumptions.

597. Miracles,
     "And it's ridiculous to say that science is going to change radically."
     really?
     Can you explain why you are so sure?

598. Raphael
     It is not nice of you to imply that science disqualifies Darwin. And it's hard to say that science is going to change radically.
     This is exactly the combination of dishonesty and lack of understanding that I am talking about.

599. Hi Nissim, how are you? long time...
     Shall we begin our usual skirmish?

600. Raphael
     Fortunately for the wise religious, you do not represent them. You have zero understanding of science, and even more zero of human relations.

601. To my father Blizovsky
     As the science of 2011 mocks (though not loudly) the science of 1859
     Thus the science of 2150 will mock the science of 2011
     He who mocks last mocks...

     There is no other but her,
     Everything goes through you and love is in your hands.

602. Eran
     The calculation I did assumes a constant mass loss rate. But - the sun will "turn off" long before that. Mass then will be very close to today's mass.

603. yes help me I'm weak in math. According to the Davidson Institute there are only 5 billion years left and 10 trillion is a little more fix the equation for me

604. Eran
     The sun loses 6 million tons per second, which is 2×10^17 kilograms per year. The weight of the sun - 2×10^30 kilograms. If you divide (help you?) you will get that at this rate the sun will decay in 10 trillion years.

     Or - assuming that the rate of mass reduction is constant - the sun has lost 27^10 kilograms since it was created, which is 0.05% of its mass.

     Is it clearer now? 🙂

605. If you find Rothschild, we would be happy if you could provide photos.

606. The sun is a closed system inside a shell. It burns 4.5 million tons of material/gas per second. If it is 4.5 billion years old, it should have consumed its own mass and with it the entire galaxy. Where the source of its energy comes from is not clear.

607. Tal, what is "there is no point in putting believers to sleep"?

     Do you think the only reason to go down on them is the age of the earth, the universe, the sun, etc.?

     Their entire being is worth spitting and endless slander. They worship evil and cruelty, stupidity and mind-boggling backwardness.

608. For a Jew, the science website describes the science of 2011 and not that of 1859.

609. Liar Jew:
     Find lots (but lots and lots!) of intermediate forms.
     You make sure, of course, to get caught up in the lack of knowledge of hundreds of years ago, but know that rational people will not be convinced by your lies.

610. I forgot to mention that the last quote is from page 336 in the book Origin of the Species.!

611. Hey guys, I have some refreshing news for you..
     First of all, this is written for all those who believe in huge clouds that "in time, Darwin will win the battle when" they discover
     that his (!) theory is right...
     First I must make it clear that I fully believe in the theory of evolution.!!!
     Which means I believe what he wrote himself (Darwin in his book 'The Origin of Species' p. 288 as I think) where he says "Why were the same building forms not found in any geological layer"? Everyone understands the question here..
     "I believe (he believes with complete faith!) that the explanation lies in the fact that most of the geological finds have not yet been discovered. They will dig and find out!"
     And we all know they didn't find it
     "Anyone who rejects the claim that intermediate forms exist but have not yet been discovered, must reject the entire theory (!)"
     Since then 120 years have passed and more I am discouraged..!!

     But why not?

612. Everything is a theory - it is not empirical. Therefore, over the years - the theories change. There is no point in "coming down" on the believers - because quite a few scientists have repented.
     I say - if there is a work - there must be a creator. And when he created the work - who said he owed so much "time"?
     The distance does not depend on time.
     The world in its dimensions - was created 5771 years ago - according to the Torah. This is an absolute fact.
     Everything else must bring proof that contradicts - not a theory

613. Homage to Shmulik, the intercessor (10) –
     "Apart from the dog, the book is man's best friend.
     Inside the dog, it's too dark to read anyway" (Mark Twain).

614. Lior,
     I assume that your calculation was made based on the assumption of a constant growth rate of the population.
     In practice, the growth rate of the population changed throughout the periods.
     On the following site:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
     It is noted that the human population was stable for tens of thousands of years until the development of agriculture.
     There were also periods in history when the human population was small due to epidemics (the Middle Ages in Europe and the Indian population with the arrival of the white man).
     Therefore I am afraid that no conclusions can be drawn from such a calculation

615. Your calculation is wrong.

616. LiorD give us your calculation.

617. Just a question that has been on my mind for a while
     According to the rate of population growth, it is possible to calculate approximately backwards when the human race began to reproduce and actually when was it created? In my calculation, it is about 6 thousand years, right?

618. Just a question that has been on my mind for a while
     According to the rate of population growth, it is possible to calculate approximately backwards when the human race began to reproduce and actually when was it created? In my calculation, it is about 6 thousand years, right?

619. Of course - except for the subject of interest in life, which I must have found before you were born (I don't mean before you found interest in life because it hasn't happened yet)

620. Shlomo:
     If the spaghetti monster you believe in exists it will probably grant your request.
     Oops! She didn't answer!

621. We saw, his name is Machal

     I wish he would shut up already and find an interest in life

622. Have you seen?
     There is someone here who claims that everyone else is stupid and only he is smart and he is more requires modesty

623. What fun to be in the company of people who know so much and are sure of their rightness
     Without a trace of skepticism towards medicine.

     Those are sure that God is the creator, and those are sure that the world was created from nothing and its laws were determined by "nobody in particular".

     People... calm down - no one knows what the true nature of nature is and "be glad" to know
     that both sides are wrong and don't know the real answer.

     A little modesty and less cynicism.

624. It seems to me that Shmulik writes upside down and presents how a supposedly religious/believing person would react.

625. Shmulik, have you ever seen a gorilla? It is also an ape, the group to which humans also belong.

626. Have you ever seen a monkey? They are small! How can a whole human come out of a monkey, it doesn't make sense at all!
     You know what, Naha, but what would humans do among monkeys? We know that people in the past lived in caves, there are all kinds of cave paintings of ancient people. But why would people want to live inside monkeys, have you ever found a monkey that had a painting inside?
     Naha, but what should be eaten inside a monkey? You can't grow crops because it's dark, there's no one to hunt.
     Niha, but also mecham! I don't believe there was a person who was willing to endure the boredom of life in a monkey.
     What, like this or not?!
     Of course it is!

627. Enlightened, I found a few more:

     "I am the son of a king"
     "I am with virtue"
     "You may have come from monkeys, I came from God"

     If I missed another statement of an inferiority complex - I can add it.

628. Naor, you forgot some sayings:
     "I am righteous and you are a sinner"
     "God loves me and you don't"
     "I will go to heaven and you will go to hell"
     Actually, you are not evil, just poor "you are a captive baby"
     "We have no understanding of God"
     "I know exactly what God wants and why everything happens in the world"

629. "I am enlightened and you are primitive."

     "I believe in evolution and naturalism and you in the spaghetti monster and graves of the righteous"

     "The country is important to me and you are destroying it"

     "I am productive and you are a parasite"

     "I'm somebody and you're a pissing zero"

     If I missed another saying that everyone with an inferiority complex likes to use in their comments - I can add it

630. The things I wrote are from common sense.
     Common sense says that anyone who determines how the world was created as a result of all kinds of feelings he has about "God" or "Creator of the World" is flawed in his soul. And whoever believes that one is just a common idiot.

631. Response 4 is not worthy of print and you leave it to Dron. Are you crazy? language? feelings? Neuroses? What is this scumbag doing here?

632. Creationists are devious and petty people who use language to justify all kinds of neuroses and emotions that arise in them.

633. Should be corrected: "When the time comes, Darwin will win the battle"

634. If so, the theory of evolution gave a prediction about the age of the sun that was later proven! I mean, it's not just a Torah that explains things in retrospect.

635. A nice and nice article that shows how discipline X affects discipline Y in a far-reaching way.
     At the same time, I must admit that the favorite (and true) sentence that spoke to me the most is the one referring to the fans of the science army "whose security is inversely proportional to their knowledge"

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.