Ever since Reverend Paley developed the parable of the clock, there have been attempts to attribute the seemingly fine-tuning of the laws of nature to suit life as divine intervention.
A well-known parable tells of a man walking in a field, who suddenly finds a gold watch. He picks up the watch, examines it carefully and discovers that its hands indicate the exact time. He opens the clock, and finds that the cogwheels rotate side by side in a distinct order.
Are we to believe that such a complex and organized object could have been created by itself?
The parable was coined by the scholar William Paley in the 19th century, who championed the idea of 'natural theology'. He studied the complex structures in nature, such as the human body, in order to understand God's ways of working and thinking. Paley believed that every complex object has a creator and designer, but today we know that even semi-random processes of change and refinement (in simple words - evolution through natural selection) can gradually lead to the creation of new and complex features. These insights are based on laboratory experiments conducted with genetic algorithms, computerized organisms that develop complexity in an evolutionary way and decades of experiments with bacteria.
Paley's clock parable, therefore, has been completely disproved when it comes to trying to explain the complexity of living things. Today it is only used in the hands of creationists who choose to ignore the difference between a clock and a biological entity capable of reproduction, undergoing mutations and passing them on to its offspring.
But there is another clock. A much larger watch, and one that may be even more complex than the human body. And this clock is the entire universe.
The fine-tuned universe
For a reason we do not understand, the elementary particles in the universe exert different forces on each other. Some attract each other, others repel. Each particle has its own properties and different forces that it can exert on all others. These forces include the force of gravity or attraction (gravitation), the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. Gravity is what attracts heavy objects to each other, and ensures that our feet stay close to the ground, or that a piano falling from the 13th floor falls on our head and does not rise into the air and escape into the atmosphere. The electromagnetic force is the one that controls the strength of the magnet and electricity. Last but not least, the nuclear forces act within the nuclei of atoms, with the strong nuclear force acting within the nucleus of atoms and making sure that the nucleus remains intact and the atom not disintegrating, while the weak nuclear force controls the rate of decay of radioactive materials.
Some of these forces are particularly powerful. Others are ridiculously weak. The difference between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force is especially clear. A magnet with a diameter of one centimeter activates the electromagnetic force and can attract metallic objects into the air - thereby resisting the gravity of the entire earth.
And here is an intriguing fact: if the gravitational force were not much weaker than the electromagnetic force, life as we know it could not exist. The reason for this is that our body is made up of many different types of atoms, such as hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, sulfur, iron and others. These are the main components of all living things on earth. However, the Big Bang resulted in the creation of only three simple types of atoms, in the first moments after the explosion: hydrogen, helium and lithium. The rest of the atoms were created inside the dying cores of giant stars, as a result of processes that caused the simple atoms to assemble together and create complex and heavier atoms such as carbon and iron. When the stars exploded in massive supernovae, at the end of billions of years, their contents were ejected into outer space and crystallized to form planets, on which life evolved.
And how does all this relate to the electromagnetic force and gravity? Gravitational force acts between elementary particles within the cores of stars and pulls them together. But it is much weaker than the electrical repulsion between them, so the stars manage not to collapse in and turn off completely. They continue to burn and create the heavier atoms, which will eventually become the basis of life. If the gravitational force were not so weak, then the stars would not have survived for long, they would not have created heavy atoms, and in the end living things could not have been created.
Say - luck and nothing else? Well, maybe. But the universe is full of these kinds of discounted dice rolls. If the weak nuclear force were a little stronger, the atoms would release excess weight very easily, and the entire universe would be filled with light hydrogen atoms only. If the weak nuclear force were a little weaker, the atoms would manage to maintain their weight and even add to it - and the entire universe would be filled with only helium atoms. Although the helium atoms are heavier than the hydrogen atoms, they too cannot form the basis of life.
Think that's all? We're not done yet. The forces acting between and within the atoms appear well-tuned, but they are not alone. Even the mass of tiny particles like neutrons, protons and electrons, seems to us to be well adjusted. If the mass of the electron were just a little more, then most of the matter in the world would be invested in creating neutrons, and very little hydrogen would be left. Since hydrogen is the main type of fuel that allows the cores of stars to continue burning, we would get a universe where (again) we don't have the heavy atoms that were supposed to form in the cores of stars.
coincidence?
Imagine that you are in a casino in Las Vegas. You managed to bet all your money and lose, and you are about to leave empty-handed. But now the owner of the casino comes to you and offers you to participate in an extraordinary game. He presents you with a standard pack of cards and asks you to shuffle it several times, draw thirteen cards from the top of the pack and place them face down on the table.
"Let's do a little intervention" he offers you. "If all thirteen cards you drew come from the series of hearts - then you have won, and you will get ownership of the entire casino. If even one of them belongs to another series - leaf, diamond or clover - then you have lost, and I will get full ownership of your house and partial ownership of your wife."
Out of a complete lack of understanding of the statistics so common among casino visitors, you decide to accept the bet, while silently praying that the woman will never hear about it. The casino owner smiles to himself with satisfaction. He uploaded another fat fish online, and had already seen pictures of the lady on Facebook. Just before you turn over the cards, you should know that a quick statistical calculation shows that the chance that you will draw 13 specific cards (Ace of Hearts, Two of Hearts, Three of Hearts and so on up to the King of Hearts) is one in 635 billion. To explain how low the chance of this is, let's just say that if you were to line up the State of Israel with coins, paint one of them red, and ask a blind person to choose just one coin from them, then the chance that he would succeed in choosing the right coin is about one in 635 billion. And if the metaphor wasn't clear yet: it's a really, really small chance.
For a reason that is not clear to the author of the article, you agreed to the bet. The casino owner looks expectantly and rubs his hands together. You turn over the cards with trepidation...
and discover that all thirteen cards belong to the suit of hearts.
Congratulations - you kept the woman for another day, and you also won the entire casino. This is an amazing coincidence - an event with absolutely zero chance. It is hard to believe that this is nothing but luck. Is it possible, you wonder, that there is a deliberate hand that has influenced the deck of cards in some obscure way?
And that's exactly what the anthropic principle says. The anthropic principle states that the forces and masses of the particles in the universe were precisely determined to allow life to form in the universe. Out of all the possible values that the electromagnetic force could have, it won precisely the one that allows the universe to create life. Out of all the possible values that the mass of the electron could have taken, it took precisely the one that allowed the universe to create life. and so on and so on. The perfect tuning of the universe to create life indicates, according to some believing physicists, the existence of a planning being who designed the universe in this way. This principle was first raised in 1973 by the theoretical physicist Brandon Carter, in a lecture about 'The Anthropic Principle in Cosmology and the Coincidence of Large Numbers'. The idea gained momentum quickly, and naturally became especially well-known among religious people who used it as proof of the existence of an intelligent being who directed the entire universe and its forces with the ultimate goal of creating life, and ultimately - man.
But is it possible to explain the tuning of the universe even without needing a directing entity?
Let's go back to our deck of cards. By chance we did draw the exact hand we wanted, because then we might suspect three ways this could have happened: wrong basic assumptions about the statistics behind the bet, simple cheating, or divine providence.
We will look at each of them, in order.
Statistical misunderstanding: The false premises of the anthropic principle
The anthropic principle is based on ignorance. The only forms of life we know are all based on carbon. This is not sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility of the existence of other forms of life, based on different atoms, which may be lighter and simpler. It is difficult for us to imagine such life forms, but theoretically they may exist. If the forces in the universe were different in size, then the compositions of the final atoms would also be different from the universe we know - but this is no proof of the inability of life to form in that different universe as well.
Biologists are probably raising an eyebrow or two at this point. "How can life form in a world containing only helium atoms, or only hydrogen atoms?" they ask And the answer is that in that other universe, the forces themselves are different in magnitude, and it is possible that there are also complex interactions between the particles that make up the content of the atom. It is also possible not, but the real answer is that we do not know how those possible alternative universes will behave, and therefore we cannot state unequivocally that life will not form in them.
This argument is relatively weak, because despite our ignorance of the alternate universes, we must rely on what we do know as a basis for thought. Although life can be based on atoms other than carbon, such as silicon (computer chips are a representative example of this) it is difficult to think of a reliable way in which life could form in a universe containing only simple atoms such as helium or hydrogen. But these are extreme states of possible universes. Not all possible universes other than our own must be composed of helium or hydrogen only.
Victor Stenger, an American physicist and thinker, published a study in 2004 in which he selected five key factors in shaping the shape of the universe. These are the electromagnetic force and the strong nuclear force, the mass of the electron, the mass of the proton and the mass of the neutron. Together, these factors control the physical properties of matter in the universe, "from the dimensions of atoms to the order of magnitude of the length of the day and the year..." according to Stenger. Do the values of these factors have to be fixed and specific, or maybe they can be higher or lower than their values today, without this interfering with the creation of life in the universe?
Stenger's calculations show that in order to create ancient stars, in whose cores the atoms that form the basis of life will be formed, a wide range of values can be satisfied. If the electromagnetic force alone were greater than it is today, then the age of the stars would reach 680 million years - more than enough time to create heavy atoms. And if the mass of the electron was a million times lower, then the mass of the proton would only have to decrease a thousand times so that the lifespan of the stars would remain the same.
Stenger went on to examine simulations of a hundred possible universes, in each of which the physical forces and particle masses differ, so that they would be 10,000 times higher or lower than their original value. He discovered that most of the stars have long lives that allow them to create heavy atoms.
Stenger therefore showed that the values of the forces and masses in the universe do not have to be specific and precise to bring about the formation of life. There is not just one value that the putative designer tried to tap into, but a wide set of values, each of which on its own could have been adapted to create life. There is no necessary impediment to state that our universe 'fell' by chance on its specific value out of all those possible values.
The two arguments presented above make the stakes less decisive than we initially believed. Both state that the casino owner did not really formulate absolute rules for the game. The actual bet is actually much more permissive than you initially thought. The only condition for victory is no longer drawing 13 cards from the suit of hearts. You can win even if the hand you drew contains two jokers, for example. Or if it contains four cards of the same number. The chances of this are still not high... but suddenly the bet no longer seems so improbable.
Simple cheating: arrange the package
You must feel much better now: you have a pretty good chance of winning the casino owner's game. But you want to make sure the odds are even better. Therefore, as soon as the casino owner goes to the bathroom, you check the pack and arrange it so that the 13 cards from the series of hearts appear first. When he comes back, you innocently draw the cards from the top of the pack, shake his hand and win the entire pot. Ocean's 11 really.
This way of cheating is parallel to the physical theory known as the 'theory of everything'. This theory does not yet exist, but many physicists around the world are looking for it. This theory would connect the four physical forces and reveal that they are able to influence each other, like different faces of the same cube. If we roll a die and it lands with the number 1 on top, we can know that the number 6 is on the bottom. And if the number 2 is on top, the number 5 will be on the bottom, and so on. The numbers on the wigs are interdependent, so the sum of the top and bottom numbers will always be 7. Similarly, if the 'theory of everything' is correct, then one day we may discover that physical forces are also interdependent. This means that from the moment the value of only one force is determined, it also determines the values of the other forces. In this case, there is no need to wonder anymore about the way the universe was tuned - it happened out of the inherent properties of the physical forces. The pack of cards, in fact, was arranged so that as long as you drew from the top of the pack, your chances of winning the game were exactly one hundred percent.
This is a nice and simple way to cheat, but you have to rely on the casino owner being innocent enough to leave you with the package in the room. What if there was another way, where you have no chance of getting caught? The scientific hypothesis known as 'string theory' implies that such a way does exist. According to string theory, our universe is just one universe among a vast number of universes. In each of the universes, the physical forces received different values. Our universe received the right values for the creation of life, and we as living beings naturally evolved within it.
According to this idea, there are an almost infinite number of universes, and in each of them you draw 13 other cards from the pack. What is the wonder, therefore, that in one of those universes you will be able to meet the dangerous bet? Similarly, we will not be surprised that at least in one of the universes the forces and masses received the values they needed to create life.
Both of these theories are beautiful, but it is important to say that they are still unproven. Many physicists believe that string theory is valid and arbitrary, but even more are skeptical because its ideas are difficult to test in ordinary physical experiments. As for the 'theory of everything', many physicists believe that it does exist, but we have not yet been able to formulate it definitively.
It follows that these answers cannot yet provide by themselves an adequate explanation for the phenomenon of the planned universe. At most, they provide an alternative explanation for the divine providence we will discuss immediately.
Divine providence as an explanation of the anthropic principle
Let's go back to the starting point. You were presented with a bet with zero chances of winning, and you agreed to accept it... and you won. The man who believes in the first place will surely thank God Almighty on this point, who tilted the results of the bet for him. But this is an avoidance of providing a real explanation for the phenomenon. We do not know of such a divine being who is inclined to play cards (or even dice). We have never encountered it on the street, quantified it in a controlled manner, or picked it up with the Hubble Space Telescope. Certain religious people are willing to accept that entity as the source of the anthropic principle, but we have already seen that the anthropic principle is not well-founded, and that there are also alternative explanations that are just as reasonable - and probably more so - than the explanation that requires the existence of an intelligent being that directed the universe to create life.
Worse, this claim is a logical fallacy that ignores the body of evidence to the contrary. We see that the universe contains life, so we assume that the same divine entity aspired to create a universe with life, and that it did it quite well. But the facts surrounding us indicate otherwise. If there was indeed a being who tuned the universe to create life, then it did a particularly poor job of it. Out of the vast expanses of the universe, only one tiny planet (as far as we know) contains intelligent life that acknowledges the existence of that god. The rest of the universe consists of empty space with a deadly and frozen vacuum, cosmic radiation capable of sterilizing life, and black holes that swallow anything that approaches them. And yes, also one tiny planet with life. Even if other stars harbor life, they are dwarfed in size compared to the vast expanses of the dark and hostile universe.
The bitter truth is that the universe as it is serves as a good testimony to a being who designed the universe to have zero life - and only out of luck and nothing else did living beings develop in very small parts of the universe. Alternatively, it can be assumed that it is only luck or bad luck - the casting of a cosmic dice that resulted in the creation of a universe that does not support life in the overwhelming majority. Any other assumption is based on a very selective look at the existing evidence: we only consider the evidence that supports our theory in the first place, and ignore all the other evidence that supports other theories.
Summary
The anthropic principle states that the basic values of the universe have been finely and carefully adjusted so that it can support life. However, this is a claim based on ignorance and a complete lack of understanding of those values and the alternative options that could have been accepted. Even worse, this is a claim that examines only the tiny part of the universe that is capable of sustaining life, and ignores all the other parts of the universe that are barren and harmful to life. Given these facts, it is difficult to see the universe containing life as proof of fine-tuning of any kind.
The cover image was taken from Wikipedia, where it was originally uploaded by the user Pirkheimer
The second image was taken from Wikipedia, where it was originally uploaded by the user Racklever
570 תגובות
Avig,
A metaphor is not a proof. It is only a (mostly, lame) means of illustration. In the reality that the metaphor claims to represent, there are many other factors that the metaphor ignores.
Please see, for example, this response by R.H.:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-304242
jubilee
There is no situation from a probabilistic point of view over the course of several years that would define that it is possible for Roy to throw the ink upwards and it will line up in an exemplary manner on the paper (each letter as in the Eben Shoshan dictionary) according to the following order with an equal distance between letter and letter, f, a, y without any ink stain Relevant on paper.
This metaphor comes to say about the creation that cannot be created as it is today without a decision and intention to do so.
Can science contradict this statement and prove otherwise?
Avig,
If you find a clear connection between the parable you brought and the reality you are trying to prove/disprove with it, congratulations. If you can explain it, maybe I can relate to it too.
jubilee
The fact that your assessment of me is low (relative to whom) I accept with love
But the fact that you avoid the scientific approach to my question regarding the ink and Roi is already very disappointing
Maybe you don't have an answer but maybe some logical direction?
Avig,
Although I estimated your intellect very low, but out of respect for you as a person I ask to reply. On the other hand, I don't know how to explain to you in a way that you can understand.
So if not you, maybe other readers will understand and I will see it as a reward for my work.
You brought a parable about paper, ink and "shepherd", from which you conclude about things that are in the world and argue for the proof/refutation of a claim that is widely accepted by a wide community of thinking people. I acquit you of the charge of expressing contempt and ridicule, due to the doubt that it is just a style of decoration, but you must understand that this kind of speech is not the point.
jubilee
Rabbi Sheik Pe is an evil writer when everyone like those from Mea Shearim are dogmatists who are unable to activate the brain beyond 5% of its capacity.
When I read comments here on the articles I understand that the knowledge you push to the head brings out human emptiness.
I asked a question that you don't have an answer to so you attack because you are frustrated that science sits on 4 elephants that hold the earth.
My opinion is yours jubilee.
My father c He is, in my opinion, a troll from the land of trolls and I think it's time to block him for flooding (and another flood of nonsense!).
Avi Blizovsky - for your consideration.
Abig, you are a liar.
The answer is not important to you.
What's important to you is attention, so here you got one from me.
But know that you are one of the most eloquent commenters I've come across on this site, maybe the biggest.
You take things out of context, not out of malice but out of sheer stupidity.
Sad to know there are people like you in the world.
Roy
The option that the universe adjusted randomly is refuted by the reality of man on earth
For the simple reason according to the following example:
Roy will take a large white paper one meter by one meter and place it on the floor. Take an inkwell, open the cap and squirt the ink upwards. The ink drops will fall down onto the white paper.
First question, how many times will you perform the operation until the ink settles on the paper in the center in the form of the letter R (the first letter of your name) without any other black mark on the paper. You are a scientist, you can calculate the probability of your success.
After you have succeeded with the letter R, you will follow the same principle, but this time two letters will line up, R and V. How many times this time will you have to perform until perfect success?
I wonder what the result of the number of attempts until you get your full name on the white paper and without any ink stains around it.
Haha it's hard but nonsense it's all 4 letters lower than you, look how randomly the world was created with all the complexity of the galaxies and what about the earth, plants, animals and the sophisticated man. Can you tell me, my friend Roy, how many random experiments did nature make until the creation of the entire universe????
The answer is very important to me, even before I go to sleep so that I can dream about the answer I will receive.
What is strange here is that the article you wrote, Roy, is a poverty certificate for the common sense of 90% of humanity, and this is when you are a doctoral student in nanotechnology and are enslaved to theories until you lose the simple logic that says that material reality did not exist before the arrival of man and if it existed for a short period of time it would still not be relevant.
If you don't feel the need not to sin, the truth is a miracle until you are convinced of the truth behind the creation of the world.
Zhuzhou (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-315607):
It is clear that the religious does not appropriate God.
The religious appropriates the world to God and not the other way around.
This is one of his mistakes because the one who created God is man and how many confused people (religious or not - it doesn't matter) believe in his existence.
Arguments on the site have nothing to do with emotional intelligence and it seems to me that you do not understand the term at all.
Zhuzhou (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-315683 ):
For some reason - you do not apologize to the victims of Yehuda's verbal violence.
interesting.
Nor do you ask yourself what is the reason for the verbal violence against Yehuda.
Is it his verbal violence?
Is the fact that he is trying here - already for many years - to mislead the public - even something that needs to be protected?
By the way - will you also defend the right to deny the Holocaust?
And what about the right to attack Judah's words? It seems to me that you are actually attacking her.
Zhuzhou (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-315753 ):
"You get angry and react bluntly to hide the troubles of your horizons"
Hurry hurry! Who uses verbal violence?!
And so unfounded that it's really pathetic!
It seems you have to study another thousand years to approach the breadth of Camilla's horizons.
"Appropriating" or "not appropriating" is as important as the skin of garlic"
Walla?
And it is so unimportant that this is what you chose to crack at in your series of comments.
Wasn't it easier to write "the garlic peel" instead of writing your first comment?
Zhuzhou (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-315806):
Religiously motivated terror scenarios are happening even nowadays and there is no reason to wait for the distant future to be proven about them.
Isn't the evasion of such a large part of the population in Israel from security service and self-support a horror scenario?
Unfortunately this example is only the tip of the iceberg and I mentioned it to point out the existence of the iceberg that you hope does not exist.
In relation to the founding event - as Camila has already explained to you - you reveal a tremendous lack of understanding when you try to present the advantages of the scientific method that leads to the correction and improvement of existing understandings - as a disadvantage.
Against the background of this misunderstanding, it is also understandable why you think the condemnation of ignorance is a mistake (but at the same time - you allow yourself to denounce the condemnation of ignorance because it is of course not a mistake).
you made me laugh
The truth is that here you have proven that there is no point in talking to you, but we will see if there is any point in voting - for the sake of the others - on other things.
Zhuzhou (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-315821):
I said I'd see if there were any other things to point out.
Since in this response I found the same shallowness and rudeness that I found in the previous ones, I see that for now there are no more things.
Jojo
I smiled 🙂 Thanks
By the way (a bit long, sorry). My opinion is that the Torah does not claim at all that God created the world.
You need to understand the meaning of the word "at" in the Bible in general and in particular in the first verse of Genesis.
The word "at" in the Bible is used in the sense of "together, but against". For example, the act of rape of Amnon in Tamar, as well as of Nablus in Dinah is described using a word from the root "at" ("lay you" [or, as it is commonly read today, "her"]), while the act of love between David and Bathsheba is like between Jacob and Leah Described using a word from the root "am" ("lay with her"). The word "you" appears in the Bible several times, and in all of them it describes an action of one against the other. For example, "Vilauch will chase the legs and how will you race the horses" (Yeremiah, XNUMX:XNUMX).
Therefore, the first verse of the Torah should be understood as "In the beginning God created against the heavens and against the earth" (the Rish Bemila created is punctuated with a dream. When the Bible was written, the punctuation had not yet been invented), we mean the beginning of the creation of God and the heavens and the earth against each other.
It sounds like I'm just making this up, but none of the mythologies attribute the creation of the world out of nothing to the gods. Even the story "Numa Elish", from which broad verses were copied for chapter XNUMX of Genesis, does not attribute the creation of the world to the main God. The reason is, in my opinion, that attributing the creation of the world to God raises the endless question "Who created God?" And who created the one who created God? …” And the writers of mythologies were careful not to fall into this trap. God is presented as "buyer of heaven and earth" (for example, Genesis XNUMX:XNUMX), not as "creator of heaven and earth."
This problematic attribution, which unites "creator" with "buyer", was born in a later period.
jubilee,
I know nothing about the afterlife. From my acquaintance with certain people I sometimes wonder if there is life before death.
withering,
You flatter me in vain. All the claims I have made have been made and investigated by others. You should try to learn everything in talkbacks responses, there is learning that requires a broad sheet from the sheet of "response" - come and learn.
You ask a lot and a lot causes shallowness - focus. You said about panspermia SO... are you even able to understand the implications of this on the conditions for creating life? About looking for a life? Types of life?
I didn't understand the eyes of Ramat Gan? It's a joke?
jojo,
I suggest you refresh your stock of jokes, search in Tel Aviv, Givatayim or even Bnei Brak, but leave Ramat Gan.
Your "defining event" is a trivial matter for scientists (and for most people interested in science or even "only" the philosophy of science). The work of scientists in general is always on the border between the known (scientifically, not in terms of beliefs or gut feelings). What you did in the rest of the comment is raising a hypothesis, although you didn't phrase it that way, but it can be phrased. The fact that you can offer different explanations for the phenomena still does not say anything about how correct they are. You proposed a sort of alternative idea to the phenomenon called a supernova, usually (but not always) this is the easy part of science if you have a bit of creativity. The difficulty is to examine whether the offer is even relevant. Your proposal seems to me to be clearly irrelevant from the little I know, but it would be more convincing if you could provide a slightly more detailed alternative mechanism in light of what you are proposing that matches the knowledge that exists on this subject. Can you provide such an explanation?
How can denouncing ignorance and logical errors testify to the ignorance of those who draw attention to the fallacies if the words of the "guardians of morality" are backed up by referring to facts or claims that are found in the scientific consensus and also point to the rules of logic that are false, a distortion that anyone who knows a little logic and even common sense can to identify him. It is not clear to me on what basis you make this accusation. Can you clarify this, for example by examples? How do you explain that those people say they don't know other things, meaning they admit their ignorance in other contexts?
The last word!
Thanks. It was just a question for the sake of statistics.
At the time I tried to check the connection between belief in God and belief in life after death. The claim I tested is that without the belief in Hala there is no need to believe in mysterious forces either.
My firm opinion is that there is no life after death. I'm sure that's your opinion too.
However, it leaves a certain "emptiness" in my mind. Here is one of many questions to which I have not found a solution: "Why should I toil and bother to convince those arguing with me of the truth of my claims, if neither they nor I will stay here beyond some limited time anyway?" Do such "heretical" questions also arise in your mind?
By the way, belief in life after death does not appear in the Torah at all. Nor in the rest of the Bible (although some consider the raising of Shmuel from the dead by the owner of the Ov in Ein-Dor a counter-argument). She came to Judaism late, perhaps under Christian influence. The only punishment that God imposes on man is "he punishes the iniquity of fathers on children and on children's children for thirds and fourths", but not a single word about the next world and hell.
Jojo! Do you have something to contribute?
A small but important mistake. in my response
https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-315783
I mistakenly wrote: "Religious people cancel conversions (reforms or of the military rabbinate) or do not cancel weddings performed by Zohar rabbis" of course the "no" is unnecessary and I meant the recently announced cancellations of weddings conducted by Zohar rabbis.
xianghua
I just happened to learn that the correct pronunciation of your nickname is something like shanfa. Why didn't you fix us? After all, we try to correct the mistakes you make...
In your last comments here you referred to the discussion about evolution, in that discussion you illustrated many of the things I am talking about and that for some reason other commenters here do not understand what is so problematic about what commenters like you write. So I also join the recommendation to re-read the same discussion and pay attention mainly to the content of the things, to pay attention to who treats the arguments strictly and who ignores them, to pay attention to who errs in known facts or logical fallacies but still continues to use the same errors even after being made aware of their mistakes. Also pay attention to who brings scientific references and claims that a certain conclusion is derived from them when the researchers themselves write that their conclusion is completely opposite. Pay attention to who raises each time some creationist argument (familiar and chewed to exhaustion) after answering the "unequivocal refutations" he raised earlier (after all, one refutation is enough, and examples of such refutations have been offered by the supporters of evolution themselves throughout this debate and others on the subject). Pay attention to how Shanpa receives a prolonged factual reference in the face of conduct that can be attributed at first to ignorance and arguments with broken logic, but after a short time it is difficult not to understand that this is a commenter with an agenda who insists on turning a blind eye to existing knowledge, to draw conclusions that cannot be logically derived from the original claims, to ignore requests for clarification regarding the alternatives that exist in his opinion, and even he is willing to lie and distort what other commenters and scientists have said in their studies just to promote his agenda (which is not his at all, but that of Christian creationists whose arguments have already been determined by several courts to be unscientific and in fact the organizations that bring arguments These are all religious in disguise). Also pay attention to those who are careful to clarify that the theory of evolution is only the best explanation we have as of this moment and no more than that, that is, no one claims that God or any intelligent creator cannot exist, but that simply believing in him does not add anything to what evolution can already explain, but only subtracts from that.
A site like Hidan, which has the goal of making scientific knowledge accessible to the general public, even if it is at the price of a certain superficiality and a certain popularization, there is a responsibility towards the content that passes through it. There is responsibility at the professional level and here come to the aid those whose occupation is science or those who have knowledge and understanding of knowledge from qualified professional sources or from sources that they know are compatible with professional knowledge (and anyone who really wants to learn can and should turn to the professional literature before trying to teach those who already know ). Another hallmark of professionals is the ability to say they don't know anything, and you can find such statements mostly from one type of commenter. The second type uses the admission that there are things we do not yet know to draw a conclusion that is not logically derived, which is proof that their unnecessary claim is bound by reality. From this point of view, not every response is of equal weight and when you try to present as if every argument is of equal value on a site like this, there is a real concern that those who do not know how to distinguish which are the relevant arguments and which are the arguments that do not hold water will be misled because there are many more arguments of the latter type (it is simply much easier when you are not obligated to the facts, logic and morality of telling the truth and referring to the facts), the fear is also that those who know how to identify the relevant arguments will get sick of all the nonsense around them and will go to places with fewer idiots/crooks and thus there will be fewer respondents who can correct the distortion and the laymen lose again. In any such case, the science website (and everyone who cares about scientific knowledge, commenters and curious readers alike) misses its goal. I see denouncing those commenters who harm this goal as a necessity and also a duty for those who value science and scientific thinking. At the same time, it is important to mention that I am not calling for gagging and I welcome the fact that the site's policy is to exclude blocking even when it comes to respondents who have already proven their bad vulnerability in dozens of cases. I believe that this is a huge point of merit especially when comparing the policies on other sites, for example sites run by religious people and this from personal experience even though never! I did not dare to claim there that I know or understand religion more than those who run those sites or religious people who comment there.
withering
You wrote a broad tract that interested me, allow me to tell you that I learned a thing or two. I will not refer to the horror scenarios you wrote about religion, I hope that is not how things unfolded in the future.
Please allow me to share with you a thought-forming "event" that I had, the background is data collection in "remote sensing" and the basis of opinions and theories. For many years it was common to assume that the moon is a celestial body that was captured by the gravity of Earth and thus since then the moon revolves around it. And there were observations of the moon that got better and better over thousands of years. And all the observations did not contradict the concept I mentioned and even if they had improved to the level of a peanut observation on the moon - the theory was still good. During the Apollo landing on the moon, rock samples were taken from the moon, and time passed and these samples were chemically analyzed and it was found that the composition is the same as the rocks of the Haaretz reactor, as well as the dating of the age of the rocks. More time passed and today the popular belief is different - that Earth and the Moon were created together in a collision between two celestial bodies.
So the example does not pertain to religionists or evolution, but it pertains to "knowledge about knowledge". And certainly to most of our knowledge of aseronomy. most of which is achieved by "remote sensing".
I will continue with another example but very briefly, the belief that the universe is expanding and that dark energy makes up more than 70% of the universe comes from observations of la-type supernovae. There they assume a fusion that is "triggered" by gravitational forces... and after all, on Earth we have created a fusion that is triggered by fission, which itself is triggered by a chemical explosion. These are completely lower energies than required for gravitational fusion... so supernovae are indeed "standard candles"? And if there is a dependence on the composition of the star, then what are all our theories worth???
Therefore and in a broad way, the denunciation of the ignorance of others (Yehuda, Hanan and others) sometimes seems to me to stem from the ignorance of the "moral guardians" of science.
And a final joke...
Question: How does a gay man bang a girl?
Answer: Not coming to the meeting.
jojo,
you are tired When religious people take over residential neighborhoods and turn their secular character into religious, the secular people in that neighborhood are less free to be who they want to be. Haredim threw stones not only at a stray car that entered their neighborhood (which already shows you a thing or two about their morals if a person in good faith made a mistake and could be murdered because of it, in this sense there is not much distance between this and a case where a Jew made a mistake and entered Ramallah) they also in public areas outside their neighborhoods. Where is the line between respecting a different opinion and opposing attempts to impose the same opinion on the majority? When religious people cancel conversions (reforms or of the military rabbinate) or do not cancel a wedding ceremony performed by Zohar rabbis, is this not an appropriation of God that affects other people outside the "neighborhoods" of the religious people? Is there no similar religiously motivated intervention in burial matters? In the government? In the distribution of budgets and burdens? Why is it okay for religious women to go door to door in secular neighborhoods and try to convince me to go to the mikvah and keep mitzvah in the missionary work according to the best Christian tradition? So maybe you don't mind all kinds of actions and statements, to me and to many other people I knew in Israel, these things are very disturbing, not because we didn't consider the needs of the religious community in their neighborhoods, but because the religious community was pushed to influence me and my reputation, and all this under the justification they gave for their conduct, which is by definition the justification that stems from appropriation The God who brings arrogance (our cart is full, yours is empty, we know what is right, you are wrong, we are moral, you are drugged and promiscuous, etc.) and violence. I am disturbed by many other things related to the way in which the religious life (who of course have the full right to live it as they understand it even if I do not agree with them at all) affects me. If this is an argument in your eyes, I'm afraid you don't understand what's in front of us. It seems that you have found a way not to see what you don't like and thus you live in the illusion that it doesn't exist. This is an approach that may turn out to be dangerous because when there is a Halacha state here then really the only freedom you will have will be found in the realm of your imagination and only there. You can imagine that you are traveling on Shabbat and you can imagine that you are eating shrimp and you can also imagine that there is freedom and a plurality of opinions.
Regarding evolution, it does not rule out the existence of an intelligent designer just as it does not rule out green irons and just as quantum mechanics does not rule out the existence of the holy micron and this for the simple reason that evolution does not need an intelligent designer to explain what it explains, in fact there are such "design" flaws that need cast great doubt on anyone who thinks that something intelligent has planned something here. The importance of a scientific theory is not in what it does not deal with or is required, but rather in that limited as possible set of presuppositions that is sufficient to explain a variety of phenomena. So true, evolution does not rule out that the first creatures were brought by aliens because the theory of evolution does not deal with the formation of life but with the common source of all known life on earth, be it a mud puddle or an alien. Note that since both the first creature brought according to the script you propose and the aliens were created somehow and somewhere, so you just moved the problem of life creation to another place, Sue? Did you imagine that I wrote or meant that evolution proves that there is no God or that he cannot be the reason for our existence? I have never written anything like this! I just believe that there is no reason to think that such a thing exists, especially when historically the need for this concept is pushed aside every time science discovers something about the world. It is the right of every person to believe that God exists and that he explains everything that science still does not know how to explain if it makes him feel good. If by saying that I cannot believe in things that I have no good reason to believe in, you call me mentally ill, then I say thank you because that is a compliment to me. If you mean that someone who is not narrow-minded should accept any opinion that has not yet been proven wrong as if it were scientific truth, then you are getting the spirit of the New Age. Will you at least be fair and be willing to compare which of the approaches has led to knowledge and understanding of the reality that surrounds us in a way that can be put to the test? For example can you point to a technology developed through new age knowledge or religion?
I release my aggression twice a week in kickboxing classes (and I don't discriminate between women and men, scientific or religious people). Here, on the other hand, I'm just pointing out the flaws that I think exist, and I've already explained this in the past that the style is less important to me than the content, precisely for this reason you won't find any comments from me that don't also have a factual reference to things (if someone finds such a rare response, I promise him that if he follows the same discussion back a response One day he will understand why that reaction was born.) Of course I think it contributes, I think it is very important to denounce those who ignore gross errors that exist in their arguments. When he brings them up for the first time then it can still be attributed to ignorance or irrational thinking, but after drawing his attention to the mistakes? This is already a different matter and we need to warn about that and also attack if necessary.
I actually tried humor, but then there were those who were offended by what I wrote. I am ready to try to return to this kind of writing.
Those interested in the discussion of evolution versus planning can be impressed by the discussion that developed here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/
jubilee,
In my opinion there is no God.
I think it's easy to understand from my comments what I believe in the subject (or rather say what I don't believe in). I do not believe in "God" in any religious sense. I also do not believe in any deliberate intention, that is, in any intelligent creator. I do not believe that such a concept is required for any phenomenon we know today, not for consciousness, not for the beginning of life and its development. As for the "purpose" of existence, I do not believe that there is a purpose other than the one hidden in the laws of nature, but needless to say, it is not a purpose in the sense attributed to an intelligent creature. Regarding the question of the creation of the universe (the question itself is not necessarily true) it is actually easier for me to imagine a universe, in the most general sense, that has existed since time immemorial and this for aesthetic reasons. One way or another "God" does not provide any understanding of things. If there is another definition of God that you are referring to I will have to see what the definition is first. If God is just an abbreviated word for the laws of nature then of course I believe that, but I would prefer not to use this word because it does more harm than good. Words in the language should lead to greater understanding and not more confusion, and the very word God has hidden within it the association of a being with awareness and intention because of the widespread use of this word in religion and therefore it would be a mistake to use it. I'm ready to use a similar short term, we'll call it - inlocks (I think you'll like this term).
withering
I am indeed hypocritical, but I am trying to improve. Maybe one day "being human" will be the real natural.
You get angry and react bluntly to hide the troubles of your horizons in my opinion. "Appropriating" or "not appropriating" is as important as the skin of garlic. I'm not interested in disturbing others in their way of life: that's why I won't drive on Shabbat in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood and I won't make noise near student dormitories during exams.
I saw what you wrote about the eyes of evolution... In my opinion, you presented problems of thought and you missed the point - all that the theory of evolution says is that, given enough time, life could develop on earth without a guiding hand!
Evolution does not rule out the arrival of primitive organisms from space!
Evolution does not rule out an "intelligent designer"! It does not rule out the arrival of aliens in the past to the earth and it does not rule out the intervention of God! All of these could certainly be the reason we are here and the way we are.
You take the right to vent your aggressions on commenters here... do you believe it helps? You will be perfumed!
Maybe try to do it a little with humor (together with A and M) and then at least it will have entertainment value.
withering
After a long history of correspondence between us I don't remember if you explicitly stated your view on the existence of God. I say there is no God. Please give your opinion, in one word if possible, is there a God?
jojo,
Even in prison there are people who firmly claim that they are free, free in spirit, and that is true, they are truly free in spirit, but there is also an equally real reality, which is that they are inside the prison and they cannot do anything to change this reality. You choose to play mind games about the meaning of the phrase "appropriation of God" please, it has nothing to do with part of the reality we are in. I would love to see you traveling on Shabbat near certain ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods or trying to open a non-kosher restaurant in certain areas of the country and then we will see you talking about appropriation and violence. No one here is a thought policeman, even commenters who present factual lies and repeat them time and time again are given the opportunity here to continue commenting to the same extent that this is given to me and others, especially since there is no one trying to control the thoughts of those commenters. Unfortunately, you missed a fundamental issue, and that is that in all cases, if you follow back until the beginning of the comments on a certain topic, you must be careful to answer matter-of-factly, to explain where there are mistakes when there are any, and all this in a sympathetic tone. After the reference to the facts and logical fallacies are ignored and the same commenter continues to claim things based on the same problems, I think it is appropriate that there be someone who will make sure to expose the same mistakes. At this stage, things are no longer always expressed in a pleasant and sympathetic way. It is quite amazing to me that what bothers you is not those who spread factual lies and logical fallacies (which, as you may recall, are not blocked, not by continuing to express their content and certainly not to continue thinking as they think) but those who make sure to point out and warn against those lies and fallacies. It is also worth noting that in most cases the reactions on the part of the commenters you create against them include a reference to the substance of the matter alongside the other things.
Everyone likes variety in freedom, but what to do when there is a lot of nonsense and logically coherent arguments that stick to the facts are much less. Do you have any limit regarding the opinions that are voiced on a site that is about science? Please tell me, how does writing claims that contradict known scientific facts contribute to the discussion? And how do claims that contain internal contradictions contribute to the discussion? After all, they do not contribute anything to those who know the facts and are sensitive to logical contradictions, and of course they do not contribute anything but can only harm those who do not know the facts and who do not notice the problems in arguments that contain internal contradictions. After all, everyone who is here to learn something about science wants to get to know the known facts and get ideas that are logically coherent.
And as for your apology on behalf of others, your hypocrisy really screams when you take on the role of guardian of morality, but really I don't expect the person who wrote that stupid sentence about the religious not appropriating God, to understand that he is wrong in his own way.
withering
No! No one can tell me that God is his private property. I mean, technically of course you can say that, but it has no effect as far as I'm concerned. I am a scientist in my head and a believer in God in my heart - a community of one person, with no joiners and no outcasts.
Personally, I like the diversity and freedom, I don't feel threatened by different opinions and I don't feel threatened by different opinions. I apologize on behalf of people here who take upon themselves the role of moral guardians of science and the thought police of evolution/DM/warming etc.
Camila, do you know the sentence: "I don't agree with you, but I will do everything so that you can say your words freely"?. So I apologize to Yehuda and several other dear people who fall victim to verbal violence here.
jojo,
"No religious person appropriates God"
This is one of the best I've seen lately!
These people you know are called secular (and under certain and limited conditions they may be reformed Jews). Please tell me, what is appropriation of God for you? Are these actions/situations that are at all possible for you to take place?
Between science and God... or maybe between man and his friend.
On the one hand - the religious does not appropriate God. You can be a wonderful believer in God and an excellent Jew and still eat shrimp on Shabbat. I know quite a few people and women like that, I hope I am like that too.
On the other hand - we don't have to perpetuate the arguments and the banal level of the discourse we conducted in our youth, it is also allowed to grow up and wait since then. Some argue that "religiosity" is a way of life that protects the believer and prevents him from harming and being ashamed already in this world (in terms of "more than Israel kept the Torah, the Torah kept Israel"). Those who have dealt with advanced technology in their lives (air force, microelectronics, pharmaceuticals, etc.) know "working according to procedures". It is true that sometimes the cGMP principles cause hassle and expenses that seem unnecessary, but it turns out over time that these prevent failures and improve quality and all the high technology manufacturers work according to them - so are they all stupid? And if it is allowed at work, then why not in personal life?
The reason why there are unnecessary clashes on the site, in my opinion, is because not everyone who has cognitive intelligence also has emotional intelligence. It's a shame... because from life's experience emotional intelligence is much more rewarding in life than cognitive intelligence.
to me,
I assume you mean my comments from the beginning of this discussion:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-302995
https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-303215
or similar responses.
I don't know on what basis you say that my words are not true or far from the truth. I live within my people and what I express comes not only from reading the press (who today relies on newspapers at all) and from research on the subject, discussions with religious people, but also from personal experiences that I had to encounter mainly in Jerusalem and even within my distant (and ultra-Orthodox) family, experiences which made me feel morally sick and seem to be far more common than they are willing to admit within this closed community. You are allowed to believe what you want, just do me a favor and don't pretend to know better than me what I know and what I don't know.
You wrote: "It is clear to everyone that the Torah has 70 appeals and all its laws advocate a moral and humane life (you shall not steal, you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, etc.)" Are you claiming that without the Torah people do not know that acts such as theft and murder are negative things? How do you explain the fact that people of completely different religions also distinguish between good and bad in this context as well? How do you explain that people who do not believe in any religion, and even believe that the concept of God is a stupid and unnecessary human invention (as I believe for example) we also know that such actions are negative and this without needing a book of instructions?
Don't you understand that the only reason you recognize commandments such as "thou shalt not murder" as moral commandments in the first place is because you know that murder is forbidden even before you read it in the Torah? So I have no problem if there are people whose self-confidence in morality is so shaky that they need the Torah to have a candle while walking on a day flooded with sunlight. The real problem begins when there are imperatives that go against what a moral person knows not to do. In such a case, precisely because of that poor self-confidence, the pious religious person will carry out the same commandment even though he does not understand and goes against his natural conscience. In such cases the consequences are extremely serious. The worst of all are those "commandments" that are not even found in the Torah but come from the rabbis, and even here there are many religious people who, because of their poor self-confidence, will adopt those commandments without question even if they are against the law and even if they are against the basic morals of every sane person in this world . The fact that the Torah takes a ride on some correct moral values does not qualify immoral imperatives and it certainly does not qualify those "commandments" of the rabbis that are immoral. It is clear to me that you cannot distinguish between the two types and that is exactly what I am talking about. After all, if it were written that a woman should be raped under certain conditions, then you would accept it as a moral act because you cannot differentiate between a moral and an immoral commandment if they appear in scriptures considered sacred to Judaism.
Note that the verse: "Derech Eretz Kedma Le Torah" can be interpreted in several different ways: in one, adherence to the laws of Derech Eretz is more important than adherence to the laws of Torah (and this is certainly not the case with many religious people and especially with ultra-Orthodox, and I say this from many years of personal experience) . Another interpretation is that the laws of Derech Eretz chronologically preceded the Torah, and in simple words, it is a fact that you do not need to know the Torah to behave like a human being.
You wrote: "In my opinion, a person who accepts the fact that there is a creator of the world does indeed give an answer to some of the questions that you and your "scientist" friends are dealing with"
Since scientific research is my occupation, I can assure you that "Creator of the Universe" not only does not constitute an answer to any of the questions that scientists deal with, but that the adoption of the belief that there is a Creator of the Universe raises a whole new series of questions, most of which are much more problematic than the problems that scientists try to deal with in the various fields of research. It is a fact that religious scientists are unable to answer any scientific question using their faith, and even when there is a religious (Jewish or Christian or other, it doesn't matter) who discovers something new in science, he does so using the scientific method. What you meant to say in my opinion is that the belief in your imaginary friend gives you a sense of meaning and purpose in your life and I really have no problem with that, good luck to you. It's a shame that you miss the beauty of science, it's a shame that your morality depends on a book written thousands of years ago and the interpretations written on it hundreds of years ago, it's a shame that you use the word "answer" in the sense of an explanation, where it is obvious that the explanation is weak or non-existent (in science there are criteria when You were able to explain something and how high-quality that explanation is.) But I can encourage you by saying that no hell awaits you even if you choose to stay in religion and not delve into science, you can live a good and full life even without understanding science (although I'm not sure you can live a good life without the products of science, knowledge and technology derived from it). The loss here is mostly yours.
To the last Camilla
Kamila Hamuda, I read your comment and you really put it very nicely, but I'm sorry for one thing that you present things that are not true and far from the truth (and I really don't come to debate whether there is a God or not) You claim that a person of faith gives up the humane value of human life in order to keep Shabbat - Halacha It simply and clearly says that the control of the soul rejects Shabbat, and a person is required to make space if necessary. Of the questions you and your "scientist" friends are dealing with, but these answers oblige him to actions and a form of behavior - so that in fact the easy and convenient solution is absolutely not! It is easiest to be free from oppression and say that there is no law and no justice. I don't know where you checked and who you heard from, but it is known to everyone that these days there are no soul laws and it is forbidden to harm gays or lesbians. And again, I am not coming to deny science or the things it claims and to deal with the existence of the Creator, but it is clear to everyone that the Torah is about 70 turns and all its laws advocate a teacher and commands a moral and humane life (you shall not steal, you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, etc..) "Please, before you write something and answer people and give examples, check that they are indeed correct.
http://rotter.net/forum/scoops1/21907.shtml
There is also a link to an interview segment - could you comment humbly and objectively
To Roy Cezana, an apology
Although I didn't hijack the discussion, I occasionally contributed. I'm not apologizing for anyone. Only on my own behalf.
Michael, indeed the discussion has reached the end point here. He continued with "Deat Emet" with David Sela, where the hostel is more suitable. It seems that each of us will continue to live with our daughters on the subject as it is said in our sources: "And they will divide...".
And the other is a total zill.
Happy New Year.
You didn't answer anything.
A pile of words just to tell us again that a Jew is a Jew.
Michael: I have a hard time thinking that you don't understand me. Maybe you're just being clever?
Why do I think so? Because you claimed that I aspire to a definition that is not based on being born Jewish. You were also right when you claimed that I would deny... indeed a Jew is (also...) one who was born to a Jew. According to the Orthodox stream, only a Jewish mother, according to the Reform stream, each of his parents can be Jewish, and according to the Law of Return, even a grandson of a Jew will be considered a Jew for the purpose of aliyah. A matter of definitions. The religion determines for the religious and the secular who cancel themselves before the religion and the religious.
I will try to be clear to your questions as well. The word Jew has a clear definition: one who belongs to the Jewish nation/people. Every nation/people has a certain culture that contains many manifestations, among them religion. In Jewish culture, religion is very central.
Judaism is not a matter of opinions just like being Japanese, Serbian, etc. is not a matter of opinions.
Just as other nations have clear immigration laws in which there is a clear preference for their people to immigrate, so is it with us.
Not me and my opinions. These are the views of Avinari, who just today wrote an article in "Haaretz" in response to Seri Nusayeva who believes that the Jews are only a religion and not a people. These are the opinions of all the founders of Zionism, thanks to which I (and I assume you too) are here. Deal with them not me. Deal with the fundamental assumptions of Zionism. Are you a Zionist at all? The Zionists version of a national home for the Jewish people. The fact that the state surrendered (at this stage of history) to the powers and the political blackmail of the religious on the questions of Jewish identity and aligned itself with the progressive determination of who is a Jew is indeed a shame for the Jewish nation in general and the secular part of it in particular.
Amit:
You are trying to define a new definition for the term "Jew" - one that is not the religious definition.
Or maybe it is an exaggeration to say that you are trying to define: you constantly claim that there is such a definition (and that everyone agrees to it) but you never tell us what it is.
When you are asked to say who is a Jew according to this definition, you answer - "Obviously! The Jews are Jews according to this definition."
In short - in Israel.
Another thing should be noted.
You aspire to a definition that is not based on being born Jewish (perhaps after you read this comment you will argue that this is not the case, but this is what comes out of your words so far).
This is a definition that is incompatible with Israel being the state of the Jews or a haven for the Jewish people.
Why?
Because if Judaism is not a "physical" thing but only a matter of opinions, you will have to deal with the following problems:
1. The migrant workers from Sudan or anyone who would like to live in the country will claim that these are his views and you will have to give him citizenship.
2. You will not be able to tell if the opinions that a person presents to obtain citizenship are indeed his opinions or if he is only presenting them to obtain citizenship.
3. You will not always be able to absorb the real Jews - those whom the Nazis murdered because of their Jewishness (because the country will be flooded and perhaps their opinions/culture will not train your thought police)
Michael, it is not clear exactly what you are talking about in relation to the failure of my attempts. Are you referring to the fact that Judaism does not define nationality? What exactly ? That is, apart from trying to argue all the time and emphasize my mistakes?
Camilla, the definition of Jewish nationality applies to all Jews. You are right, only Jews belong to the Jewish nation. Just like only Poles, Serbs, Hungarians and other ethnic nationalities. And to your third question: very true - in the State of Israel there is also an Arab nation that is separate from the Jewish one.
An Israeli defines a civil definition of the political framework in which citizens belonging to different nationalities live. Hungary also has a huge Romanian minority numbering millions. They have a Hungarian passport, but they are Romanians. The Belgians are also either Walloons or Flemish. or Jews. Did I explain myself better?
withering:
That's what I tell him all the time and your question is completely spot on.
That's why I told him that despite his attempts and the (nonexistent) attempts he claims from many others, such a definition was not accepted by the majority of the public (and in fact by no part of it).
The decision regarding Yoram Kaniuk is the first case of someone in whom the paradox exists (and this decision created - as the above article shows - a conceptual paradox).
Amit,
To whom do you think the definition of Jewish nationality applies? I assume that a person who belongs to the Jewish nation but is not Jewish cannot exist, right? It is also clear that residence in the State of Israel (or alternatively Israeli citizenship) alone does not require affiliation with the Jewish nationality, does it?
I don't understand what you are talking about.
The attempt to present a presentation as if this is my private madness is simply absurd on its face since those who started it are the first Zionists and today most people living in Israel support it, while the claims otherwise are a minority - some of them are really strange and delusional in the way of people who make claims that are contrary to the clear and visible reality before us.
I didn't try to do anything new. The meaning of the word is indeed related to religion. But not only. The "people" to whom the meaning of the word is clear are the majority of Jewish Israelis who understand that a Jew indicates an ethnic / national and religious affiliation - all together in one package. That is why Yoram Kaniuk is listed as "no religion" and his nationality is still listed as Jewish. "I am Israeli" on the other hand and others, try to claim that the only and exclusive meaning of the word Jew is religious. Or more precisely the word defines religion only and it is not like that. Some people may prefer simplicity and one-dimensional definitions. What to do that life is somewhat complex, especially human life, and therefore the word contains several meanings that do not contradict but complement each other.
Otherwise we wouldn't be here at all because those who founded the state, i.e. the Zionists, were Jews who strongly argued - and certainly acted in light of this argument and you recognized the reality that the Jews are a people/nation before they are a religion.
That's why they came to Israel after cutting their sideburns and removing the caps and severing their ties to the Jewish religion and remaining with the national part of Judaism. This is exactly the heart of the discussion. If you claim otherwise - that Judaism is nothing but a religion and a religion only, then we definitely disagree and there is no point in continuing the discussion here because it is an inappropriate hostel.
If you are interested in a discussion, there is one exactly on this topic in "Deat Emet" one under the title: "Yoram Kaniuk's Petition" and the other: "Who Said With and Didn't Receive". Just to clear the air, I spoke with 3 professors to hear their opinion on the subject: Yaakov Malkin, Amnon Rubinstein and Yosef Agassi.
Its meaning is indeed clear to most people and therefore your attempt to give the word a new definition that does not depend on religion is an attempt to give it a meaning that is not the one that people understand.
Not that you were able to give it an alternative definition, but the very experience is the result of falling in love with the word.
"I am Israeli" are a direct continuation of the Canaanites and just changed the words. The idea of creating a single nation of Jews and Arabs puts them in the same line as the delusional of all kinds and types. I also understand that like the Canaanites they have 2.5 fans. Their problem is much more serious, then, than falling in love with words. Niha
I don't understand why you think I'm changing the meaning of the word Jew. Its meaning is clear. To most people, at least.
First of all - most of the author's words concern the paradox of the decision and this paradox stems from the meaning of the words.
Yoram Kaniuk is trying to start a process of changing the laws of the State of Israel here and it is not for nothing that he belongs to "I am Israeli" and not to "I am Jewish". The founders of "I am Israeli" understand that the word "Jew" is already taken and they - unlike you - do not have a problem of falling in love with words to the point that they feel the need to change their meaning.
They have, in my opinion, their mistake because they also do not want Israel to be the state of the Jews and I had arguments (quite one-sided because he did not answer much) with Uzi Ornan about the matter.
What's more, in the radio interview given during Kanyuk's visit to the Ministry of the Interior to register him as having no religion, the attorney stated that he is still listed as a Jew in the nationality section, so there seems to be a lack of precision, biased in view of her prejudices and attitudes.
Unless Yoram Kaniuk's lawyer made a mistake in her article about the Jewish nationality section that exists in the Interior Ministry's computers.
It is only important to note that the author of the article represents the "I am Israeli" association founded by Uzi Ornan. And this means, the legitimate in itself, for ruling.
And the meaning of this is http://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/1.1515664
In the State of Israel, a Jew can register as having no religion.
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/10/1865066
: )
jubilee:
But we do run the world!
The point is that as far as I'm concerned, "we" are the humans.
Those who believe that the Jews should run the world or actually run it, write books like "The King's Law" or "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
Well, that's obvious.
But between us, as a Jew to a Jew, don't you get a little nervous knowing that we don't really run the world?
jubilee:
There is no definition for "Jewish science" and I defined the term only to show the absurdity of the claims I am dealing with.
That is why I was allowed (after all, this is a definition I defined) to state that relativity is a Jewish science.
It is clear that in real life there is no point in defining a term like "Jewish science" and anyone who is in their right mind understands that there is no value in defining anything as Jewish.
Which reminds you that tomorrow you should be on standby for an absorption of announcements of Nobel Prize winners.
It is not accurate to say that relativity is a Jewish science. It is similar to saying that the Jews monopolized the Nobel Prize or, with thousands of differences, that the Rothschild family took over world banking.
But it is definitely a source ofPride Jewish girl.
Amit:
Another attempt doomed to failure:
The only reason to discuss Jewish culture in the current discussion is to check if it can define a criterion of belonging to the Jewish people.
she does not.
By definition - because it is defined by the people and not by the people. It is written in your quote from Wikipedia.
I explained it to you and beyond that I also gave additional reasons why it cannot be used as a definition (such as the fact that apart from religion there is no component of Jewish culture that is common to all members of the Jewish people).
There is no submission to any religious view here.
It's like saying that accepting the names of the days of the week is surrendering to the religious view.
There is a word (Jew) that was defined within the religion - not for the purpose of subjugating someone but as a word that will be used in our speech.
For some reason - as far as you are concerned - using the word in its original sense is surrendering to someone and in order to feel that you are not surrendering, you decide to come up with a new definition for the word.
This experience of yours is actually surrendering to the religious view because by being carried away by it you accept claims that are entirely religious and religious in essence (such as the view that being Jewish is better than being French) which are much more substantial than the combinations of letters that are used as words.
But tell me, colleague, I really don't understand how the topic of Jewish culture belongs in the discussion.
Would you explain?
Are we only talking about this because you decided to lecture us about Jewish culture or are we trying to find out something?
Maybe we'll start talking about Jewish science now? How about defining Jewish science as "the science developed by the Jewish people" and then defining a Jew according to this science?
Here - the theory of relativity is a Jewish science. From now on it is said that whoever does not accept it is not a Jew. What do you think?
It will also be much easier for you to justify your Judaism because the theory of relativity is an important thing.
It is true that there are also non-Jews who believe in it, but there are also non-Jews who read Agnon (otherwise they would not have given him a Nobel Prize) and besides - what prevents us from calling everyone who believes in relativity a "Jew"? After all, our starting point is that the words are in our hands as material in the hands of the creator and there is no reason to dare to represent what they have represented so far.
Dear David, we are honored that you joined the hostel. I read and immediately thought: "Are you also Brutus" ???……
I kneel under the weight of your common intellect and that of our friend Michael. The truth is that one is enough to be decisive, then jointly?
I will try to answer to the best of my limited ability.
1. If you read my words carefully, you saw that I made it very clear that part of the issue of self-identity, belonging to the Jewish nation and culture stems from emotional reasons. Certainly so. I was indeed brought up in the Jewish culture as every person in the world is born into a certain national culture in which he acquires his language, culture, upbringing, values and the like. The stipulation to belong to a certain community is equal to every person since the days of Genesis (not the one from the Tanach...). Man is a social animal as diagnosed by Plato. As such it belongs to different frameworks and indeed humanity is divided into nationalities. And what about that? I was freed from the religious conditioning even though I was never religious but our culture is steeped in religion to the core. When I looked at my national affiliation I decided that it deserved me. And it is true that Michael is justified in some of his words.
2. What makes a cultural work created in Russia by a Russian "Russian" or French for that matter? A book by Nabokov is as Russian as a book by Amos Oz. Both are cultural creations of a certain people, a certain culture. Both are secular.
3. Your rhetorical question is nothing more than submission to the orthodox religious view. Why is this a question at all? After all, the status of Mount Sinai did not exist and it is a parable that was composed long after it supposedly took place. After all, it is clear that Jewish culture began long before the story was implanted.
4. I don't understand the argument about the origin of the work. It is clear that Jewish culture is steeped in religion. And every culture is like that - the Indian, the Chinese, they are all mixed with religion. So what ? Didn't non-religious ideas emerge from the religious blanket? By religion is meant the system of beliefs related to Sha'a (the Lord of the world), his role in the life of the world (private supervision) and the acts of religious worship and ritual (mitzvot). The whole world was once religious. But religion itself is nothing but a cultural manifestation of man, right? Religion is part of culture and is one manifestation of culture. Is a dance that was initially used in a Hindu temple and became a traditional dance of the Indians necessarily religious even though it originated in religion?
5. There is Jewish thought that can be considered non-religious. Spinoza and his thought. The mostly Zionist work. The life of secular culture here in Israel. These days, creative activity is being done to give meaning and value to the holidays and rituals of Jewish life, which will be completely disconnected from religion and God. Just as religion transformed folk, agricultural rituals, etc. and took over them, so today it is done just the other way around. Human culture is in a process of development and change similar to evolution in the field of biology. Once upon a time there was a mammoth and now there is one Asian elephant left of it, another African. Still an elephant with trunk and tusks. just different.
5.
Fiddler on the Roof sounds crazy, doesn't it?
But here, in our small town "Anatavka" you might say each of us is a fiddler on the roof trying to scratch a pleasant and simple melody without breaking the bones.
its not easy.
And if you ask why we stay up there if it's so dangerous, we stay because Anatvaka is our home.
How do we maintain balance?
I will tell you in one word: tradition
(Haim Topol - Fiddler on the Roof)
Want to? he needs
Simply, he likes to have the last word but you didn't give him enough of a grip.
And reading between the noise is a business for commentators. In a scientific discussion it is advisable to speak politely.
Happy holiday and good night
not Jubilee.
It is an analysis and drawing conclusions from the scriptures and only for the purpose of the topic under discussion.
There is not, and cannot be, enough data for a comprehensive analysis.
And if you didn't notice my personal position from what I wrote, maybe you should read the things again.
David
Nice personality analysis you did.
What about you? Do you have any personal position that would allow our colleague to do a mutual analysis for you?
Happy holiday
After a lengthy and instructive reading of everything that has been said here on the subject of Jewish identity and Judaism as a culture that is seemingly independent of the Jewish religion and a [not particularly successful] attempt by Amit to show that there is such a thing in isolation from religion and that religion is only part of its totality, I have a question to ask Amit.
Can you, colleague, point to any sign of Jewish culture, or of the existence of a Jewish people, prior to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai? [Without going into the matter of the story being a myth, which I assume most of us agree with]
I admit that the question is rhetorical because of course, colleague, everything that is in what you call Jewish culture stems from this founding myth, therefore Jewish culture is various manifestations of creativity [in every field of human creation] that stem from the Jewish religion.
As for the spiritual cultural creation of individuals, who due to circumstances were born as Jews [according to the criteria that Michael pointed out] this is a cultural creation that is entirely human and there is no criterion that you can point to that would characterize their creation as specifically Jewish culture.
Your failure, Amit, according to what seems to me from the long discussion above, is that you failed to overcome the conditioning [that you unwittingly absorbed throughout your upbringing and growing up] to belong to some kind of distinct community.
In other words, deep down you see yourself first as a Jew and only then as a person. And everything written by you throughout the discussion, seems to me to be an attempt to reconcile the dissonance between your subjective feelings and Michael's cold logic from which, subconsciously, you also feel that a sane person cannot escape.
And this is not a statement in condemnation of anyone, but only a description of a situation as reflected to me from the discussion here, which really sailed into areas that are hardly related to the topic of the article.
Amit:
Changed.
I don't have the strength to go back again and again and explain the obvious - especially when it seems to me that the misunderstanding is the result of a decision not to understand.
Rashi's interpretation of my last sentence
* "All religions and nationalities have equal weight":
Simple: Most of the time, a person belongs to a religion or a nation not out of choice, but because it sprouts in the soil in the part of the field where the wind carried him. Therefore, it is one thing for him which religion and which nationality the circumstances chose for him.
Darsh: And the equal weight of all is zero.
* "Everyone is a fleeting human experience":
Simple: begins around the time of birth and ends with death, lasts a limited time. You were born with fanfare and end in a moment of silence.
Daresh: It's worth nothing and it's a shame to even talk about it.
Yuval: Not accurate. It is true that everyone who is born automatically receives an identity. I'm an atheist. I suppose if I had been in a Muslim family my situation would have been difficult given the greater intolerance in Islam. I don't know but I guess I would strive to escape from religion. It's clear to me. But the question is whether I would have been born French or English. who knows ? I might have been disappointed and stayed like that or changed, say an immigrant to Australia or New Zealand. It's also easy because it's the same language, almost the same culture, etc. I didn't understand your last sentence - after all, all life is a "fleeting experience", isn't it?? So what ?
National affiliation and in many cases also religion is perhaps one of the most important factors in self-definition because you are who you are because you were born where you were born and you belong to a certain culture because of that. And culture, it is already clear from my words, is critical to self-identity: culture is the language, the mentality, the customs, the religion (including anti-Elijah....). Michael would have been different if he had been born in a Chinese or Vietnamese or Ecuadorian village.
Joel: You keep insisting on writing exactly what I think……I have nothing to say except that I could have written the exact same things.
Michael: I remembered that for you it's a matter of convenience, I wondered if there was anything beyond that.
I disagree with you, as mentioned, regarding your control in the matter of belonging to a people who understand (…???….) the world likes to "come down on him".
You can change the situation, although this involves costs and difficulties, which of course you do not choose to deal with for reasons of convenience. I don't think that your birth as a Jew is a "harmful thing that happened" this is of course your personal interpretation and for you the state of affairs is negative and I share in your sorrow, what can I say - we will be comforted from heaven... 🙂
You misunderstand my approach because I am not satisfied with negative things that happen to me and work to change them after realizing that they are negative or hurt / harmful to me. By the way, this is a Jewish cultural principle...!!! imagine. Judaism (the culture, the culture...) created the principle concept of man's ability to change things in history and the Jewish concept of time was also affected by this - from a circular and cyclical concept to a concept of time as a progressive spiral "arrow"... Therefore, as a Jew, I am actually "committed" to the concept of the ability and the need to change Things I'm not happy with in my life.
I say these things when there is no wall behind me and I am proud of my national and cultural affiliation. I don't feel oppressed or forced under an identity brace that I didn't choose and in this aspect my life is more comfortable and easier than you. This reminds me of my companion in "Deat-Amet" - Yossi - who holds a Leibovitzian religious view and admitted that his situation as a religious person is very uncomfortable, suffers from contradictions, absurdities and has difficulties.
Unlike those who accept their identity as a given that has nothing to do with it and as a "destiny", I examined my identity and its meaning. I found that in Judaism there is much more than the boring, dark religion, narrow mind and world view, racist, homophobic, oppressing women, etc. Moreover, I found that the one responsible for the conceptual mistakes about Judaism and its content and for the fact that many are not proud / ashamed of their Judaism is the religion that distorted the concepts Jew / Judaism determined their content in an incorrect and inappropriate way and the worst thing in my view is the surrender of the secular Jews to this religious activity that tried to take over every part of it good in Judaism and to create an absolute identity between the religion and the nation and the culture and did a lot and spread damage, destruction and slander on the subject.
I am not really proud of the Jewish religion in its religious-ritual sense. This is because I am an atheist and reject any religion whatsoever. But, unlike you, who throws the baby out with the bathwater and lives in a problem with his Judaism, I complement, accept and am proud of my Judaism and differentiate and separate it from religion. And this, in my opinion, is the biggest debate from the beginning, which is why I invest and dedicate so many resources to this debate. As I answered Yoel in my answer about my hope for the situation to change, I believe that this is in our hands, in the hands of man. Just as crowds stood up and shouted "social justice", so can the sane, the enlightened, the decent and decent among the people (even religious if they are such...) stand up and create change. Here in Israel we will start by separating religion from state. That's why I joined "Or". I said I was pessimistic but I explained that even when the ship fills with water I will be one of those who will stand with a poor bucket and try to empty the water. Maybe.
Amit:
this is simply amazing.
I have already mentioned my reasons thousands of times and also for me (as I said a long time ago and more than once) convenience played a role.
The difference between us is that I said it in advance and you only said it when your back was against the wall (and after you tried to paint us a completely different presentation).
I am not happy with the fact that such artificial and harmful boundaries exist between people and I am certainly not happy about belonging to a people that the whole world likes to come down on, but all of these, as mentioned, are beyond my control.
The point is that I am honest with myself and others and I do not try to create a presentation of pride in something that is nothing to be proud of - both because it is not good and because it happened without any influence on my part.
There are many other things that I am not satisfied with but according to your approach there is something negative about not being satisfied with harmful things that have happened to you.
I assume, therefore, that you are also satisfied with the fact that you are mortal.
The difference between those who are satisfied with their situation and those who are not satisfied with it is not in their mood but in the degree of willingness to invest effort in improving the situation
As of today, to leave Judaism is to actively embrace a different arrangement. For those who do not believe anyway, there is no point in converting to Christianity or Islam; If it doesn't bother him, why bother, especially when it leads to another religion.
Those who want to leave the national context should emigrate from here. For example: living as a non-religious person in a country where there is complete separation with religion.
And if not - then what is all this occupation for?
That is, if you were born, or raised from a young age as an adopted child, in another family, say a Muslim one, would you adopt the religion of that family out of "the comfort of the permanent situation"?
If so, this only indicates that religious and/or national affiliation is not an important factor in self-definition and that all religions and nationalities have equal weight and are all a passing human experience.
Michael, what made me decide not to leave Judaism is the comfort of the permanent situation. Change is harder. I didn't really find a reason to change the situation and leave my identity and belonging to Judaism, why??? I found no reasons for this. Beyond that, it's an emotional matter because that's how I was brought up, I feel a sense of belonging and connection and my Jewish identity by birth, my Hebrew language and Jewish culture. Why change it? And which cultural identity will I change? Humans live in national frameworks and belong to different nationalities in which they learned a language, grew up and were educated. The Jewish culture is one of the oldest, similar to the Chinese and Indian cultures (which even preceded the Jewish...) and it has contributed to the world and I am happy to be another part of the "chain of generations" of my people and culture.
But after you asked me my reasons I am puzzled about your reasons. While I am complete and satisfied with my Jewish identity and belonging to the people, to the culture (religion is not relevant because I am an atheist) you sound like someone who is suffering and alternately dissatisfied and alternately feels that Judaism is forced upon you. I will join the questions that have already been asked: Why do you choose to remain Jewish? I believe that it is much more interesting than my choice not to change the existing and permanent situation. I wonder what reasons you find-if any-to choose to leave, as you wrote.
dream sleep
Following on from Erdogan's wishes, in preparation for Rosh Hashanah, in view of the late hour, and after experiencing the lies of the Mahbatim, I wish us all a year of righteousness (in both senses)
Amit the righteous!
I demand from you and every Jew in you an apology for using my name falsely in order to promote your agenda.
As long as you don't apologize, our relationship won't go back to the way it was (one might think).
Also, it is not clear to me why the system does not impose sanctions on you but continues to devote itself to you religiously.
Happy new year, a year of fruitful, fascinating and interesting discussions to you and to all who read and comment on the "Hidan".
Amit:
On the subject of Jewish culture - I have already explained the context in which the words were said (the context that cannot be ignored if you read the whole sentence and is clear as day if you follow the discussion) I had and still have no interest in any other aspect of the term "Judaism" and I completely do not understand how it is entered the discussion.
Regarding your answer about the reason for your choice of Judaism - you are only confirming what I assumed in advance and that is that you too - like all the others - simply remain Jewish because you were born that way and not out of any ideology.
to a colleague
they are not.
With all due respect to American Jewry, the halachic standard, and now it is close to the essence of the Jewish state, is the one that will determine.
The Jewish state is the one that will not allow the single/single value relationship that exists today between religion and nationality to be damaged.
It is the state that uses the religion-equals-nationality test to control those who come through its gates, and the relevant religious test is the strict halachic test.
That is: the secular state uses religious tools to organize the national component and control its components.
And come to the Redeemer.
Yoel: Absolutely agree. Hoping that things will change faster and more deeply.
Chaikin: I did not claim to have discovered anything and indicated my sources. By the way, if my answers are tedious, there is a simple solution - don't read. I didn't just write that the issue of nationalism is a provocation because it seems that you are looking to stir up debate and deliberately bring up nationalism and not nationalism. Maybe you and such grace??? As for the stupidity of the things I brought up - well, I wrote it down before me. Luckily there is freedom of speech and it is also allowed to spew nonsense into the virtual space…… by the way, they are not my ideas and things so your grade is directed to another source and place and is, really, like writing on the ice. so be it.
By the way, the fact that you live in the diaspora trying to deny your very Jewishness and surf an Israeli website and write in Hebrew (also nonsense and contradictions...) shows that you also swim in the Jewish cultural being. It is interesting to meet many types in life.
Michael: I don't know what you are interested in. I discussed the topic of Judaism, its essence and I also referred to this statement of yours: "There is no "Jewish culture". That's what I wrote and to that I answered in such detail and length that Yuval Chaikin's face swelled and turned red……..
Regarding Dershowitz and Allen, the things they have in common with Eastern Jewry and the rest of the Jewish people is their belonging to the same framework even if the commonality is very small....that's what they say, not me.
As for why I decided not to leave my belonging to the Jewish people and enjoy its cultural heritage, I will answer in Leibovitz style - that's what I wanted.
Happy New Year to everyone, including those living in the Gula Hadevia…..!!!
to a colleague
The relevant standards for the Jewish people were determined by Ezra and finally nailed down by Jewish law. It was a long time ago and this is how business has been conducted, after all, for close to 2500 years. The alternatives such as the reformers in the USA are very young and their effect on the Jewish people over time will have to wait.
Amit:
As far as I know - everything started with the Big Bang and not on September 7th.
The discussion we are dealing with started with the point I mentioned.
There we specifically talked (and you spoke personally) about the criterion of belonging to the group "the Jews" and later you probably decided (because of the stupid situation in which the same word represents several meanings) that there is no difference between the criterion of belonging to the group of Jews and the set of spiritual assets of the Jewish group.
My sentence that I quoted in my previous response ("If you went back and changed your mind, you are welcome to point to one cultural element that meets the definition of "Jewish culture" - that is - that is unique to Judaism and characterizes its various diasporas.") I wrote on September 13 and it is, as I mentioned, still Talked about the affiliation criterion.
At no point along the way did I have any interest in the subject of Jewish culture apart from the criterion. And why should I have?
Even on September 14, I used the term "Jewish culture" only in the sense of a criterion.
That's why I also wrote in the same comment, for example, that Woody Allen has nothing in common with Eastern Judaism.
You need to understand that when you skew the discussion, the way others express themselves is also affected and they may even be dragged along by your confusion.
It didn't happen in this case.
Although my opinion is that indeed - there is nothing in the Jewish culture that justifies a letter home - but that is not the discussion and in my view it has never been the discussion either.
I repeat and ask: why suddenly start talking about Jewish culture and not - for example - about lettuce salad?
How does Jewish culture even relate to the discussion if not through your confusion.
The discussion was from the beginning about the criterion of belonging to the group and it never changed, and the reason for the discussion was the "accusation" (which is funny to me) that I let Hitler win by coming to the conclusion that a situation must be created in which people like him cannot return and cause the same damage.
The group is a people/nationality and it has a culture like it has pants.
Belonging to a group is not determined by culture and this belonging is what determines antisemites.
One cannot leave the group by neglecting its culture just as one cannot leave it by giving up the pants because neither the culture nor the pants are part of the criterion of belonging to the group.
The statement "I was born into the group and chose not to leave" does not even begin to answer my question.
I assume you know that, so I'm not sure why you even bothered to write this.
Please - tell me what made you decide not to leave.
Is this one of the people?
Is this peace to you?
Did you think that if you left you would no longer be allowed to read their stories?
what?
You didn't convince me of anything. You think you've discovered America. I have known all these things since before you were born. They are not right and they are not wrong. They are just stupid. The only reason why I agreed with you all the way is because I hoped it would calm you down and thus rid us once and for all of your long speeches and the rambling answers of your bar phlogta. i failed You are made of very thin material. You have skin as thick as the armor of a Mark 7 Chariot tank. No clue penetrates it.
May you and all of us have a new year every day until the end of the millennium, and for those of us who will live until then - please copy and paste for the next millennium.
Tell me, Yuval, who said these things???:
"On concrete matters, I have a big argument with you from here until further notice" / "Hello colleague, we do not fundamentally disagree" / "Even if I think you are not accurate, I like the spirit of your words". Seems a bit of a contradiction to me.
Beyond that, you wrote: "It is acceptable to me that Judaism is not a culture, but it is a whole, one of whose components is culture." and also:
"Everyone defines their Judaism and Judaism in general as they see fit. There are millions of Jews and millions of Jews."
This is exactly my position. Culture has many shades and directions and thus it contains different faces. Judaism is a culture that created many works, including religion in its various streams. That's why the meaning of your words is strange to me. Why do you accept that Judaism is not a culture? So what is she?
And your last words. So you are not "fully" convinced? Just convinced or not convinced at all. Not that it matters, but I realized that you agree with most of my words and the spirit of things until I read your words again and realized that there are seemingly contradictions. I don't really understand what hints you put in and what their message is and what is the forgiveness....maybe you clarify.?
Yoel: "Belonging to the group is determined by parental relationship (son of a Jewish mother) or by acceptance according to the religious standard (convert properly). As of this moment, there is no arrangement that allows someone to be recognized as a Jew if he does not meet the above criteria." The above definition is not correct for all members of the Jewish people, but is correct for the Orthodox stream and also for the laws of the State of Israel which submitted to the Orthodox view. Indeed, belonging is by blood and/or conversion. But the word "properly" was accepted relatively late, due to ultra-orthodox pressure and secular laxity. In non-Orthodox communities in the US, those who convert are considered Jewish and it doesn't matter
If "properly" (orthodox). This is precisely Israel's problem vis-à-vis the Jewish community in the USA where there are many Jews who are not accepted by the Orthodox and therefore by the State of Israel. This is exactly what we must change, including leading a secular conversion.
Michael: I'm not really clear about things.
You wrote at the end of your words: "This whole phrase has meaning only when talking about identity and criteria, which "phrase" are you referring to ?????????????????????
It all started with the question of the "spirit" on September 7th at 18:36 - what is heritage and what is Jewish culture and I answered that and it can already be understood from my answer and the examples I gave that there is a Jewish culture that one of its products is religion and there are others as detailed there. That was the end of the matter because things are so clear and obvious. Indeed it seems that the matter ended and then a discussion began between us about the difference between "knowledge" and "belief" and even there we still disagree....
On September 13, the discussion between us resumed in light of your response to Haredi. My attitude is not an "attack" on you, but an agreement with an ultra-orthodox who pointed out the issue of paranoia in relation to the Holocaust and your "existential-Orthodox" thinking, as he said. That's exactly my review. Your justification for our existence here is according to the criterion of belonging to Hitler's Judaism and this I criticized in my words. Why does a Jew fit himself into Hitler's criteria? He will determine "Who is a Jew, ? I resented that. That is, it is clear that he determined for himself and the Nazis "who is a Jew" and based on this, 6 million were also exterminated, but this does not say anything about Jewish identity. He does not determine. Therefore, from this stage we are divided.
And this is exactly my argument: the criterion of belonging to the Jewish people is anyone who belongs to it or who was born one or who joined it in any way - in the days of the Bible Ruth declared her desire to belong to the people and that's it, during the Hasmonean reign Jonathan said to the Adomim what the Muslims adopted 800 years later: "By law or by sword ” And so the Reds will be Judaized or Gentile, and this is how we received Herod and today we are joining in orthodox, reformist conversion and soon there will be a secular-free conversion (the culture is dynamic, developing and changing).
Later I did not switch to another meaning. On September 14 at 12:59 you wrote: "There is no "Jewish culture".
To this I answered earlier to Ruach why there is a Jewish culture and what is its content. I also answered you in detail, at length that exhausted everyone, including me, here. But it wasn't enough, for some reason, just for you. I make a simple and clear claim regardless of the criteria of belonging or identity:
There is a Jewish people. It has an ancient culture that includes tradition, heritage and a lot (too much….) of religion. Religion is part of the culture of the Jewish people.
Later you wrote: "The meaning you give to the matter in this act is not of religion or culture but simply of belonging to a group.
Why?
Do not know.
You say yourself that even if you are not there by chance (and I deny that, but we will ignore this point), then most of the others are there by chance.
That's why you choose to be part of a random group that one of the main things that characterize it (in my opinion - the only one - but we'll leave it at that) is the Jewish religion."
Maybe here is the incomprehensible and clear matter between us?
We are talking about belonging to a group - in this case the Jewish people - and for that Haredi, Chaikin and Anchi argued that it is possible to leave the group, despite the difficulties and at the same time we are talking about what characterizes this group? What are you actually claiming? I claim that the group is a people/nation that has a culture in which religion was dominant in the last two thousand years and in the last hundred years its position has been undermined and many in the group have become secular and the culture has been enriched in many areas beyond the religious.
You asked like this: "Maybe you can explain how you made this decision? (of belonging to the people). If I didn't answer, I will. I didn't make a decision to belong to a people, I was born into a group (to a people) and I chose not to leave.
Tell me, my friend! Are not you ashamed?!
"The only one who opposed my claims and was fully convinced was Yuval Chaikin."
What should this noel sentence be?! Where did you get this new idea of yours?
Until now I have looked at you with a forgiving eye, but you don't take hints. In addition to your political virtues that I mentioned before, you recruit people for your purposes against their will.
Besides, when I wrote "for art" I meant exactly that. If you see my words as nothing more than a provocation, I'm afraid that any semblance of esteem I may have had for you has faded and is gone.
Amit:
I thought you might respond logically but I was wrong.
During this discussion - the word was used in two senses.
In the beginning we talked (especially in the "Orthodox" era) about the religious sense (and we talked about the laws of Judaism).
Later we moved to the meaning of the affiliation criterion. It had many expressions, but what indicates this most of all is the reason for this part of the discussion and the reason was the definition of "Jewish identity".
That's why phrases like self-determination also came up.
Your first personal reference to the subject attacks me (no less!) on the subject "Michael has a paranoid perception and post-traumatic thinking from which he justifies our existence here and his Jewishness. In fact, Hitler, who has long since turned to ashes and dust, determines today "who is a Jew." (Obviously, this justification is an adjustment to the criterion and it is clear that Hitler determines who is a Jew according to a criterion).
Forgive me - but it is not clear to me why you switched to a different meaning and if you did it because you saw that you were wrong in the original meaning or because you were confused.
Since I did not believe that you did such a strange exercise - I continued to talk about the matter of identity (that is - the criterion) even when you were talking about culture.
That's why, for example, I wrote you a sentence like "If you came back and changed your mind, you are invited to point to one cultural element that meets the definition of "Jewish culture" - that is - that is unique to Judaism and characterizes its various diasporas."
This whole phrase has meaning only when talking about identity and criterion. Why else should I demand that it be special to Judaism and characterize all Jews?
Michael, I delved again this time into your last comments. It's amazing how you juggle words 0 actually messing up..) diverting the discussion from its essence, clinging to the negligent and the focus of the discussion so as not to admit your mistake. Amazing. Very nice.
If you are willing to address my claims and my words, great, there is something to discuss. If you're trying to wear me down with all kinds of booki-saroki, too bad. The truth is clear.
"During the entire discussion we referred to the word "Judaism" only as the criterion by which a person's belonging to the Jewish people is determined." is that so ? The discussion with me was about the essence of Judaism, is it a religion, a culture, or both, in the sense that religion is part of a culture, and therefore Judaism is a culture, and in any case it includes both senses, so does Wiki, and what is the name of the common ethnic origin?
Michael M. Zatumart? The discussion is what is the essence of Judaism, is it a culture, a religion or both. Therefore clarifying the concepts is of course related to the discussion. You have deviated from the discussion here by bringing 31 logical points in arguments that are logically excellent but are absurd from a realistic point of view. I explained why the reality is different from your arguments and I detailed more and more and you claim that I am not referring/responding and that it has nothing to do with the discussion. I believe that every reasonable person understood my position and arguments. You are probably the only one who continues to argue against me - without arguments when the only argument is that I do not refer to the discussion and this as stated is unfounded because I answered and referred. You, on the other hand, refrain from referring to most of the arguments, examples and explanations that I have given and therefore dismiss in your opinion - the lack of factual treatment of the claims.
You invent all kinds of strange things and the explanation of Judaism in the religious and racist sense and then claim that the meaning of the word must be of the criterion of belonging and not of "the totality of spiritual assets". Listen, well done to you, you have developed the ability to argue to the level of art and your intellectual abilities also complicate the business to no end. I guess you will continue to teach yourself and maybe some ghosts floating in the virtual space about terms, concepts and other vegetables and the truth is that you are doing great. This time you missed big and probably the reality proves the opposite. But hey, we are in a free country and every person has the right to make mistakes as they please.
The only one who opposed my claims and was fully convinced was Yuval Chaikin. Except for you and Haikin, no one commented and argued against my arguments. Beyond that, I believe that the discussion is completely exhausted and has nowhere to continue, since I cannot explain beyond what has been explained, explained, demonstrated and deployed in a completely satisfactory manner, at least Yuval Chaikin who likes to argue like you and even makes provocative comments about "nationalism" as if he does not distinguish between it and nationalism... ….but that's okay, he provokes a bit of provocation for the purpose of the discussion.
From Kal 🙂
Reminds me a bit of the Oracle of Delphi.
I can answer all the questions but it has nothing to do with the discussion.
I will refer in detail to the arguments - mainly Michael's - but if we are dealing with terms and concepts, perhaps something that will help the discussion:
What is culture? What does it include? Does it contain religion or not?
Culture is the totality of the spiritual works of man and certain societies: art, beliefs, customs, values, symbols, myths. Is religion not included in the term and concept of culture? Isn't religion a certain expression of human culture? Those who understand and agree with this will understand my arguments. will understand his mistakes in the perception of the matter.
Yaruem!
The proletariat demands bread and entertainment!
Someone found my email address here and sent me the following spam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU-DlOw838Q
R.H. "Ghosts" called "Language" classes. The subject of 'language' (language) falls under the category of humanities. In general, it is advisable to learn reading comprehension before participating in discussions about Judaism or anything else."
Michael Rothschild asked: "Does reading comprehension belong to the natural sciences or to the humanities?"
A. He didn't ask where it was studied, he asked about Zika. Do you not understand a text? Nothing, you can always learn. Belong is a word of affinity, where, for example, refers to a place.
In response, I answered that the matter of understanding what is read does not belong to one or another type of science.
Is understanding, or the ability to understand, taught in language classes? Not that I know of, but you probably know better.
Michael Rothschild commented on the above: "In my opinion, this is something that should be common property and therefore be associated with all human beings even before they have learned any science or in other words the "life sciences" (in a borrowed sense)." indeed. That's how it is.
- So what are we left with? With a response that, beyond being rude, indicates a misunderstanding of the essence of the matter. Who does not. And regarding Judaism: if you say something concrete that relates to the words, let it go. If not, this sentence also falls into the same slot of aggressive talkbackism.
Note an interesting thing:
We were present here in the discussion directly about the damage caused by doubling the meaning of a word.
During the entire discussion we referred to the word "Judaism" only as the criterion by which a person's belonging to the Jewish people is determined.
Based on this point of departure, I stated that the word has two meanings - the religious one and the racist one (not that religious is not racist, but it also has conversion and is different from the one I called racist because it refers only to the origin of the mother and not to the origin of the father).
I ignored the fact that it also has a third meaning - one that does not indicate the criterion of belonging to the Jewish people, but the totality of its spiritual assets.
This fact causes people like Amit to take the word in its third meaning and try to argue based on it (wrongly) that it is possible to define Judaism as a culture.
This is another "meaning" that is based on several mistakes:
This is an attempt to interpret a (inseparable) part of a definition that does not establish a criterion of belonging to the people - as a criterion of belonging.
This is both a mistake in understanding the categorical difference between the two types of meanings ("belonging criterion" vs. "complex of spiritual assets") and also an attempt to take only a (inseparable) part of a complete definition.
In fact, there is an inversion of forms used here:
First of all, they say that a certain spiritual property belongs to Judaism because its creators or bearers throughout history are Jews, and then they try to take one of the spiritual properties that are so associated with Judaism (in a sense that we have so far forgotten) and define "Jews" based on it.
It's roughly like saying that the entirety of the claims in my various responses are "Michaelian" and then claiming that being Michael means believing in the truth of the claims in the current response.
Something (mainly a question) about the history of this trouble:
So we discovered that there is a third meaning that belongs in a separate category altogether.
The question is how (historically) this meaning was created, and whether it is later or earlier than the one that defines the affiliation criterion.
That is, it is clear to me that the criterion of belonging comes first, but it is not clear to me that it was always referred to as "Judaism".
The question I raise is at what point in history did this double meaning arise.
I have the feeling that the definition of a "complex of spiritual assets" was created (historically) within the framework of the development of the social sciences and the humanities and the definition of the "criterion of belonging" was part of the public debate in the "Who is a Jew" debate.
The question is what came before what or in other words - who got confused and caused the trouble to double the meaning.
If I were the Minister of History and could foresee the development of the terms and influence the choice of their names, I would give the criterion of affiliation the name "Judaism" so that the word "Judaism" could be used in the teaching of "a complex of spiritual assets" - simply because when the word "Judaism" is occupied by a criterion Belonging - it is difficult to find a good (single) word for the meaning of "the totality of spiritual assets".
By the way - in connection with the question about the affiliation of reading comprehension to the natural sciences or to the "humanities" - this was of course a joke about the attempt made here to associate the discussion with these or other sciences (which is nothing more than a variation on the "ex cathedra" arguments).
In my opinion, this is something that should be common property and therefore be associated with all human beings even before they have learned any science or in other words the "life sciences" (in a borrowed sense).
Yoel
Reading comprehension is studied in 'Language' classes.
The subject of 'language' (language) falls under the category of humanities.
In general, it is advisable to learn reading comprehension before participating in discussions about Judaism or anything else.
And Judaism? What does its definition belong to? For the natural sciences or for the social sciences/humanities?
Belonging to the group is determined by parental relationship (son of a Jewish mother) or by acceptance according to the religious standard (properly converted). As of this moment, there is no arrangement that allows someone to be recognized as a Jew if he does not meet the above criteria.
That is, an Inuit can also declare himself a Jew, except that this will not change the important reference systems, such as marriage to someone who is important to him or receiving citizenship according to the Law of Return. If he really wants to pray in a reform synagogue in the USA, then there is no problem.
Judaism as a religious, cultural creation, a national expression, etc. - each is a different matter in its own right, but refers to what the members of the aforementioned group did.
Reading comprehension does not belong to the natural sciences or the humanities.
It belongs to the understanding of what is read.
The quotation marks around "scientific" in the spiritual context are somewhat amusing
A favorite site for Jews and their lovers
http://www.jewage.org/wiki/en/Special%3aJFamousJews
It is advisable to read carefully and also to understand what is written in Wikipedia.
I want to reiterate: the name Judaism is defined as so and so by a certain ethnic group (it is not defined there how belonging to this ethnic group is determined, but that is because everyone knows - and everyone knows that it is according to religious law).
In other words - the word "Judaism" as it is used in Wikipedia - does not represent the meaning of something by which one determines who is a Jew.
First of all, it is determined who is a Jew (according to the ethnic group) and then they define so and so of the Jews as "Judaism".
By the way - does reading comprehension belong to the natural sciences or to the "humanities"?
Thank you Joel
You're right.
It is difficult to talk about religious culture and it is easier to talk about culture related to the country.
I accept that Judaism is not a culture, but it is a whole that one of its components is culture. And in the Kingdom of Judah a culture was created whose remains have reached the present day and along the way they were joined by other cultures that took shape in different communities around the world. I, who do not believe in the metaphysical cores of any of the world's religions, regret that the Jewish culture was recorded only in the holy books. This meant that the information we have about secular life is scarce and unreliable, and we are forced to look for it in archaeological excavations.
You know, there are millions of people who belong (voluntarily or forcibly) to Judaism. Some believe and some don't. Some want to build the land only after the Messiah comes (for example Neturi Karta) and some are building the land already now to save him work when he comes. Everyone defines their Judaism and Judaism in general as they see fit. There are millions of Jews and millions of Judaisms. The questions you raise are a drop in the ocean of question marks. I haven't accessed Wikify yet. I try not to get into an argument with our colleague for reasons similar to yours (not that he doesn't take into account the things I say, but because of the forest, I can't find my tree).
Yuval Chaikin: "Nonetheless, I am firm in my opinion that Judaism is not just a metaphysical religion but rather a nationalist movement."
It really doesn't matter if you are firm in your opinion or not. Halacha Judaism, which is what determines in this context of religion, is the complete opposite of a nationalist movement; And please refer to the wording of the three weeks.
And also, according to the same Jewish Halacha, one does not deal with metaphysical matters, but the whole matter is the fulfillment of a mitzvah. We are not discussing the existence of God, we are discussing an egg that was born on Yom Tov.
Judaism is one word that represents both a people and a religion, and some add Kahana and Kahana.
Not really accepted in the world, but it is what it is.
Therefore, when bringing up the above-mentioned concept, one must say in advance what the intention is, otherwise there is no way to have a discussion. Ehad Wittgenstein has already discussed the content of the signifiers.
For political art at the time of the Tanach? A case of mild anachronism.
jubilee:
Are there people in this movement who are not Jewish by religion?
And what about Neturi Karta - they are also in this movement?
And what about all the Jews in the Diaspora? Are they also in this movement?
And what about the law of return? Does he allow the naturalization of those who belong to the movement?
In general - how do you determine if someone belongs to this movement? Just based on what he says? Does this mean that citizenship should be given to everyone who says they are Jewish?
And besides: how dare you argue with Wikipedia 🙂
And besides - how do you expect to have a meaningful conversation about Judaism with someone who sees Judaism as a religion or a race?
Amit:
I don't know what you did with your time but I'm sure you wasted my time and in almost none of your responses did you address the things and instead wrote flame-throwing speeches about other things.
Your only reference to what I said was when you said that you decided on your Judaism after consideration and even then - when I asked you what was the element of Jewish culture that brought you to this considered decision - you simply ignored my words.
It has lasted until this moment.
Since you also ignored the other things - I compiled them in the form of a list of logically related claims and asked you to point out what you think is a mistake in this list.
Not surprisingly - you ignored that too.
I don't find any reason to correspond with someone who doesn't respond.
By the way - regarding your quote from Wikipedia - not that Wikipedia cannot be wrong - but they wrote - as you quoted "Judaism is a religion, culture and nationality of an ethnic group, whose members are called Jews."
In other words - in their opinion, Judaism is not a culture, but - at most - it has a culture.
If you read what they write about the culture, you will see that there is almost nothing there and most of what is there is derived from religion (parts of it that were also adopted by secularists and philosophical essays that try to connect general philosophy with Judaism (when - obviously - in this expression the word "Judaism" was used in the meaning of religion )).
Note that the Jews - according to what is written there are generally those who belong to the ethnic group.
That is - first of all there is an ethnic group (which is not specified by which it is determined) and then they define Judaism as their so-and-so.
In my opinion, the works of Jewish writers should not be included in the so-called "Jewish culture" just as the works of Christian writers are not "Christian culture" and in general - who in the Eastern countries read Shalom Aleichem.
This expression about literature reminds me of the one who called the theory of relativity "Jewish science".
By the way - if you read everything that is written on Wikipedia, you will see that beyond the meager introduction that mentions the culture - nothing in the actual content of the entry refers to it.
All the real content refers to religion - and see it's a miracle - also to the country (and I already mentioned the Israeli culture).
But - I have a request for you.
Before you refer to writing here - please refer to what I wrote in the previous comments because otherwise I just feel like I'm talking to Eliza software.
And yet I am firm in my opinion that Judaism is not just a metaphysical religion but rather a nationalist movement.
It began in the kingdom of Judah, where the priests of the various temples (and not only Solomon's temple but all the idolatrous shrines and places of worship) and the royal house supported each other for many decades, at least from the days of King Joash until the destruction of the kingdom. The religious belief included keeping allegiance to the state. Jerusalem and Zion for a Jew are not just a pilgrimage site like the Church of the Sepulcher for a Christian believer but a place that must be settled and not left. This can also be seen in the members of the sister religion, the Samaritans, who are very careful not to leave the borders of the country.
During the hundreds of years when the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel was sparse and most Jews were scattered around the world, the nationalistic aspect of Judaism declined and the metaphysical aspect became dominant. But in the last decades, mainly thanks to the activity of the Zionist movement, the nationalist aspect returns to occupy a prominent place in Jewish culture and it turns out that it never left it.
By the way, this HEEB magazine is also part of our culture.
Michael: ????????? M'ztumarat does not refer? I wasted my time here???
Here is a quote from Josh Berger. I suppose some would define him as "brainwashed" as well. And I ask is it???
: Do you reflexively respond as a Jewish person?
Culturally sure. I'm proud if I find out that an athlete is Jewish and I like to party with Jewish food and music, sometimes. And I'm Jewish by nature—inquisitive and very argumentative. I guess it's hard for me to step out of that. Let's be honest, it's also nice to be part of something. When Christopher Hitchens discovered he was Jewish a few years ago, he was excited about it.
What a piece, I don't know him and he thinks just like me that Judaism is a culture. And he's American after all. Hmmm...very interesting.
And right after he adds:
What book or publisher most influenced your thinking?
Anyone with a basic Jewish education should go to the website http://www.daatemet.org. It is the greatest and most important website ever. For 17 years he was a Rosh Yeshiva. Brilliant is not even the word. This website changed my life.
really interesting. All this is published in the Hebrew magazine here:
http://heebmagazine.com/the-heretic-amongst-us/28187
Amit:
Maybe you can explain to me why you don't address my words?
Amit the Jewish jester
Yes, I noticed how you ignore me - the first words of your response (which you addressed to me) make it very clear.
If you still couldn't understand (and it's not surprising):
According to Goodwin's law for Nazi parallels - you lost this debate a long time ago (and I can prove it to you).
The fact that you don't know how to lose with dignity, detracts from your dignity (hadel).
You can keep smelling your shit. Personally, I no longer find any point in arguing with a person who has already lost this argument.
I wish you to find honesty and decency in your future, Happy New Year and Happy Holidays.
Hello colleague,
We do not fundamentally disagree. I believe that a person's will is his honor and if he doesn't want to do what I suggest to him (for example, contribute his skills and talents to the benefit of the people and the country), then he really doesn't have to.
And seriously: suppose I found several inaccurate points in your words. I can point them out and then you will bring an interpretation to things. I will find an inaccuracy in the interpretation and God forbid. Even if I think you are not accurate, I love the spirit of your words and the love of humanity that beats in you and am glad to see that you and your kind are not an extinct race. Although it is evident that you are not a scientist, your words are kind.
And it is true that in the eyes of a religious Jew, the Messiah can be portrayed as the Christ of the Holy Trinity, but David is a secular king and like him is also his destined descendant. The meaning of the word "Messiah" is a man, flesh and blood, who was anointed to the high priesthood (king, in this example) by the one who poured oil on his head.
Our dear mutual friend can be wrong too. I had an interesting discussion with him about morality that I concluded with a third friend and actually a fourth, each one a cannon in my eyes. We came to an agreement quite easily. Here the matter is also emotional. with both of us. But of course justice only with one. And maybe not. Michael claims that Judaism is a religion. This is also true for me, but that is not the whole picture. Judaism is also a religion that is part of Jewish culture.
I still don't understand where we disagree....????????
And the point you raised: I asked religiously, but in my opinion you are wrong. Messiah is not a king. He is a messiah and his role and essence are completely and absolutely religious. It is about utopia, at the end of history and has nothing to do with government and monarchy but about a state of complete, complete and final redemption of man.
colleague. Your words are encouragement.
I will tell you exactly why there is a big argument between us until further notice: when two Jews meet, they argue like three; And three is like six, and six is like fifteen, and so on... Here, please see what is happening between you and our mutual friend.
Laughing aside. Here is a copy-paste from your words that can serve as an example of a wonderful debate starter: A distinction must be made between Jewish nationalism and Jewish religion.
Well, Jewish nationalism is embodied in the religion that indicates the longing for the coming of King Messiah who is nothing but a descendant of King David whose kingdom will last forever. It is true that the king attributed to faith was blessed by God, just like the ideal of Islam, but he is a secular king for all intents and purposes.
I will clarify further on the matter: First, to the issue of definition and the difference between definitions from the natural and life sciences and those from the fields of spirituality and society:
The Qur'an is used to define the physical book as well as its conceptual content. The New Testament refers to the physical book itself and its entire conceptual content, which also means a synonym for Christianity, which is the "New Testament". In light of the academic research on the scrolls, the word "new covenant" began to be used for the following idea: the argument that after the destruction of the Second Temple, the Jewish religion underwent a significant revolution and was in fact reinvented. But there were two such covenants, the Christian and the Jewish. The new religions that existed were different from the Judaism of the First and Second Temples. Therefore, the word is used to explain that in fact both Paul and the early Christians on the one hand and Sages on the other hand created a "new covenant" in the sense of a new religion. Here is a word with several accepted meanings. I'm not a linguist, but I'm sure that many examples like this can be given. And here it is clear why there are no Hellel definitions such as 1+1=2.
A distinction must be made between Jewish nationalism and Jewish religion. Religion is a belief in God that obliges a person to perform certain actions and it doesn't matter according to which stream. In our difficult case, the Orthodox religion means keeping the commandments of the Halacha. This is the definition of Jewish religion. While in the Hellenistic period and the Middle Ages there was a fusion between nationalism and the Jewish religion (and this was unique among the nations that shared common religions...), in biblical times and nowadays no such identity exists. This is the dynamism I claimed earlier in the "definitions" or in fact the reality that is revealed to us in human life, culture and life. On the other hand, water always boiled at 100 degrees at a pressure of 1 atmosphere, didn't it?? And even if not, what difference does it make to the willingness and strength of my argument?
In conclusion, a quote from Jacob Malkin's book: "Jewishness is membership in the Jewish people due to family origin or joining in some way to the Jewish people, as was customary in the time of the Bible, for example. Jews are members of the Jewish people because of family origin or because they were forced to do so like the Adomites and their descendants during the Hasmonean dynasty, or because they joined the people of their own free will.
All human beings are members of some national society and there are those who are members of more than one national society and culture, such as the Diaspora Jews. There is no person who is not a member of some national society in terms of language, culture, awareness of historical heritage, education, customs, etc.
"Jewishness" is the national identity of Jews in all countries and races and is nowadays characterized by all or most of these factors:
1. Origin or accession to nationality.
2. Membership in a religious or secular Jewish community or society.
3. Awareness of cultural and historical heritage common to the people.
4. Relation to the Bible as the foundation of all Judaism.
5. Life and education in a secular or religious Jewish culture.
6. Awareness of the Hebrew language as the ancient-new vernacular.
7. Use of one of the Jewish languages and its culture - Hebrew, Yiddish, Ladino, Tatit, Muharbit.
8. Recognition of the Land of Israel as the ancient homeland
9. Conversion to the people in the manner customary in one of the currents.
This. The question of desire that you raise is not related or relevant to the Jewish definition or identity, and as you have already been told, it is strange to the people here that there are martyred Jews nowadays. It is possible and relatively easy to renounce identity and many do so throughout history with great success except for one exception in one generation only - the 40s of the 20th century. This is an exceptional example that is completely out of the ordinary that you use to argue that an attempt to lose the identity or the definition as a Jew will lead to persecution and perhaps, God forbid, the Holocaust - an argument that is fundamentally false. Of course you don't have to want or do anything special with your Judaism, you can just be this and that.
Spirit of distortions and distortions: look how (also) I ignore you..
Michael: Today, after participating in the celebration of the 85th birthday of the tzaddik Shlita HaGaon Hamran Ya'akov Malkin at the new Beit Tamura in Jerusalem, and after having so much fun and being privileged to hear him, I would like to confront you about your mistakes below:
Your logical-systematic methodology already proves that you come from the mathematical sciences to deal with terms and concepts like the entire field itself which is from the humanities and social sciences. I will avoid individual reference to each and every section and focus on the issue itself: the Jew and Judaism.
First, a quote from Wikipedia on the term: "Judaism": "Judaism is a religion, culture and nationality of an ethnic group, whose members are called Jews." A little more from Wiki:
"As a culture, Judaism includes several unique languages, in each of which an extensive literature was created, a comprehensive Jewish philosophy that was sometimes influenced by general philosophical compositions and created a synthesis between them and Judaism, as well as a system of customs and social conventions shared by even secular Jews who half-observe the Jewish Halacha.
As a nation, Judaism serves as a focus of national identification for a group of several million people around the world. The Jewish national identity, and the many years of attachment to the Land of Israel stood in the 20th century as the basis for the establishment of the State of Israel.
As an ethnic group, the Jews number about 13 million people, scattered in various countries in the world, mainly in Israel, the United States and Europe. Among those who belong to the ethnic group, you can find common cultural characteristics and a sense of solidarity."
Even a wiki that is not perfect at all already explains my position perfectly.
You are wrong all along the logical path that is based on mistakes:
9. No. There is no new definition for a Jew. "Jew" always defines a person who belongs to the people. Always. Hitler also spoke of "the Jewish people". He saw a genetic element in peoples and that's how he distinguished them. not in religion He also destroyed secular and assimilated people because of their (racial) belonging to the Jewish people. Aliba is also a religious people. According to their version, "the people of Israel" received the Torah. That is, he was a people before receiving the Torah. So the definitions you use anyway support my argument that a Jew is someone who belongs to the Jewish people and not necessarily to the Jewish religion.
It is absolutely clear that even in the first mentions of Jews, the Jewish religion that we refer to and recognize today does not yet exist. The Jewish people developed within their culture many religious works, different and varied, starting with pagan religion, for a semi-pagan religion of faith in Jehovah with sacrificial work and more
Yuval's approach and statements are accurate and you should pay attention to his correct comments. By the way, Yuval, I didn't understand where we disagree at all. And I do come down from you to come up again... I just don't want Michael's hard, basic and fundamental mistake to take root except for people of perversion there anyway it doesn't matter.
10. Oh this is embarrassing. The argument, in light of Article 9, is devoid of any basis. A Jew has always been a people. Religion was very dominant from the days of the New Testament of the Sages until the Enlightenment period.
14. There are many characteristics of Jewish culture that are not religious. It is difficult because the religion has appropriated everything to it. But in XNUMX: the Bible - it is an ontology of writings compiled by different authors over the course of hundreds of years and in which there are different and even contradictory views, diverse opinions and actually reflects the thoughts of the people back then in the first millennium BCE.
More: Shabbat that you also observe. This is a great Jewish cultural creation. I will demonstrate what you do in your position through Shabbat. The creation of Shabbat is also anchored in religious tradition, of course. I hope it is clear to everyone that they did not observe Shabbat like today. You look today after the takhailo says what is Shabbat is tearing the toilet paper, opening the Coke bottle before Shabbat, not picking your nose and going to pray in a synagogue, this is Shabbat. Why ? Because that's how the religious keep it. Well we don't keep it. She needs no maintenance. We maintain it. They have always maintained it and the Orthodox religious takeover of it does not mean that it is Orthodox religious. Because Shabbat is observed by all the people, each according to his own way and customs, both religious and secular.
The language - Hebrew, Yiddish, Jewish languages (Ladino is not because it is ancient Spanish. Today it is different from Spanish which continued to develop while Ladino froze in 1492), the theater, literature and all Jewish artistic creation, comprehensive and extensive thought - Spinoza who is considered the first secularist in modern times, their works and their thought of Jews throughout history -Joseph Flavius for example his works are not religious. Criticism of the Bible, which is not a religious work but an anti-religious one, was also engaged in by many Jews. The Sabbath that is observed by all the people, including the secular ones. That's enough for now.
A. Beyond that, the religious also contradict themselves, but that's pretty clear to all of us, isn't it? picked up ? On the one hand, they claim and talk about the existence of the Jewish people. On the other hand, they reject the Jews who are not religious according to their method. Michael's approach of course aligns with the ultra-Orthodox logic and argument according to which Judaism = religion. After all, the religious contradict themselves anyway. See the Karaites who broke away from the Rabbinic religion in the 9th-10th century. They are considered part of the Jewish people. The reformers and conservatives too, mercifully. There is discussion, debate and conflict around these "converts". The Orthodox reject their Judaism because their entrance ticket is religious. The seculars, for the most part, adopt the approach of the Orthodox including, to Michael's shock. The other currents and many of the secular reject, of course, the position of the Orthodox (see Haim Cohen in the judgment, etc.).
B. How do all Jews also belong to the Jewish people??? Unlike Christianity and Islam, Buddhism or other religions, the Jewish religion is a unique cultural characteristic within the culture of the Jews only. Therefore some Jews who are religious will belong to the Jewish religion and not to any other religion.
third. Regarding the definition, Michael, I was correct when I claimed that in the social sciences and humanities the definitions are not as objective as the definition "at a pressure of 1 atmosphere water will boil at 100 degrees". The definitions in the fields of spirit and society are determined from the life of man, his culture, his creation and the reality of his world. Why did you suddenly decide to adopt the Nazi definition??? This is a definition that is good for them for their purposes. I wrote that the Jew will define himself. And the first, ancient and fixed definition is from time immemorial that a Jew is a member of a people so called. I'm not the only one who says this - so did Hitler, the religious, all of them. It is true that the religious people who argue with the common secular (which we have already determined is lax, lax, lax and idle) confuse him with questions such as what makes you a Jew, how does your Judaism come to be expressed, if you don't observe the commandments you are not a Jew and other nonsense. But let's not get into the distortions of the religious people's thinking right now, this is a very broad topic.
In conclusion, Michael
😀
Are you saying that fifty million Qurans are wrong?
Reminds me of an old saying: a billion flies are not wrong. ate feces.
😛
The story with Korea reminds me of a story about a Jew and a Gentile traveling by train.
The Gentile asks the Jew: "How is it that you, the Jews, are so wise?"
The Jew: "I can't tell you. it's a secret"
The gentile: "Come on! Tell me! I'll give you $100 in return!”
The Jew: "It's too little for such an important secret"
Gentile: "$200 going?"
The Jew: "Okay - let me!"
The Gentile gives him $200 and the Jew tells him: "We have special food that makes us so smart"
Gentile: "What food?"
The Jew: "I can't tell you, but for another $200 I'll let you taste it."
The Gentile: "Okay, here's another $200"
The Jew pulls out a sandwich from the bag and gives the Gentile a taste of it.
The Gentile: "But it's just bread with herring!"
The Jew: "Do you see?! It's already starting to work!”
jubilee:
There is a difference between what is desired and what happens.
By and large - humans intuitively act logically in this matter and do not destroy the language.
Small - there are people who are not considerate and sometimes manage to screw up here and there.
In the place where you manage to spoil a little, spoils are indeed created in the understanding as well. This is no reason to make the mischief a goal.
As for what is happening in Korea - of course they are wrong (this also happens - eh?)
There is a claim that has found much support in South Korea that the cause of the "Jewish genius" is precisely the extensive Torah literature. For example here:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4091593,00.html
Or here:
http://the-koreans.com/?p=289
And here:
http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=2884987&forum_id=771
And here:
http://www.bhol.co.il/article.aspx?id=26052
more and more. Giglati: The Korean Talmud
By and large - I agree.
In a small way - for example, I don't think that the requirement for the unequivocal meaning of each word is in its place. There is flexibility in all languages spoken by humans, as opposed to computer languages or DNA ciphers and more, and even Zemanhof was unable to correct this distortion.
jubilee:
The word "Jew" is indeed used only from the time of Josiah and I also pointed to that.
I think this minute is not important for the purpose of the discussion, so I did not repeat it.
The fact is that the word "Jew" has been used in the sense I am talking about for many hundreds of years.
This is not a single logical argument, but several arguments, each of which is independently proven.
If there is something you don't agree with, you are welcome to vote for it.
It is a language and there are people who try to confuse the world and give a new meaning to the word "strengthening" or to the word "Jews" does not indicate the flexibility of the language but the lack of consideration of those who try to change the meaning in other people.
As mentioned - there can be no reason for this other than falling in love with a combination of sounds - a falling in love born of the sin of brainwashing.
The Jews are probably really more talented on average.
This is probably a result of the natural selection they went through and this result came in the blood (in the original sense of the word) of many people.
It's nice to want to belong to the Jewish people on this background, but you have to remember two things:
1. There is a difference between wanting to belong and belonging. Those who do not have the appropriate genes - no desire will help them and those who have these genes carry them whether they decide they belong or not.
2. The definition you are talking about is just the race definition I was talking about.
In my life, I have never seen a logician with so many arguments. I got as far as section 31 (with the worst shortness of breath I've ever experienced 🙂 ) and I believe that there are additional and equally important factors for justifying the existence of the Jewish state than the factor you mentioned.
I believe, and it seems to me that I am not in the minority, that the intellect inherent in the Jewish people is beneficial to all of humanity and it is clear that it is worth protecting. But, in addition to that, I believe that it is also appropriate to allow him an optimal platform for action. One of the blessed fruits that the State of Israel has grown is the rate of scientific breakthroughs, which is one of the highest in the world.
I guess the colleague does not lack a sense of humor 🙂
As a rule, there is no uniform definition of Judaism and Jews. When a colleague compares the humanities to the natural sciences, he points out exactly this problem. He does not throw sand in his eyes, as you say, but uses the flexibility inherent in this definition to expand from it to several areas of life.
As I wrote to him, I have a big argument with him, but it is about the way he uses the flexibility of the definition and not about the flexibility itself.
Despite my pleas - Amit did not accept my offer to get off us and try to express his blessed talents on the right platform.
Section 9 is problematic:
The word "Jew" is not a new word. It is a word that is hundreds of years old. In all those centuries the word was used to define people according to the Jewish religion.
The words "Jew" or "Jewish" were used, at least from the seventh century BC (assuming that the Book of Kings was written no later than the time of King Josiah), to show an affinity to the Kingdom of Judah. R. Book of Kings, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX; Chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX; Ibid, verse XNUMX; And chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX. Even in the Book of Esther there is a reference to the Jews as a people (although it is written there "and the king's religion they do not do", but "the king's religion" is not what we define in our language today as "religion"), but the date of its writing is later.
The religion that was practiced in the kingdom of Judah in the period before Yasyahu is completely different from the religions embodied today in the definition of Judaism. It was a pagan religion whose main focus was worship and sacrifices to various idols including Jehovah.
Josiah tried to rule a uniform religion throughout his kingdom, but the strong union between the Jewish people and the monotheistic religion of which Jehovah was the nucleus was only made in the days of Ezra, several hundred years later. During the time of Ezra, a conflict arose between the Jews and the Samaritans. These two peoples were defined as ethnically separate even though their religion was the same.
The word Jew, in its ancient meaning, did not define a connection to metaphysical faith. This connection has been attached to the people over the generations and today some tend to forget its original meaning and refer only to the religious definition.
I decided to summarize some of the points I raised so that those who claim to disagree with me can discover that they also disagree with themselves.
The reader is requested to indicate to me the first point in which he disagrees with me and to justify his opinion.
1. Language is used by us for communication. Do you agree so far?
2. Communication is not an illusion of communication or dialogue of the deaf. Do you agree so far?
3. In order for communication to really take place, the person who hears or reads the words must understand them as the speaker or writer intended them. Do you agree so far?
4. The chance that such a coordinated understanding will exist decreases as the different meanings that different people give to words increase. Do you agree so far?
5. Therefore - inventing new meanings (different from the existing ones) for existing words harms the quality of communication. Do you agree here?
6. There is no shortage of letter combinations from which to create new words. Do you agree so far?
7. Therefore, if it is necessary to express a meaning that is different from the meaning of all the existing words, it is possible to create a new word that will be given this meaning. Do you agree so far?
8. Whoever, despite all of the above, takes an existing word and tries to give it a new meaning is therefore, and not out of necessity, harming the language's ability to be an effective means of communication. Do you agree so far?
9. Now pay attention:
The word "Jew" is not a new word. It is a word that is hundreds of years old.
In all those centuries the word was used to define people according to the Jewish religion.
Hitler came (considering the quality of communication between people are not the only good considerations he ignored) and gave the words a slightly different meaning (religion considerations are also primarily racial considerations, but Hitler also attributed race to the father and not just the mother).
A situation has arisen where the word has two meanings. It's already bad, but less bad than a situation of three, four or a thousand meanings. Do you agree so far?
10. Recently, according to a colleague (and everyone who agrees with him), a group of people has arisen who are trying (even without cooperation with everyone who meets the previous definitions) to decide that the word "Jew" is something else altogether (and for the sake of the matter at the moment it doesn't really matter what that something is which I claim is not at all defined).
Ram All of the above is true, after all, all these people achieve is confusion and damage to the ability of humans to have meaningful communication. Do you agree so far?
11. A colleague comes and points out the differences in approach between us in that I come from the natural sciences and he comes from the "humanities". I claim that all of the above stands on its own and does not depend on what he said. Do you agree so far?
12. If you agree to the above, then putting the differences in attitudes in the background throws sand in the eyes. Do you agree so far?
13. Everything that has been said so far does not at all depend on the question of whether or not there is a "Jewish culture". This question is a separate (and secondary) debate that even if you disagree with my words in connection with it - you must accept what I have said so far. Do you agree so far?
14. Despite my pleas - Amit did not bring even one example of a characteristic of "Jewish culture" that is not a religious characteristic. Do you agree so far?
15. Hence, even if we were to agree that it would be desirable to give the word Jew another meaning (and having reached this point we do not agree with this claim), Amit did not provide any evidence for his claim (which I do not accept) that there is anything at all other than religion that deserves to be called "Jewish culture". It is difficult to interpret the failure to give an example after so many opportunities to a situation where he has an example but he simply does not want to point to it. Do you agree so far?
16. From here the path to the conclusion is short that Amit, at least, although he speaks of Jewish culture as something separate from religion, does not know of any difference between this culture and religion. Do you agree so far?
17. Hence there is no real content to Amit's claim that Judaism is a culture even if there was room for a new definition different from its predecessors (and if we have read this far we know that there is no room for such a definition). Do you agree so far?
18. All of the above is not related to the question of a person's identity, and therefore - even if someone who has come this far disputes the continuation of my words, he has already accepted two of my arguments: there is no room for a new definition of the word Jew, and even if there was room for this type of definition - no evidence was presented That in general it is possible to define Judaism (or any other word) as "Jewish culture" without the definition being the same as the customs and beliefs of the Jewish religion. Do you agree so far?
19. In order to know my identity, I have no need for definitions. There are also animals that know their own identity and they cannot define definitions at all. Do you agree so far?
20. When there is a definition of a certain type of human being, if the definition itself does not include within it the ability of a person to conform to it solely due to his private decision, then a person meets the definition or does not meet it and does not decide on anything but only discovers it. Do you agree so far?
21. The two definitions of Judaism (the religious one and the Nazi one) are not definitions that are based on a person's choice (we will leave for a moment the matter of the immigrants which requires a slightly more precise expression but is not part of our debate). Do you agree so far?
22. Therefore, the proposal "Why should you suffer and choose a different identity" sins both in the false assumption that someone's identity is determined by external definitions that he meets and also in the assumption that a person can choose not to meet the Nazi definition of Judaism and must convert his religion (I don't know if this Ozer) in order not to meet the religious definition of Judaism. In other words - this is a proposal that is not applicable in any way and does not deal with the problems as a remedy for which it was proposed (even though the problems do not exist at all). Do you agree so far?
23. The word "definition" is derived from the root "fence" and in fact what it creates is a logical fence - what meets the definition is inside the fence, what does not meet the definition is outside the fence. Since definition is not necessary for identity, those who define themselves do not do so for the sake of identity but for another purpose. Do you agree so far?
24. The other goal is, of course, creating a logical fence. Do you agree so far?
25. A fence is only necessary if you want someone or something not to cross it. Do you agree so far?
26. If the fence is intended to create separate human populations then it is a basis for disputes and wars. Do you agree so far?
27. A fence that will not cause disputes is only a fence that a person puts up only for himself, without obliging others, and whose role is to influence his actions. It does not determine the person's identity but is determined by the person's identity (which includes the decisions he made regarding the behavior he wants to engage in). Do you agree so far?
28. Even if a person does not define himself in a certain way but is defined that way by others when the function of the definition is to separate populations, this definition affects his life. Do you agree so far?
29. It is desirable for a person to know and understand the various factors that influence his life and in particular it is desirable that he recognize and understand the divisive definitions that others have defined him and even act in a way that takes these definitions into account. Do you agree so far?
30. Hence, not only is it impossible to decide whether one meets this type of definition, but it is also desirable to know it and its meanings and act accordingly. Do you agree so far?
31. And if the definition is the definition of anti-Semitism as the Jews and the appropriate action to limit the damage of that anti-Semitism is the establishment and maintenance of a state for the Jews, it is advisable to take this action even if the definition seems stupid, because the stupidity of the definition does not reduce the damage it can cause and does not change the effectiveness of the solutions that can minimize damage It. Do you agree so far?
If you have agreed up to this point, then you have agreed with me on all the disputes that have arisen in this discussion.
I did not go into the motivation that drives people to make the mistakes I mentioned. As I mentioned in other comments, in my opinion it is mostly the result of brainwashing, but even if we don't get motivated, what is important is that mistakes are mistakes.
Machel
Are you familiar with Goodwin's law?
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%92%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9F
Did you notice how Amit tried to brainwash everyone here (and how he really managed to easily brainwash at least one person here whose name is Yuval Chaikin) - and failed to brainwash you, at least?
(It is true that Amadeus mentioned Hitler first, but Amit mentioned Nazism in his response here: https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-304284)
Thank you Yuval. I am comforted that my position is held by many, bigger and better than the little me. I hang myself high in my position regarding who is a Jew, what is Judaism, and the like.
Michael: Let's agree that we don't agree on this point, even though my mind is washed-like many and greater than me that I am nothing but a trampled scum compared to their knowledge, education and wisdom. Since this is not my personal and private position, but a position that represents many and good people - including the humanist-secular trend in American Judaism.
For some reason your very specific position actually seems to be a personal and private view that can be called the raped Jew or a Jew and not by choice. I haven't met other people with a unique view like yours and it's definitely refreshing to see unique views despite being esoteric.
By the way, you can read more about the Jewish stream that for some reason exists in the US and not in Israel and proves the argument about one nation with a culture that is not limited to the borders of Israel:
http://www.culturaljudaism.org/
http://www.shj.org/
Roach Iveim: Your words are uplifting, intelligent, completely rational and devoid of any influence / brainwashing, etc., are truly inspiring. Your matter-of-fact arguments, devoid of emotion, your impressive logical understanding, your arguments as sharp as a dull and rusty knife, all these are an example, a parable and a wit for every true seeker, seeker of knowledge and aspirer of education.
And finally, I will emphasize your style that impresses all the debaters here who open their mouths in astonishment at the expressions full of style, grace, delicacy and greatness of mind that you reveal...
Happy New Year to all, Jews wherever they are who have a worldview no matter what.
Those who do not celebrate Rosh Hashanah by chance (from their particular point of view) hope not to be hurt by the wishes
Machel
It seems to me that it is impossible to properly reorganize the minds of brainwashed adults like Amit or Yuval.
The emotions that overwhelm them in the face of the facts that are presented to them, blind the bit of common sense that is still left in them.
Whether they agree with the facts or not - they always involve their feelings as part of the way to a logical understanding of things.
Also one of the commenters who I think did not participate in this discussion - you know who I'm recommending for this one who is sure to be a successful biologist - sometimes feels the need to show his 'intelligence' and his knowledge of biology to others - even after what he wants to say has already been said by others. I think it stems from the emotions it involves. I think he feels jealous after someone already explained X thing related to biology - and he wasn't the one who explained it.
I am talking about them because they are the only ones I find here that can demonstrate what I want to ask:
Would it be correct to say that in order to brainwash someone - it is necessary to mix emotions (perhaps certain ones) and emphasize those emotions in his face at the expense of grief? That is to say, for example, you have to present a nonsensical thing to the victim - as a logical thing, as a result common sense gets confused, the emotions float out and take over that victim, and at that moment no matter what the victim feels, simply 'replace' his emotion with another specific emotion - like, for example, fear ('Substitutes' means the presentation of another specific thing - let's say something scary - which doesn't make sense). Would it be correct to present the way that causes brainwashing in this way?
Amit
You know how to steer discussions in your direction, and good luck. You write fiery speeches. You have the ability to persevere in discussions until you exhaust all your opponents. In short, you are equipped with all the right tools.
In addition, you present a very positive position. You go for unity instead of division, love instead of hate. You have all the data to be a positive leader by example.
I think the people need people like you. It's a shame you waste so much time and effort on this little site.
In concrete matters, I have a big argument with you from here until further notice, but I avoid it because I don't have the vastness of your soul.
Amit:
It's really sad to find out every time you didn't understand what I said and to realize that it's all the result of brainwashing.
Yuval, maybe but not in Beit Sifri. Politics is not for me and not for me.
Michael, after I wrote my last response I read the comments above and below your response to which I responded (oops I got confused...). In any case, I came to know that you are juggling the definitions of the Jew and stating that there are 2 definitions: the one of the Halachite and the one of the Nazis. what are you saying …????? 2 definitions and nothing else. Walla.
Dear Michael: There are definitions from the field of mathematics where they are clear, absolute and unequivocal. There are definitions from the field of humanities and social sciences. Most of the settings, most of the time are fixed and do not change. Others are a little more liquid... For example: What is the Jewish religion??? Michael, how many definitions do you know? It turns out there isn't one. There is more. Let's see: orthodox, conservative, reformist. All these are religious people who go to synagogue, pray to God and claim to be religious. Interesting isn't it? Some do not at all recognize the other, his conversions, his authority, etc. Therefore it turns out that the definition: "Jewish religion" is not the same as the definition 1+1=2 (let's keep the math at the level of calculation, for me...).
This is an example of what I mean. You made a statement that is acceptable only to you that the Halacha and the Nazis are 2 definitions of who is a Jew.
Let's stop for a moment and find out what the words are: note that there is "Jew" and there is "Judaism". Halacha and the Nazis dealt with "Jews" and the issue of who is a Jew. I am talking about "Judaism" and what Judaism is. Also about who is a Jew, but this stems from the definition of Judaism.
The Nazis were not interested in "Judaism". They were looking for Jews to destroy them and therefore needed a definition. Their definition stems from the violation of their racist insight. The one who refers to their definition as a practical and practical definition that determines about him is a person suffering from trauma (at the very least...). That is why I argued in the past that our society and country is post-traumatic to this extent because it established the Law of Return in accordance with the Nuremberg Laws. Something disturbed but understandable in light of the disaster. That is, normal and natural in its disorder. Absolutely understandable. That is why the immigration laws determine who is a Jew for the purpose of immigrating and obtaining citizenship in accordance with the Nuremberg Laws. Now tell me, do you define your identity in relation to the Nazis, like this??. Michael There are no Nazis and if there are some delusional neo-Nazis it is a curiosity and completely meaningless. Should we treat them with severity and not cancel anti-Semitic trends, God forbid, of course, but fear another beacon in a concrete way? based on what ? The memory of the Holocaust is strong enough so that if, God forbid, the sky darkens, we will know to recognize it immediately. I am not afraid here on this subject of a beacon. right now in the present.
It's about the Nazis. I invalidated them and their definition. Now we will deal with the halacha. It determines who is a Jew for religious purposes only. Because the religion aspires to power and rule, it also decided that the progressive definition would include all Jews and anyone who wants to join the nation. gall. But this is the reality that many of the secularists who are slaving away and canceling accept. not everyone.
Here comes my definition of Judaism: it is a culture of which religion is a part. The Jews are a people with a Jewish culture. That is, the people own the culture and also the religion that is part of the culture. That's why for me and for my fellow Reform Jews they are part of the people. Even those born to a non-Jewish mother. And my former friend from Russia whose father is Jewish is a kosher and good Jew and T.Z. What she received here made her fully Jewish. But the religious will say why her mother is not Jewish and she is not Jewish. Here I and you and others like us have to do with the hand - while it is sent forward in front of the religious on duty - a circular movement and say: "Why what happened, why who decided, who said, come on, come on". So. But instead the lax and lax secularist says: "No, but according to the Halacha she is not Jewish".
Do you understand ? This blasphemer of Shabbat, who must be killed according to the same halacha, suddenly quotes the halacha……. What a national disease, what intellectual and mental emptiness and laxity. Sad, depressing and annoying.
And finally: definitions like these from the field of humanities and social sciences are determined by the defined themselves. That is, the definition of a Nazi German (or just a Nazi, also an Austrian) equals an ass. It is true that in the Nazi case they defined and massacred the objects of the definition, but we have already concluded them as completely disturbed.
Only a Jew will define himself. And the Jews have defined themselves throughout history in different ways. During the biblical period and the days of the Second Temple, the definition was completely different from the hilachite one created by Chazal. Sages who created a "new covenant" at the same time as the Christians, changed the religion and determined "who is a Jew" according to their needs and knowledge. This definition changed again when the Zionist reformers came who were Jewish in their knowledge and also anti-religious. The Zionist move is not complete, as I detailed above, and the reform that will put the religious people and their definitions in their proper, appropriate and correct place must be completed.
That's why I directed you to the Free Judaism website to familiarize yourself with the Jewish-Zionist-secular definitions of what Judaism is and who is a Jew.
Here I did not ignore your position which is completely unacceptable to me and I say to you in this very matter: go out and study, my friend, go out and study.
And I agree, by the way, completely that the dictionary and the religious-Orthodox language is the language of 1984. Completely.
Repenting instead of deteriorating to religion, strengthening instead of deteriorating, secular instead of free, everyone who deals with the Torah is a free person instead of a slave and more a priest and a priest. You can create a dictionary and I will start collecting words for myself and their opposites for the sake of curiosity and self-amusement.
colleague!
I was sorry to hear "I have no political ambitions. Neither sexual nor partial....I'm not going to be a politician." Israeli politics needs people like you...
Amit:
I do not adopt any definition just like that.
The word has always had two meanings and I associate myself with Judaism precisely according to the racist definition (and I have said this a thousand times) and not according to the religious definition.
You ignore it time and time again just to try to score idle points in the argument.
So there are all kinds of people who, like you, have fallen in love (due to brainwashing) with the combination of letters and are trying to reinvent the word.
To me, it's just like the ultra-Orthodox reinvented the word "strengthening"
Yuval Chaikin, our dear diaspora... when, how and where will you vote?? Do you intend to return especially on election day?
I already saw a previous comment above and wasn't sure but now you confirmed what I understood. So. I have no political ambitions. Neither sexual nor partial…..I'm not going to be a politician. Although I am a member of Or's management, I am not currently a candidate and do not intend to ever be. that does not interest me. I want a fundamental, fundamental, matter-of-fact, purposeful, real, serious and authentic change in all priorities and conduct in the country from economic-societal complexes to foreign-security policy. If you read "The Marker" and are aware of the newspaper's blessed influence, then you know the content of their agenda and the conferences they hold "Israel 2021". In short, if you are asking about my fantasy, then I would appoint a "temporary council" that would operate with round table committees as in the aforementioned conference and change everything: from the structure of the government, the government and the bodies of the 3 authorities so that the government would have the ability to govern, go to local authorities and in general to The public bodies, go through a substantial and fundamental change in relation to the citizens of the country and create equality with an emphasis on religious Arabs in general and ultra-Orthodox in particular and more and more - education, health, welfare and the like. This is not the place, but I could fill whole pages.
If we move from the fantasy side detailed above to the practical side, I am with a "watching eye, checking and checking" when I will have to run away from here in the hope that it will be after my death and only my children will have to run away. I am already preparing the ground and the means because I am pessimistic and it is clear to me that the country is on a path to destruction in one way or another. I am the type of person who even when the ship is sinking still stands with a bucket and empties the water and jumps only when the water reaches above the crotch....that is why I joined "Or" which does not convince even people like you and therefore we have no chance because Amsalam is a complete dus and if you expect salvation from him I grow pessimistic My. Completely.
And Michael, oh well. I will end with a reference to the website "Free Judaism" where you will find a number of articles that explain, detail, demonstrate why the equation Judaism = religion that is carried by the religious and adopted by too many good secularists like you is fundamentally wrong. Also, if you want, you can read Y. Malkin's book (I can borrow it...) Judaism as a culture, the Bible as literature and maybe, really maybe your understanding of the non-mathematical reality will change.
If not, not bad. Our descendants will probably find out/run away from here in light of the state of affairs and despite the actual social protest it has no chance and hope and I say this as someone who participated in the demonstrations.
jubilee
Your opinions are like a vane.
Besides, what does it matter to be number 2 if no one picks him anyway?
Well, maybe a handful will choose him.
But if a handful choose him, what's the point of him changing his place? To 'gain more power'? Fatter salary? Higher status? What is the point of choosing such people? They offer nothing but their ego.
colleague!
What chance do you have of getting a realistic place on Or's list for the Knesset? Wouldn't it be better for you to go out on a joint list with Amsalem and be number 2 on it?
I read about Amsalem and decided to transfer my support from the Or party to him. I do this because he serves well the goals of sane secularism and therefore among the ultra-Orthodox he will not garner many votes. I call on everyone who cares about the country and all ultra-Orthodox who want to get out of the vicious circle to vote for Amsalem.
Amit:
I'm tired of the chronic and meaningless comments even if they start with a compliment.
Did you not understand what I said?
Let it be!
Michael, I understand the inability to understand is wonderful. I believe that the reason is your wonderful ability in mathematics and in the field of realistic thinking. I am a humanist and perhaps this is where the gap in perception lies. Or there are mental-emotional reasons and that's certainly not the case. Anyway, since a brilliant person like you is so blatantly wrong, I'll try again:
The Sabbath that you keep/maintain. (Not observant, of course, in the religious sense) Do you understand that it originates in Jewish culture? A culture that includes religion?? You surely understand that Shabbat was not created one day at Mount Sinai, and since then you have been careful to open the cap of the Coke bottle and cut squares of toilet paper before entering Shabbat, right? It is clear that this developed for her in a unique and special way and was social in essence and in my opinion very quickly religion took over and appropriated it. And if not, what does it matter? It is a cultural creation of the Jewish people. You maintain in your lifestyle things that originate from the Jewish culture/religion. So what ? So are you religious? Of course not. You observe a Jewish Sabbath that is not religious at all. Does this help to understand my position regarding Judaism? This is just an example, there are more. The fact that a certain idea derives from religion does not lead to the conclusion that there is no secular Jewish culture that is not religious or that the idea that was religious in origin is no longer such. What to do that in the past the whole world and humanity were religious? At least in the West. But the fact that the majority of Jewish culture originates from religion does not contradict my position that sees Judaism as culture. I have already explained and I will explain again that religion is a cultural product therefore culture also contains religion which is part of culture. Culture is created by a public known as a people and thus every people has its own culture (a very fluid concept that can contain many ways and aspects of culture). Therefore, even the reformist and conservative currents that were created abroad and not in Israel and arrived in Israel are a Jewish cultural creation. The penetration of these currents only clearly proves my claim - after all, these are currents that were created within the Jewish people and within the framework of its culture and therefore penetrated Israel only into Jewish society, of course. Not for the Druze or Arabic who are also Israelis. Because the Jewish public sees itself as connected to each other as a people, cultural ideas pass through it regardless of geography.
Israel has two peoples and therefore an Israeli is like a Belgian - this is a civil definition. As in Belgium the Dutch and the French see themselves as belonging to different nations with different cultures and different languages.
If in the future the Arabs and Jews unite into one nation or community, we will discuss it. In the meantime, it is very far away, about as far as the Messiah's distance from arriving...
who knows? Maybe I still will be. But even if not, the chance of being like that is great if I belong to this group.
jubilee:
My feelings are also similar, but you have to remember that pride in this matter is a double-edged sword.
So many Nobel laureates in this nation and you are not one of them?
Maybe this is a reason for shame and not pride?
As a principle, it is better, in my opinion, to be proud of our individual achievements and not the achievements of a group to which we are associated for one reason or another.
And I have a causal connection. For example, I am proud to be a part of the nation in which the proportion of Nobel Prize brides and grooms is about a hundred times greater than the proportion of the world's population.
Ghosts:
Without going into details, I must say that your questions in the last responses have a typical structure that requires a uniform answer:
You keep asking - is it not possible to enact law X, when X changes.
The uniform answer is that the one who enacts laws is the Knesset, and in order for any law to be enacted, the members of the Knesset need to want to enact it.
To achieve this - two complementary ways must be taken:
1. At the time of the elections, through responsible voting, you should ensure that the elected members of the Knesset are those who represent views as similar as possible to yours
2. Between the election campaigns, you should engage in lobbying to promote the legislation you are interested in (through personal meetings, mutual friends, press, sponsored advertisements and any legal action you can think of).
This is true of any law.
It is clear that any law is easier to pass if everyone wants it and one of the ways to create a situation where everyone wants a certain law is through education.
The religious currents noticed this a long time ago and therefore did everything they could to take control of the education system and they were indeed so impressively successful that today there is no secular education system in Israel at all! (Note how difficult it is for secular commenters here to stop associating the word "Jew" with feelings instead of meaning. This is a direct result of the brainwashing that education in the country is a part of).
But at the same time - it is impossible to start with education because as mentioned - to change education, legislation is necessary.
This is what the religious currents have done for years - they managed to use the short-sightedness and naivety of the secular members of the Knesset to cook the frog in lukewarm water that keeps getting warmer without it noticing.
In conclusion - as in the previous responses - it is possible, in principle, to enact the laws you proposed, but in order for this to happen in practice, it is necessary to ensure that there are enough members of the Knesset to vote for them, and this, as mentioned, is done through lobbying in the Knesset and responsible voting.
Machel
Exercising correct judgment can only come from correct education. This means, as I understood from your words, that first of all people need to be educated to exercise judgment - and as a result, it will be possible to make the right decisions. Provided that is what you claim then I agree with it.
But how do you get people to make the right choice? How to educate the people to exercise judgment?
A certain education system is needed for this. But suppose such an education system exists, the demographic problem has a negative effect on such a system. The more religious people there are who will be educated throughout a religious life, the more people will choose religious education. And the right education will not show positive results.
Does all this mean that education should start first? I think so. But how do you do it?
Is it not possible to enact a law that states that it is forbidden to have more than X children? (Seculars will also hurt - but between us -
How many secular families with many children are there already in Israel?)
Is it really impossible to enact special laws (even temporary - even if they last for many years) that will force the religious to work and serve in the army? Is it really impossible to enact a law that will fine/punish all religious people who do not work or serve in the army? Why is it not possible to enact a law that states that every person who chooses to lead the length of his life as a religious person - will be bound by such and such obligations that he must fulfill? Can such laws not be enforced?
I am also a proud Jew, but there is no causal connection between my Jewishness and my pride.
You insist on keeping me with you. They won't let me leave. So I'm going back to your quarry
And today I am a proud Jew again.
Sometimes I say that the only way is to exercise discretion when voting in the Knesset elections.
Machel
So you claim it's like a 'vicious cycle'? Until the legislators enact the law, nothing can be done. But because most of the legislators are not aware of the situation, or are not sane enough - is there no way to influence it?
Is it really impossible to influence them? The only way is physical violence against them? revolution?
jubilee
Do you take care of the little ones? And maybe you're the one who doesn't know how to define the main point of his words?
Good luck or bad luck? If you were sent to a labor camp would you consider it good luck? What, because they didn't send you to an extermination camp? Come on... it's lucky that in the ghettos there were people braver than you who didn't surrender to the Nazis - long live their names -
and rebelled against their fate.
Do you think this 'international' is a woman? Will a duck dressed in goat clothes be a goat? come on…
"The humanist point I'm trying to sharpen here..." - You are lucky to have a humanist country like Israel.
I'm almost certain you can't 'hone your humanist point' in the Muslim communities in Glasgow.
Ghosts:
I explained that I was in favor of a constitution that would require the separation of religion and state.
It is on the platform of the Or party.
In order for legislation to be passed on the matter, members of the Knesset are needed to enact it.
In all incomes until now there were not enough sane Knesset members to promote the matter.
This is what needs to change.
It may not change because the problem may be that the people as a whole are stupid and do not understand that they must elect members of the Knesset who will work to save it from deteriorating into a Halacha state.
If this is the case - there is nothing to do.
If this is the situation today - it will surely be like this in the future because of the demographic problem.
jubilee:
I am not referring to any genome.
I refer to the existing definitions of the word.
None of the existing definitions refer to the genome.
I mentioned the two popular definitions - the religious one and the Nazi one (it is true that the matter of the genome is only technical and the Nazis would have used genetic testing if they had the necessary technology at their disposal).
In any case - these are not my settings, but the settings that are in use.
As if it wasn't enough to have two - so you suggested adding more definitions.
As I mentioned - this is a private case of falling in love (due to brainwashing) with a combination of letters or sounds.
You see that the word "Jew" does not indicate a good thing, so in order for the word "Jew" to indicate a good thing, as you have been trained to think - you propose to change its meaning.
You are Jewish and you have no choice.
There are good Jews, there are stupid Jews, and there are bad Jews.
In general - there are all kinds of Jews and you belong to one of these types (perhaps you are even the only one of your kind).
The fact that you belong to a certain type does not entitle you to change the meaning of the word "Jew" so that it describes only this type of people.
It is also understood that you are not authorized to change the meaning of the word "Jew" does not harm your right to live your life exactly as you like as long as the law allows it, and to feel good about yourself.
You can establish a set of beliefs and rules of behavior for yourself and tell yourself and others that this is what defines you. good and beautiful It is a good technical means to remind yourself when it is required - what is the scale of values you have set for yourself and thereby limit irresponsible impulsive actions (that is - it is good if you also examine it from time to time and do not impose it on others).
So as mentioned - it's all well and good - but please - don't try to claim that this is Judaism (or - as there are those who magnificently say about their private definition - "the real Judaism"!).
Defining Judaism according to your private criteria is like defining a mammal according to human characteristics.
Good luck or bad luck?
These human monsters would probably see me through their racist eyes and dismiss me from the world. But this does not add or detract from my self-definition.
The humanistic point I'm trying to make here is that the definition a person defines themselves is of greater importance than any definition others treat them with. I even "sacrificed" myself for the sake of illustration. But, as usual on the pages of science, the commenters take care of the little things and catch me on marginal points.
jubilee
You're lucky you don't live in the 40s of the last century. If you were to face the selection carried out by the Nazi - may his name be erased - and you told him you were a nihilist, he would laugh at you, categorize you as a Jew and send you to labor camps (if he found you of any use at all).
Machel
Why is religion not separated from the state by law? I understand that whoever makes this proposal will not win the religious vote in the elections, but is there really nothing to be done against the 'religious vote'? Is there no way that it can be implemented without taking into account the weight that religious parties have?
I re-read the rest of your comment, and I think I understand. We are talking about completely different things. You are right, but the recognition of my self-definition is important to me, and for that reason I ignored the sequel in a Freudian manner.
It seems to me that you are presenting the definition of who is a Jew in the same way that people treat the definitions of gender or race, as if there is a Jewish genome. And even if this is true, I claim that it is not fate. Just as a person can change his gender and gain widespread recognition of his new gender (see, for example, Dana International), it seems to me that I have the right to change my religion and seek recognition, even if only among a limited circle of people, in that I do not identify with the majority of the symbols of the Jewish religion and because Thus it is not appropriate to define me as a Jew.
jubilee:
How did you not understand what is dangerous?!
I explained what is dangerous about this: if you start giving private interpretations to every word, you will not be able to build on people understanding what you are saying!
Equally you will not be able to use the collection of sounds coming out of their mouths to understand what they are saying!
What is not clear here?!
I think you stopped reading my response after the first sentence.
I didn't understand what was dangerous. Are you suggesting that I make a lie in my heart and say that I believe what those muttering the verses believe?
When people in the neighborhood ask me what my religion is, I can tell them what you say about me, which is no different from what the rabbis and the Nuremberg Laws say. It saves time and questions and may also serve as an excuse for a dinner reservation. But in serious conversations I say that I am a nihilist (as opposed to polytheist, monotheist, atheist or whatever theist you want) and that I have my own private religion. The Jewish religion, like any other religion that believes in some form of life after the death of the body, does not speak to me and I have no decent reason to flaunt feathers that are not mine.
In defining myself as having my own private religion, I am no different from most people who associate themselves with one official religion or another. This is because every religion is a supermarket and no ordinary person buys the whole store but only the products that interest him.
But if the people I talk to make it difficult, I relent and admit that I was born in a Jewish family and it is not inevitable that part of my worldview is found in Judaism. But I'm not Jewish, and if you have a shred of respect for me, if only by virtue of the fact that we're having interesting conversations here, please stop treating me as such.
Ghosts:
Your proposal is a bit simplistic, but the direction you describe is the right direction (not because of what they will think of us, because it won't affect that, but because it will reduce corruption).
The problem is, as you said - that no one will do it of their own free will because the religious parties have too much power.
Therefore - what is needed first and foremost is to change the political map in a way that will reduce the blackmail power of the religious parties.
Shalifi Kfarf How many ultra-Orthodox newspapers are there and how many employees do they employ?
There are several thousand more ultra-Orthodox who work in unnecessary professions such as public messengers or kosher supervisors in hotels and restaurants, well then what is that compared to a million people?
Public messenger
Vaint is an anti-Semitic site whose only thing in common with the ultra-Orthodox is the stage it provides for lies.
that they will not work on you:
Most ultra-Orthodox who work work for other ultra-Orthodox. They have their own businesses whose target audience is the Haredim themselves. You will not find an Haredi working in a factory together with an Arab worker.
They support themselves, in addition to the help of the seculars. While the seculars have to finance not only themselves but also the ultra-Orthodox.
Machel
It seems that our problem (the State of Israel) is 'what will others think'.
So if it is impossible to get rid of this 'obscene habit' - why don't we use it to our advantage?
Why don't we ever see how we take good care of the 'dirty laundry' inside the house?
Why not disperse all the ultra-Orthodox from all the cities where they live (mainly Bnei Brak) in the Negev. The money they receive from the government budgets will be invested in building infrastructure for them (the work will be carried out by the ultra-orthodox themselves). Some of them can also be scattered in the cities of Judea and Samaria - where the ultra-Orthodox can teach the Arabs - Judaism.
It is also possible to turn Jerusalem into a city that will be unique in the world in the sense that no people will live there, but only tourists and worshipers will visit it. It will only have hotels and shops/businesses. The Temple Mount will be a special place only for worshipers and tourists (tourists also mean citizens of the country).
Why not take steps like this for example (even though it sounds very complicated and some would even say absurd)?
jubilee:
Of course, it also takes courage to speak like Rabbi Amsalem
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/174/863.html
And as a result fall into the dirty mouth of the writer of the article he pointed to Public messenger
By the way, Yuval:
As the responses I receive here indicate, one needs to be much more of a man to tell the truth (that I am Jewish by definition but that I see this definition as extremely harmful) than to lie and say that I am not Jewish.
public messenger:
It turns out that Oi Wai Net gives a platform to liars
jubilee:
In my opinion your proposal is really destructive and I have already explained it.
Language is designed to enable communication between people and it is based on the fact that when I say a certain word - my interlocutor understands what I am talking about.
If everyone defines the meaning of words as they wish - the ability of language to be used for communication between people will be lost.
There are words.
They have meaning.
What motivation could someone have to give those words a different meaning?!
what? Missing letter combinations that can be used to name additional meanings?
I have an answer to the above questions and it is not flattering to those who do this.
I encounter the phenomenon in two main situations:
1. Attempts to deceive (such as the rabbis who try to convince you to believe in their God whose description in the Torah contradicts reality and therefore they use the word in other meanings in the hope that after you are convinced - you will forget that you were talking about another God)
2. When people associate the word with a sentimental value created by brainwashing (such as those who were brainwashed in their childhood with the claim that being Jewish is something something and then - when they compare the definition of the word with reality they discover that it is not such a big glick and as a result - in order not to give up their love for the word - They try to give it a different meaning).
Whatever the reason - the result is devastating.
There are a few cases where it makes sense to take such a line, and these are the cases where it turns out that the word was not defined at all (because the definition relied on "entities" that are not defined and may not even exist) and yet you feel that the word can represent a real thing (this is what I did with the word "morality" In the discussion that the following response is part of https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-science-of-good-and-evil-0704115/#comment-289252 - see the part of the answer addressed to Yair)
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4124051,00.html
And I am also to a certain extent Jewish, because when they ask me about my faith and religion, I no longer have the strength to explain every time. But in my faith I am not a Jew but rather a nihilist.
The metaphysical part of nihilism is very simple: God is "nothing" (which to ignorant ears sounds like "there is no God"). According to this belief, a person chooses for himself what is good and moral that seems to him, whether he gathered it from different religions or philosophical ideas, or whether he came up with it himself.
And back to me: I am a nihilist with a Jewish background.
There is a sect that calls itself "Messianic Jews". In English it is "Christians Jews" whose literal translation into Hebrew is "Christian Jews". Most of them are Jewish according to Halacha (Jewish mother), religiously celebrate the holidays of Israel, but raise the name of Jesus at the head of their happiness.
Just a little question
What happens to a Jew who converts to Christianity?
Is he a Christian Jew?
And you chose Judaism, and it doesn't matter for what reason.
God bless you
What is stopping you from getting up and choosing a self-definition that you will like?
Let's see you, man, stand up and say accept people and the world "I am not Jewish! I ___ [fill in the blank]!”
Out of all the people here, you who are intelligent above all others, have a good command of at least one European language and can easily become a citizen in another country and choose your religion or lack of religion as you wish, you are not a free person, it seems, and that is very unfortunate.
Of course - since I am a reasonable person - I have no choice but to feel that I am a Jew according to the definition of Judaism.
It doesn't change anything about my sense of my identity because it's just about applying logical rules of deduction to known properties and defined definitions.
In other words - I feel (actually know for sure) that I am a Jew according to the definition of Judaism and this does not affect how I feel about myself as the skin of garlic.
jubilee:
I do not choose which definition to include.
These are objective definitions that I have no way of influencing the features that make me conform to them.
I was born to a Jewish mother and therefore - according to Judaism I am Jewish.
I have nothing to decide here.
The same goes for the Nazi definition.
These are all definitions that I answer out of necessity and not willingly.
There are many definitions of who is a Jew. There is the one that determines the granting of citizenship according to the Law of Return; There is the one established in Nuremberg; Our current president came out with the following gem: "A Jew is one whose children are Jews", and on and on.
I don't want to add my own definition, but I believe that every person has the right to choose for himself where to belong as well as to renounce the affiliation that has been attached to him. It did not help many assimilated people to avoid the gas chambers, but this sad fact has nothing to do with what a person feels inside himself.
Want to remain Jewish, Ahlan and Sehalan. Want to leave Judaism, Sahlan and Ahlan. What I'm saying, in short, is that you choose (for now) to remain Jewish and because of that I don't consider you a rape Jew.
And by the way, stoning: this is a custom that was probably practiced in Judah during the biblical period and also at the beginning of the era, but today's Judaism has moved very far from the simple interpretation of the Torah. Only Muslims still practice it - and since you didn't tell us you converted to Islam, I take your words with a pinch of salt.
Ghosts:
I think that there are actions that the government is really afraid to do, but harming the Arabs does not seem to me to be one of them.
Harming Jewish lawbreakers is something that the government is much more careful about.
Even when there is a fear of hurting the Arabs - it is not fueled by the fear that the Arabs will do something to us, but by the fear that the nations of the world will be angry with us and hurt us as a result.
Indeed - there is corruption in the government and I really don't know how to get rid of it.
I mean - it is quite clear to me that the separation of religion from the state will greatly reduce corruption, but in the meantime I have not found the path that will safely lead to the separation of religion from the state (except for the Or party, whose future is still unclear).
Amit:
Browsing through the comments, I don't see a question of yours that remained unanswered, except for the questions you raised in your last response.
Therefore I will ask you another question:
What did you mean when you said I didn't answer your questions?
Regarding the questions in the last response - some of them are repetitions of questions that have already been answered.
If in relation to the question of identity you mean a definition - I have already explained to you that I see no need to define myself and I even detest the idea.
I'm me and that's it. This is my identity.
I can give you a list of positive, negative and neutral traits that characterize me.
I am a person.
I belong to the group of people that Hitler defined as the Jewish race and also to the one that Judaism defined as "the Jews" (in the sense that I meet the criteria that define these two groups).
For various reasons I also meet the criteria of the group of people required to be stoned according to Judaism.
My height is 1.78 meters (at least it was like that before I started shrinking - since then I am careful not to measure).
My weight is about 78 kg (it's a bit too much).
I have excellent physical fitness.
My IQ…. Well - I won't show off.
All these (and other) qualities can be attributed to me, but only because they are my qualities and not because I define myself as having these and other qualities (I promise you that my identity will be preserved even if my weight changes and if some rabbi arises who changes the definition of a Jew so that this does not apply to me More. More than that - it will not change even if someone decides to define a definition of Spenderkol or a Muslim in such a way that it applies to me).
You ask "What about the nationality that you feel you are bound by?"
And I find that I fit the definition of a Jew also because I answer a question after a question: What do you mean by the phrase "what about"?
What is my vision for the future regarding the residents of the country?
I already explained it, but in one sentence - to be the best people they can be while preserving their lives until the state is no longer needed (and even after that).
"To create an Israeli melting pot?"
My aspiration is more of a human melting pot, but not one where the sane compromise to get closer to the insane, but one that forces the insane to become sane or be hospitalized in the appropriate institutions.
Actually - all of this could already be understood (and it turns out you didn't) from what I already said and some of it you didn't even ask before.
Amit:
Well?
So anyway - after the explosive introduction - you didn't answer.
You have not invented a single element of "Jewish culture" that does not come from religion.
I remind you that this was one of the topics of debate between us and to clarify it the question was asked.
I see your repeated evasion of an answer as an admission that you don't have an answer and you accept my opinion that everything defined as "Jewish culture" to this day is the Jewish religion.
So there are and maybe there were all kinds of people who wanted to force the others to change the meaning of the words.
I think it's a stupid thing to do because you can just use another word.
Your whole ambition to define something good as "Jewish culture" only creates a confusion of concepts that allows the ultra-Orthodox to claim that you are also in favor of the religion.
As I wrote before - I am in favor of adopting good things from any source - whether it is the Jewish religion or whether it is another religion or secular philosophy.
Nothing will convince me to call the result "Jewish culture".
The culture that is created in Israel is, as mentioned, Israeli culture.
It also seems that the argument is too long and you have reached the stage where you forget its reasons, so let me remind you:
I see myself as a Jew - not because of the Jewish culture (which is the religion that large parts of it I reject with disgust) but because of my belonging to the Jewish people/race (here too - not the one defined by the Jewish religion but the one defined by anti-Semitism).
You are trying to scare me by attributing to me agreement with all kinds of morons.
Without going into details - this is also the result of stupid definitions.
Even a blind rooster sometimes finds a grain and fools can sometimes say the right thing.
I will not stop breathing because idiots breathe, I will not change the meaning of the word "morning" because even idiots accept it - and the same goes for the meaning of the word "Judaism".
Until today it had only two interpretations - the religious and the racial.
Adding another interpretation is throwing sand in your eyes - especially your own.
Machel
I support and praise you for the activity you do for the country.
But from what I see I understand:
that in the army the soldiers are trained to be cowards. (Instead of being brave and breaking the jaw of an Arab outlaw with a club, or breaking the bones of any rioter) mainly because of orders from the government. I mean, the government is a coward.
The government is cowardly, in my opinion, because of the cowardly political agenda - that Arabs should not be harmed even if they break the law - because they can 'do something to us'.
This cowardice stems, in my opinion, from the corruption that exists in the government. Corruption that affects government decisions whether they are security or social or anything else.
The corruption that exists is because of the cowardice of the government representatives, they are afraid. Afraid of losing their jobs. And in order to keep their seat, they are ready to do anything - even if it means being the fifth brother-in-law.
Obviously, it will not be possible to eradicate the phenomenon of corruption from the government, but it is certainly possible to minimize corruption.
I understand that you don't have an answer to my question. I didn't expect anyone to have an answer either. An answer to such a reality has not yet been given. There are many steps that need to be taken to arrive at an answer to this (but the corruption that exists in the government is a strong enough barrier to stop any such progress).
How do you think it will be possible to minimize corruption in the government to achieve the desired results?
Amit
I will write briefly:
When you are asked abroad 'Where are you from?' what do you answer 'I'm Jewish'? Or 'I'm from Israel'?
The main thing that causes confusion for you is your misunderstanding about the Jewish culture being a religion (mostly if not all of it). The Jewish heritage includes the Jewish culture/religion as well as the Yiddish culture.
Israeli culture - which is a 'new' culture - is the culture that contains all of the Jewish heritage, whether it is the Tanach book or Yiddish theater in Israel.
The Israeli Jewish 'heritage' has not yet consolidated enough to be called heritage. But it doesn't produce itself either. In retrospect it will be possible to say 'Israeli Jewish heritage', but today what can you say about it? There is much more to do for a Jew in the Land of Israel than to complain and say that Jewish culture is a religion but it is also not a religion.
We need to get to the bridge first before we start talking about what we will do after we cross it.
There is still a lot of work to be done to build this country, and the religious should be told that instead of wasting their time and manpower on confusions - they should go to work. The country needs to be protected, because if your Holy One cannot be trusted then we can only trust ourselves. When you can't protect yourself then don't expect anyone else to willingly protect you. You can continue to pray to God but he will definitely not protect you and all you will be is a burden to the whole environment (the one who protects you and the one who wants to attack you).
There is a lot of work to be done in Israel, there are houses to build, there are new generations to raise and educate, there are factories to work in, there is a demand for workers in agriculture, there is a lot of work to be done and we cannot afford to play the bouzouki all day and do nothing.
Abby, that's fine Beilein was never my choice and you're right. Still, it has nothing to do with the very specific point he raised - secular conversion - which is worthy of its own right and that's why I brought it up. His actions, his work and certainly his attitudes are not my "cup of tea".
Amit, to remind you Beilin is the one who said that for the sake of peace he is ready to wear Streimel. He gave the ultra-Orthodox what they wanted and much more and we still wear Streimel and there is no peace.
Michael, it is interesting that you complain about my lack of reply and you yourself do not address my question.
So, so that there is nothing to sneer at, I will answer: on Channel 10, this evening, there was an article about the MMD education which increased by 8% due to the transition of secular students to it. It appears from the article that the parents, who are completely secular, wanted some education related to the sources....The terrible thing is that they send the children to study religion mainly. Too bad. I am trying to say that there are many others like me. Those who are not religious and yet want to belong to Judaism. My answer is that since, like you, I was already born as a member of the Jewish people and grew up as a secular person, questions of identity arose in my teens and continued into the next decade. As part of testing, learning and learning, I decided that I wanted to be Jewish. This is a voluntary decision. I learned that Jews and Judaism have a tremendous heritage that was mostly created within the framework of religion. As a secularist and even an atheist, of course I did not accept the claims of the religious people in front of me. The question is really whether they are complete and proper Jews and the rest are just "spoiled religious" or are there religious Jews and non-religious (secular) Jews. As mentioned, the answer was given by generations before me who chose their Judaism despite their secularism. me too. Hope I was clear.
You wrote: "The Jews are truly a nation and the nation is defined by religion.
It's a fact.
To be a Jew you must be born a Jew or convert according to religious laws."
But this is exactly the point I'm talking about and from which you are exhausted - the secular Zionists wanted to change this and lost their strength in the past because there were more important and urgent tasks. See Beilin's proposal for secular conversion. Not reformed. secular.
The fact that this is the case leads me to act. Because we failed and failed in surrendering to religion and religious people. So what ?
You maintain, in fact, that they are right in all aspects of your arguments. Isn't that a "spoiled Jew" like you? If so, it is appropriate and necessary to get rid of Judaism because it is nothing but a religion and if I am not religious I am not Jewish. What to do when reality is more complex.
Various organizations are currently working to pour secular content into the daily life of the non-religious Jew. I build on them. I build on the secular work here in Israel.
Therefore, assimilation due to marriage with a non-Jew is unnecessary. If a person is raised as a Jew and educated as a Jew in a Jewish community, he is a Jew even if his mother did not come out of a Jewish womb. This is my opinion and the opinion of many secularists.
Regarding Zionism, I disagree with you of course. It is clear that its primary and main task was to give the people a land, but also to create a "new Jew". One that does not bleach its light in the yeshiva rooms…..you know these ideas very well. Therefore, it is clear that they wanted to restore the nation, many wrote and spoke about it. But, as I mentioned, they did not complete the job and even made a grave mistake, as you mentioned, when they did not separate religion from the state and gave the religious a foothold through legislation.
We are tasked with completing the transformation. The fact that Judaism was defined only through religion for hundreds of years is not a decree of fate nor was it commanded from heaven.... This is the decision of the people. This can and must be changed. Or give up and leave Judaism as I have already mentioned.
And to finish clarifying my position, try to address my question above:
You are a person, it is clear, who belongs by necessity to the Jewish people and lives here in Israel because it is your right (without a doubt) and your choice. I understand that but what about your identity? What about the nationality that you feel you are bound by? What is your vision for the future regarding the residents of the country? To create such an Israeli melting pot? what? I am confused and do not understand how you see things and the situation beyond what I have already written that I understood about you. And maybe again, you'll claim that I actually didn't understand. I would appreciate it if you could explain.
Ghosts:
I cannot serve our government, explaining that many of the things that are done in it, I would do differently.
I think, for example, that just as the Palestinians submit new complaints to the United Nations about this or that behavior of Israel, this is how Israel should have behaved in relation to every missile or missile that comes from them.
I don't know why this is not being done and I can say that I am not sitting idly by and I tried to convey proposals in this spirit to government officials (through mutual acquaintances).
In relation to the rest of the world, beyond trying to convey advice to the government, I also do what I can personally.
I have already told about my hobby of locating and "re-educating" anti-Semites.
Even Dawkins already received from me once (when it became clear to me that he had signed a petition calling for an academic boycott of Israel), a letter in this spirit (he replied that I was right but had already realized this on his own and withdrew his support for the petition even before I contacted him. He also directed me to an article he wrote with Michael Yudkin of Bar Ilan and others, who denies the whole idea of academic boycotts). Similar letters (in quantities) were received by others, including famous anti-Semites such as Luisa Morgentini from the European Parliament.
At the same time, I also approached Alan Dershowitz with a proposal to initiate class action libel suits against Holocaust deniers.
I argued that although I am not a lawyer, it seems reasonable to me that those who were present in the Holocaust and saw with their own eyes what happened can claim that the Holocaust denier is, in fact, calling him a "liar" and thus defaming him.
Alan Dershowitz just ignored me and I have no idea if the reason is that the offer is infeasible for legal reasons or he just doesn't feel like it.
As I mentioned - I also have small successes in the field and some tireless detractors even realized that they were wrong.
In addition to this, I make sure to distribute any material that I think is relevant to as wide a distribution as possible (which also includes people in the US and Europe) of my friends - so that they can distribute it further or put it to any other beneficial use.
When the material is in Hebrew - I try to find an English equivalent and if I find - I distribute it.
I recognize relevance even in places that others do not recognize and make every material the best use I can think of.
For example - once - when news was published about Hamas and the interviewee (as always) was under duress that hid his face - I distributed to everyone I could (including government officials, while requesting to use it) an email asking why he found it appropriate to hide his face and whether this was not an admission on his part of the fact that Israel Makes every effort to harm only criminals and not innocent civilians (after all, if Israel were to exterminate indiscriminately, as he claims, there would be no point in hiding his face).
When, in 2004, Jacques Chirc spoke out against American intervention in Iraq, I distributed the following letter to all my circulation (which included a prophecy that is now being fulfilled about Turkey):
The French president, Jacques Chirac, has recently said about the American initiative in Iraq that reforms in a country could not be imposed from outside.
Let's assume that he was only referring to changes in the regime and not to the more trivial changes that most of foreign politics are about imposing on other countries.
Still, he said it just after Europe has imposed on Turkey a reform that weakens the power of its army to impose sanity in the face of Islam.
He should have said, hence, "reforms CAN be imposed from the outside but we only support them if they are harmful"
I had many other suggestions for courses of action - each relevant for its time, but I was never able to get the officials to act on them.
That's why (and thank you it was a long way to say this) - I don't know how to answer your question and since I know I don't have an answer - I'm trying to carry out actions myself that I think the official Israeli information system should carry out.
You also have to remember that not everything is explanation and you should avoid unnecessary actions that later require an explanation that cannot be found - but that's another story (and we can talk about it a lot).
Machel
They managed to push politics into this discussion as well, so I would like to ask you a question related to this, perhaps you know: why does the Israeli government actually do nothing or in other words is silent and does not respond to the anti-Semitic phenomena happening in the world? Why is it not possible, for example, to respond with a 'counter proposal' of the Israeli government to the proposal of the Palestinians (at the UN)? Why is it not possible to create (political) moves in this government against the anti-Semitic countries? Is it really impossible to tell the Palestinians that if they want to live side by side with us in peace within their own country they must accept our conditions (without going into the content of what those conditions are)? Is there even a possibility that the secular Jews and the secular Arabs will fight together against the Arab and Jewish extremist religions?
I understand that the Arabs don't really want a war with us, but they and the whole world are sure that they will defeat the Jews, so far it seems that they are making not bad moves at all, but why is the Israeli government really silent and not responding - I am sure that the Jewish people are not that weak, that is that the Palestinians are climbing on us but we have enough power to shake them off, so my question is why don't we use the force we have to shake them off and give them the freedom to continue climbing on us?
Hanukkah
The original pagan festival of lights was celebrated with the beginning of the lengthening of the daylight hours, towards the end of December. For several hundred years now, it has fallen - wonder and wonder - on the holiday that marks the birth of the most revered Jew in the world.
Almost every year it falls within the Jewish festival of lights, which for this purpose is extended over eight days due to the deviations in the Hebrew calendar resulting from the calculations of leap years. The date 25 in Kislu corresponds to December XNUMX.
This holiday was established by the Hasmoneans like As a memorial to the victory of the light of Judaism over the darkness of Greekization, but the facts provided by the history books are that the Hasmoneans themselves were Greekized already in the generation after Matthew.
In my opinion, the real reason for the Hasmoneans establishing the holiday, including expanding it to eight days, which is even longer than the holiday of Sukkot (if we don't include the eight days of assembly), was to make the people living in Zion forget that in fact they rudely usurped the great priesthood from the descendants of Shimon the righteous who were the last remnants of the Zadok family - the only family worthy of holding this position.
To strengthen things, the review of Dr. Yahyam Shork:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-preist-as-you-did-not-knew-it-part_d_1008082/
Michael
I really liked imagining you running around like a child learning to read 🙂
By the way beta, even in Spanish the letter B is sometimes pronounced like the English V. I believe this is the reason why the innovators of the Hebrew language chose the consonant V for an unstressed b, even though the corresponding letter in the sister language, ب, is never pronounced that way.
I have complained several times about the debate here being hijacked by politicians. The person who actually carried out the kidnapping was our colleague, who gives me the impression that he is preparing himself to enter a rational place on Or's list for the Knesset. Although it was an interesting and stormy discussion, it still came with a foul. And in politics as in politics, anything that incites is good. I don't know howRoey Tsezana feels, but if I were him I wouldn't be happy.
And by the way, colleague:
You yourself write that the Jewish culture was mostly the Jewish religion.
How long?
Until the Zionist movement was established (which as you know only arose in Europe and therefore could not create the Jewish culture you are talking about).
In other words - also according to your version (and I will continue to point out the errors in it) - Jewish culture was a religion until the time of Zionism and this means that your claim that Judaism is a culture refers only to the last period and Eastern Judaism has no part in it.
This is already very close to what I said (that the culture is actually Israeli) but still less accurate than what I said.
By the way, the Zionist movement - as it is called - is Zionist.
She did not come to restore the people but to give the people a land - mainly so that they could defend themselves against anti-Semitism because for a culture and for a people one does not need a land (and the fact is that the Jewish culture which is the religion got along, as a culture, even without a land and the Bedouins, Gypsies, Azeri and others live as peoples and cultivate cultures without country).
She wanted (mostly) to base the law in the country on European secular values and not on the Jewish religion.
Jewish culture that is not derived from religion had nowhere for them to take it.
When the state was actually established, they made a mistake and did not separate the religion from the state and even went so far as to introduce some laws with religious motives from the beginning.
By the way, Amit, regarding Hanukkah:
If it is a war of independence of the people - why did the Greeks fight on the side of the Greeks and not on the side of their "brothers of their people"?
And maybe - instead of writing a flame-throwing speech every time (and adding new mistakes), you will address the questions addressed to you in previous responses (like, for example, what in "Jewish culture" led you to the decision to define yourself as a Jew?)
colleague!
Already in kindergarten they called me Yuval the confused.
Although this is mostly a mean use of puns, I'm not trying to be cold. Do you want to say I'm confused? so be it.
But just for the record, please let me know how you managed to spot it. Did we go to the same kindergarten? I do not think so.
Amit:
Changed.
I don't agree with your claims but probably nothing I say will move you from them.
The Jews are truly a nation and the nation is defined by religion.
It's a fact.
To be Jewish you must be born Jewish or convert according to religious laws.
It is clear that the Torah did not accept religion because the Torah defines religion.
The Torah was received (according to the grandmother's stories, which apparently have no dawn) by a group of people who were Jews by race. It is a group defined by its pedigree and no one joined it because of its culture.
After the group accepted (Aalek) the Torah - it also accepted laws that allow it to absorb others into it (by conversion) and limited the ability of its members to marry members of other groups.
In practice - probably the one who gave the Torah to the people of Israel was King Josiah and the people - at that time - was - like other nations - simply a group of people who rejected the rule of a certain king.
Since then, all kinds of things have happened, but the definition of Jews has not changed and for many years - those who abandoned the Jewish religion - also abandoned the Jewish people (do you know a Christian or a Muslim who associates himself with the Jewish people?).
The Jewish religion limits the ability to join it and this fact contributes to the narrowness of the group of Jews (beyond anti-Semitism that, depending on the period, some Jews will try to convert their religion and see it as a miracle - to become non-Jews - or murder them).
Many Jews nowadays complain about assimilation.
The physical act of assimilation is marriage with someone who is not a member of the Jewish religion.
If the Jewish people were not defined by religion - no one would have cried out about the fact that a person does not lose his culture as a result of sexual relations.
You want things to be different but you can't make them be different.
Therefore you cannot decide now that Judaism will represent a different meaning than it has represented throughout history.
Regarding Hanukkah, dear colleague, we are fed by different sources that all say the same thing.
According to you, Sages messed things up.
Maybe - but how do you know?
And if they were wrong - how is it that their words are the things that were passed on - doesn't this in itself indicate that Judaism is defined by religion?
I don't know where you get your historical knowledge from, but I don't know a single Jew whose name is Greek.
You know?
Today the Jews receive many Nobel Prizes and in the time of the Greeks there was not even one Jew who had a geometric theorem or an astronomical discovery named after him.
In short - I don't know why I expanded until now, even though, as I said - I was exhausted.
Therefore, I will also end my response at this point.
Michael and also Yuval: Judaism represents a culture and the Jews are a people. If Judaism was only a religion it would be as widespread as the other religions common to many different peoples. But not so the Jewish case which is unique and special - this is a people with a culture within which a religion developed that remained the religion of the particular people only. Therefore, perhaps, the confusion of Yuval is so common. After all, even according to the version of the religious and their belief, who received Torah in Sinai?? A religious group? Or the people of Israel? Jewish nation. This is about the religious side. Regarding the secular side, it is clear that it took shape in the Land of Israel - as a declaration of the Declaration of Independence that was compiled by very serious people. Probably more educated than us, at least me.... The Jewish people took shape in the Land of Israel. in a completely different way from the religious imaginations. This nation that developed a fanatical religion went into exile and preserved its identity mainly through the cultural aspect, most of which was expressed in religion. What to do. Our ancestors decided to change the matter. Some who decided to choose not to belong to this nation left it like Mendelssohn's descendants, others (like Michael) who were forced to belong chose not to leave belonging to the nation (and their reasons with them are neither interesting nor important). The Zionists decided to fundamentally change the matter. They understood that the Jewish people are a physically and mentally ill people. They understood that the disease originates in faith and religion. That is why our forefathers refused and determined that the nation must be raised from its ruins. Like a person who crashes in an accident, recovers and undergoes rehabilitation. He's still the same person, just broken up. After rehabilitation and recovery he will return to function. The Zionists have worked hard for the last hundred years and succeeded phenomenally in physical rehabilitation. The spiritual-mental side was neglected and we "eat" the results today. And it doesn't taste good. The religious who remained completely sick underwent a process of change rather than recovery. The secular Zionists completely abandoned the spiritual side and failed to establish it, and since there is no void, they immediately penetrated the religious side. And they sow names. Now the question is whether to continue to fight as is done by Y. Malkin and his daughter's organization, Tamura, and other organizations such as "Bina", Havia, etc. or to continue to live out of deep suffering as Michael demonstrates well or to give up and leave. Everything. the state, Judaism and that's it.
In the meantime, I choose the first option - to continue the work of my Zionist ancestors and to continue the establishment and restoration of the spiritual side after the physical side has been crowned with great success. If I understand that we have failed in this and the whole spiritual essence of the nation will focus on the religious aspect - peace and not goodbye.
Regarding Hanukkah - dear Michael. We are fed by the religious filters of the Sages who I have already mentioned distorted, castrated and distorted Judaism when they took control of it and created the "New Covenant" at the same time as another group of Jews who broke away from Judaism and became Christianity. The terms and conditions that were the descendants of the Pharisee community and their successors created Judaism anew after the destruction of the Second Temple. The Maccabean War was a national and religious war. together. Because the religion was national, an injury to the religion was an injury to the nation. It's complex, it's complicated, but it's the reality. The Hasmoneans established eight-day celebrations to mark the liberation of Jerusalem and the acceptance of independence. Sages castrated this and made the holiday truly religious and the "miracle of the fat mouth" became the main thing. Ridiculous but worked for 1900 years….
Regarding the Greekization, this is, again, too simplistic evidence. The attempt to maintain the national identity (which also included a national and unique religion) in the face of a mighty and vast culture that swallowed many cultures into it also led to religious fanaticism. The painting of the Greeks against the Jews is a Hazal painting. There were trends of serious influence of the mighty Greek culture. Also about the Hasmoneans who supposedly "fought" in Mityon. They did not fight a war with moderates from a cultural point of view mainly but a national war. Pay attention to the names of the kings and priests of the Maccabees (Hashmonaim is a Hazal name) already in the second generation (…!!!…) the third leader after Jonathan and Shimon was Yohanan Hyrcanus. No, my name is not correct. The Hasmonean House was known for its Greek culture and customs. Could it be that their entire essence was a war in the Mediterranean??? Well, these are the stories of sages and nothing more than that they used the historical story for their own purposes in order to distinguish the Jews from the Gentiles.
By the way, those who know a little about the story of the Maccabees know and understand that they acted contrary to the religious tradition and revolted against them the Pharisees from whom the Sages came.
Therefore, Michael, Greekization was natural in the people of Israel and not only you but also many, many of your ancestors were Greekized. in actual practice. But while some lost their Jewish identity others kept it. This has been the case throughout history.
Let's summarize: the Jews are a people who have a Jewish culture, a significant part of which was expressed throughout history in religion. A national religion unique to that people. With the Enlightenment, the Enlightenment, humanism and liberalism, Jews began to break away from their religion and many of them also left the national affiliation and assimilated. Michael, you understand that it is possible and anyone who felt that he was born into the group involuntarily and decided to choose another - left. Others remained Jews despite and despite the fact that they were not religious and with the rise of nationalism, secular Jews who wanted to remain Jews conceived the idea of secular Zionism which means establishing a Jewish home in the Land of Israel for the people of Israel (ideas of other countries even though they were raised by the movement's founder-Herzl-were discarded and disappeared) which is his homeland the history of the people. The emphasis was on practical, political Zionism - the actual establishment of a home and a state. The vision of a "spiritual home", "spiritual Zionism", was secondary in importance since it is known that "if there is no flour there is no Torah" and therefore first it was important to build the physical home, which gained immediate importance and urgency around the Holocaust.
I belong to a small group of those who believe that the Zionist enterprise must continue and now the spiritual aspect must be raised.
Unfortunately the chance is slim. In the meantime, religious-faith trends on the one hand and post-Zionist ("I am Israeli" / Canaanites) of sorts have sprung up like poisonous mushrooms after the rain, so the hour may have been missed. It's possible.
I am sad to see that serious people from A-D who are supposed to belong to my camp show a failing and backward grade in Zionism and show complete confusion in their approach to their national identity.
I think I am from A-D clear about my positions. What is seriously confusing, Michael, is your position. You are a person, that is clear, you belong by necessity to the Jewish people and live here in Israel because it is your right (without a doubt) and your choice. I understand that but what about your identity? What about the nationality that you feel you are bound by? What is your vision for the future regarding the residents of the country? To create such an Israeli melting pot? what? I am confused and do not understand how you see things and the situation beyond what I have already written that I understood about you. And maybe again, you'll claim that I actually didn't understand. I would appreciate it if you could explain. What and who are you and where are you going and who exactly are you going with? Me too alone with my family will be some kind of answer...
I joined. Thanks
Something interesting about belonging to the Jewish people:
Amit noted the Hanukkah holiday as a secular holiday appropriated by religion while distorting and neutering.
But what exactly is Hanukkah?
It represents the victory of religious fanaticism over Greekization.
Let it be clear:
I have no doubt that Greekization was at that time a logical act while religious fanaticism was illogical.
Think for a moment what this Greekization is:
It is about connecting to a culture that began to grow science and mathematics thousands of years ago (and whose achievements were stifled for many years when religious fanaticism prevailed over logic at the outbreak of the Middle Ages).
I have no doubt that if I lived at that time I would be from Greece.
It is so deep in me that when I visited Greece for the first time (all in all on the island of Rhodes) I felt longing and a real connection to the sources - something I never felt during my visit to Jerusalem, Gamla or Masada.
lyrical digression:
I ran around there like a child and even enjoyed deciphering the pronunciation of the various letters that I already knew from my math studies.
I also infected my family with it.
Do you know, for example, that there is no letter in Greek that stands for "house degusha"?
The letter beta is actually pronounced as "beit rafa" and to pronounce "beit droshah" they use a combination of letters such as, for example, mio followed by pai.
The end of a lyrical digression.
Even today, if we talk about groups of voluntary affiliation, then I belonged to the "Brights" movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement) indicates much more about me than my belonging to the Jewish people.
The Brights movement is, as mentioned, a group to which I voluntarily belong.
I am associated with the Jewish people.
Make no mistake: the fact that I am associated with the Jewish people from rape does not diminish my commitment to its benefit. Most of those who will try to throw allegations at me in this matter will probably be those whose "commitment" to the country does not even manage to get them to work and certainly not for military service.
By the way, colleague:
It is interesting that you praise the speakers in the links I provided and at the same time deny the main claim they make regarding anti-Semitism.
Amit:
for sure! Everyone can choose groups as they wish.
He can decide to be a Maccabi fan, he can decide to be in Scouts, he can decide to be a nudist and he can decide to be Jewish.
The meaning you give to the matter in this act is not of religion or culture but simply of belonging to a group.
Why?
Do not know.
You say yourself that even if you are not there by chance (and I deny that, but we will ignore this point), then most of the others are there by chance.
That's why you choose to be part of a random group that one of the main things that characterize it (in my opinion - the only one - but we'll leave it at that) is the Jewish religion.
Well - as I said before - I can only share in your sorrow.
To me, there are things that are much more important than belonging to a random group of people.
Maybe you can explain how you made this decision?
It's certainly not because of religion - is it?
So why yes?
Please - say clear things and don't try to answer with vague hand gestures.
It's good that you don't tell me that it is impossible to know if humans will fly into space because all this is only a matter of the last few years and it is still too early to make a decision.
I maintain that this union is the only sane way.
If it does not happen then it is clear that at one point or another the human race will destroy itself.
Of course, for a long period of time, the mental scratches left in the population by the unnecessary segregation will remain, but in the end there will not be groups that infect them with "Jewish culture" or "Hotentot culture" because every sane person will want to enjoy all the achievements of humanity and not limit himself to some of them.
There will always be groups of Maccabi fans and Beitar fans, but they will not have an army.
By the way - I guess it is not difficult for anyone to notice the verbal connection between the word "definition" and the word "fence".
This is not an accidental connection but a very significant connection.
My words about the Holocaust are not confused at all.
I suggest you read them again because I think it is important for everyone to understand them lest another holocaust occur.
By the way - to the wealth of support for the possibility of the recurrence of events like the Holocaust, one can of course also add the results of Stanley Milgram's experiments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Milgram
Jews willingly and Jews forced
Humans choose for themselves family, tribal or national affiliation (a question of magnitude), and it doesn't matter why at the moment. Most of them choose the affiliation they were born into anyway, because it saves them the effort of building new patterns.
Israel Zand says that there is no "Jewish nation" and no "secular Jew", because Judaism is only a religion. I have an argument with him on these questions, not a principled argument but a practical one. I completely accept that Judaism is first and foremost a religion. But religions can also grow nations even if the ethnic background of the individuals is very divided. And a person can belong or join the group of religious people even if he does not accept their ridiculous beliefs and rituals.
But discarding religion and belief is the first step to leaving the group. The ultra-Orthodox remember the trauma of the Enlightenment era, in which many good people left the Jewish people and within two, three generations assimilated. We have a beautiful example in the Mendelssohn family: the grandfather, Moses, Jewish, educated, writer, playwright, thinker; The grandson, Felix, is a Christian composer, one of the most famous of all generations; Both are gifted people above their ranks, a great loss to the Jewish people. The behavior of the ultra-Orthodox, which so angers the progressive flag bearers among us, is nothing more than an attempt to defend against the encroaching Enlightenment.
Now, when the country is getting more and more anxious, they are experiencing Pyrrhic victories in the gathering they are managing. However, when the vast majority of the population will be ultra-Orthodox, they will be forced to start taking key positions in the same points they are trying to avoid today. The day is not far off when the Zionist army will be headed by an ultra-Orthodox chief of staff. The young among us will still get to witness the miracle.
I wrote down part of the response, left, came back and saw Tarek Fatah's lecture that Michael gave. So first great - I saved it in favorites. Thanks. Then I read the comments again to respond. When I left I decided that I would delete the response to Spirit of Slush except for the first sentence because it is better. Then I re-read Ruach's Vanities. So I decided that I would leave the original words because, after all, a person must be repaid according to his reward:
Ghost: I am a secular Jew, an atheist, a liberal and a humanist (the order is unimportant).
Your words are as insignificant as last year's wind and their weight as the weight of the wind. In my opinion at least. I assume that your relatives (God will help, help and save suffer more than you).
You are a poor demagogue. As a humanist I pity you. As a liberal, it is clear to me that the violence erupting from your statement implies that if you were a police officer, for example, you would endanger the citizens who would come across you (just now there was an article about our excellent police officers who took care of a citizen whose house was broken into. You are doing great for me among these rioters).
Since I already perceived the quality of your arguments and your point of view, I won't even begin to explain how many mistakes there are in the nonsense you spewed on the keyboard. Let's just quote the one that deserves to be registered in the "Book of Stupid Sayings Quoted on the Knowledge Site:
"The fact that you divide people into groups is evidence that you behave like the Nazi fascists." When you understand the futility of the statement and also explain to us, maybe we can communicate. Maybe.
================================================== ================================================== ==================================
Michael: I hope it doesn't hurt that I answer you with the same response of the "spirit". Knows what ? I will add a fence between the two parts….. I made it double. Just in case. Still - spirit.
1. True. You are right that the name does not characterize and indicates any group. Nationality yes. But that's exactly the point. Even though you don't choose the nationality you were born into you can still choose. I personally went through a long process of years during which I checked my identity and belonging to the national team. I also experienced an ultra-orthodox seminar on the way for the purpose of testing and clarification. But Haredi and I made it clear to you that you can free yourself from this identity on the XNUMXth. Not easy but possible and performed by millions of Jews over the generations. Your choice is honorable and acceptable. Your rights to live here are not an issue at all for me.
But it appears from your responses that you bear the burden of your Judaism out of suffering and difficulty. You are narrow because you were born Jewish and therefore the obvious response is why you should suffer and choose another identity. Or you will remain a suffering Jew, and this is so characteristic of the Jew that you actually realize your Jewish identity in a wonderful way through suffering...:-)
I wondered about my identity and chose it just like you can choose a name - stay with yours or change it. By the way, I also changed my name in some way.... Here it is possible. And on occasion, in private, I will tell you how the name is related to personal identity and how it affects.
2. The unification trend is so preliminary that nothing can be concluded from it yet. If anything, despite the European Union, the issue of nationalism and cultural identity is still preserved. Your view of nationalism as requiring war is somewhat dichotomous. It is precisely Europe after WWII that seems to have overcome the ills of nationalism. See the Americas very few wars have been there since the 2th century. Very few. Nationalism is a new phenomenon and there are side effects. By the way, the borders and erasing them is perfectly fine, but it does not cancel the national identity: the language, the culture, the customs, etc. And Europe is the example of this. Even the USSR, which deleted the borders and established the union of the Soviet republics, did not delete the national identity and the uniqueness of the peoples within it. Even in Russia itself today there are different peoples so it is not a matter of borders which is a political-political matter. Not all nationalism necessarily gives rise to war. Despite many examples since it is not a rule.
3. Your words about the Holocaust are so confused that I simply say this:
The sentence that you do not agree with its content is part of a broad view of the development of Western culture since the Renaissance. When the religious person on duty pulls out the statement: Western culture brought Hitler, I explain that this is such a narrow view that only a religious person can...
Western culture, which has been developing for many years, took a direction in the Renaissance. The direction is towards humanism, enlightenment and liberalism. This is the "Gospel of the West". These develop continuously and with systematic consistency despite bumps, setbacks and mutations. The 20th century is a period of severe retreat and damage to the main ideology that was born in Western Crete: Enlightenment, humanism and liberalism. Fascism, Communism and Nazism were indeed born in the West, they existed there like cancer develops in the body. In a terrible and difficult struggle, these mutations were eradicated and the West returned to its path. Today there is a mutation of multiculturalism. That's how it is like the human body all the time viruses, diseases and troubles. But man copes and continues. Tarek's lecture, by the way, talks exactly about the curse of multiculturalism. But the direction is clear and the world (at least the sane part of it) is imitating the West in the direction of enlightenment, liberalism and humanism. The West leads and marks the way. This is his superiority. Those who see in the West only the mutations of the 20th century and by the way point out their failure and alternately the superiority of their view (and we are usually talking about religious people) are completely wrong in understanding and knowing reality.
Therefore, agreeing with its content is related to intellectual honesty and the ability to understand the picture of history and the development of Western culture. There is not even a hint of a connection between agreement with the content of the sentence and recognition of his readiness for any neglect that would give rise to some kind of holocaust or small genocide or any wrongdoing.
Machel
The link you provided is a must see for everyone. Especially for the confused like Amit and Haredi. (By the way, I don't understand how someone like Amit messed with the good company you are in. Well, things like that happen too).
Amit
I still haven't been able to understand whether you are secular or religious. Would you be so kind as to provide an unequivocal answer to this? Thanks.
Beyond all this, the fact that you divide people into groups is evidence that you behave like the Nazi fascists.
I remember that a few years ago when I was sitting with some Arab friends at one of their houses (2 of them were released from prison on the same day after serving several years - I say this so that you understand what kind of people they are) I got to know a world that I would not have known if I had been a racist person .
The world I got to know proved to me that my world is the same world as theirs. We live in the same world.
What made me realize this? Mainly the 'agreement' we established between us - we established that first of all we are human beings.
Amit:
A name is not part of identity just as a personal number is not part of identity.
In other words, there may be those who choose to define themselves as part of the group of those with the name "Michael" or as part of those with an odd personal number, and I can only feel sorry for him.
The same applies to those who base their identity on the coincidence that they were born into a Jewish family.
After all, it is clear that this is what determined your Jewish identity. This and nothing else. If you were born into a Protestant family in France, you would probably be a Protestant French.
Was that your identity?
If so, accept my condolences.
The question of my identity came up as part of the discussion with an ultra-Orthodox regarding my motives for living in Israel.
This is a slight variation on the question that other ultra-Orthodox claim to answer by saying that if I don't believe in their delusion I have no right to live here at all.
Is it a coincidence that they talk about my motivations in choosing where to live and not talk about my motivations in choosing my breakfast vehicle?
So I, since I don't like hiding (not even unconscious hiding) behind questions with a hidden intention (even if it is an unconscious intention), I chose to address both the open question and the hidden question at the same time.
You did not understand my words about the progress of the world.
Entities that were different - are coming together because they realize that the artificial boundaries between them only get in the way.
If this sane trend continues - there is definitely a chance that people will realize that the borders they identified and canceled are just a private case of borders in general and then the whole world can unite.
Of course, this blessed vision will be rejected as long as people continue to adhere to the definition of their national or religious affiliation as a value.
I do not understand your confused words about the holocaust.
How is the fact that more people were killed and more sophisticated in the Holocaust hidden by the average murders for a period of time?
There is no contradiction between my claims and if you see a contradiction in them, you should understand that you did not understand them and that I am not saying things that contradict each other.
It doesn't bother me that many of the scholars in the field claim that the Holocaust is unique because I also claim this, but I remind you of the reason why the current debate about the Holocaust started in the first place.
This is your sentence:
"Hitler and Nazism were a distorted and disturbed mutation within Western culture. A mutation that cultural evolution decided that their judgment is clear - extinction and annihilation. ” Not only do I not agree with its content, but I see agreement with its content as the seed of neglect that will give birth to the next holocaust.
I remind you that even in biology there are quite a few deadly mutations that repeat and are created again and again and I showed you that social "mutations" like Hitler and Nazism are born from time to time.
I find no point in discussing the question of how unique the Holocaust is.
I think, however, that we have enough evidence that this kind of thing can happen again if we are not careful.
I'm surprised - where is my response to NEACKNAME that was written thoughtfully and in detail????
Oh, I hope it wasn't lost and the site manager/editor will find it in the depths of the virtual world, pull it out and post it here. Too bad she's good…..I'm crossing my fingers hoping.
In any case, the responses here have reached an incredible length and I don't have the strength to repeat them, so I will content myself with hanging in a tall tree that also speaks in the name of Zvi Yanai. Here is the article dedicated to the Nicenes and everyone who wants and prefers to believe in the existence of God in the realm beyond his own two ears:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4122675,00.html
Michael you are definitely in good company, at least when you are in my company...:-). Your value is great and in my opinion there is no direct connection to your identity. Name can be replaced like identity. Not simple and easy but possible. You choose and failure is also a choice. You are at peace with yourself and your identity - your happiness is blessed.
Your question is more puzzling and not clear to me at all. It seems you didn't understand me: who is even talking about your "right" to live here???
I have nothing to answer because it was never the issue at all....I don't understand where it came from.
The issue is a person's personal identity. Part of our identity is national affiliation and all human beings belong to some nation and this is an essential and central part of their identity. Even the Inuit in the North Pole. They also belong to a nation with a language, culture and customs. The Chinese too, although there are several Chinese languages and several different cultures. Even the Italians between those from the Naples and Sicily area to La Monzia and Milan are separated by different dialects and different cultural orientations. So what ? They are all considered to be of the Italian / Chinese people. Thus the Jews who speak Hebrew as a first or second language or who do not speak Hebrew but in the XNUMXth see it as the language of their people. Our case is difficult and special and even unique in the world. What to do, that's how it turned out.
This claim: "Your description of the trend of the world's progress is devoid of any basis and even contradicts the facts.
In the beginning there were individual individuals and later there were larger and larger companies." Not clear to me.
This is what I argued that individual details with the progress of humanity, larger and larger societies were created and currently the world is divided, basically into different peoples. What to do, these are the facts. Good, bad, not terrible, it is worthwhile and desirable to change is another discussion and I have already explained my position.
At the moment it is clear to me that we are all Jews since this is a framework of a people. And Judaism is a culture, part of which is religion. Religion is included in culture, therefore whoever renounces religion, so to speak, denies and disbelieves in it, still remains a Jew. in 100%
It is true that due to the bad damage of religion, we must restore and build and create more and more in the free Jewish culture (which is clearly and demonstrably not religious). But identifying Judaism as a religion and nothing else is a misunderstanding and recognition of reality.
Regarding the holocaust - listen to insist on this mistake already above. What exactly am I ignoring? What a foolish statement. What are you before noon???
The uniqueness of the Holocaust does not detract from the interest of any kind of genocide or the danger of delusional people like Ahmadinejad. What's the connection anyway?
You claim that the holocaust is unique in being the largest and the capacity of the evil and the murderer. And then you contradict the argument by claiming that the Hutu defeated the Nazis…..
The uniqueness is not in this at all and the main thing is that you are loaded with an argument and its opposite in one breath.
I will content myself with saying - again...!!! - that the Holocaust of the Jews is absolutely unique and many of the scholars in the field claim this and we will not enter into the discussion here and now.
By the way, colleague, regarding the Holocaust - I did not say that it was not unique.
Among the organized murders, it was the largest.
What I argued is that its uniqueness is not due to something that is so unusual in the human race to the point that it cannot be expected to return, but only from the execution ability of the evil one on duty.
By the way - if you calculate the rate of murders committed by the Hutus against the Tutsis in relation to the size of the Hutu population, you will find that the average Hutus was murdered every day during the massacre much more than the average German was murdered every day during the Holocaust.
I warn again that ignoring the facts that are not unique to the Holocaust may cause another Holocaust.
Fortunately, most of the decision makers are not as oblivious as you are and so they are fighting Ahmadinejad with more determination and trying to prevent him from progressing to the next level (which they didn't do with Hitler).
Amit:
Your answer is nothing less than amazing to me.
I repeat - these definitions in which we define ourselves and others are the source of all organized evil and injustice in the world.
Your description of the world's trend of progress is devoid of any basis and even contradicts the facts.
At first there were individual individuals and later there were larger and larger companies.
Some of them - like the Soviet Union - were created under coercion and were therefore destined to disintegrate - but at the same time societies were formed of people who understand interest.
This is how the USA was created and this is how the European Union was created.
Einstein pushed for the establishment of a world government and the Beatles composed the song Imagine.
If anyone can be said to be in good company then it is me, in this context.
Of course, none of this belongs to the issue of my identity and I have to reassure you, since you expressed such a sincere concern: there is no such problem.
I know exactly who I am and if I didn't also know my worth I wouldn't show courage and argue with people with a lot of identity like those who argue with me.
To be clear: being Jewish is simply something that happened to me - just like being called Michael happened (yes! Even my name is not part of my identity! It is simply a tool that allows others to communicate with this identity).
I have no need to apologize - not for living here (unlike some who deny my right and your right to live here - I have always fulfilled and will fulfill the obligations implied by this) and not for the fact that I understand the matter of identity better than others and know how to distinguish between what stems from me and what stems from brainwashing.
I would appreciate it if you could explain the apparent contradiction in your words:
If it is my full right to decide where I will live (and of course - also to carry out my decision) - what is the point of discussing the question regarding my right to live here (which in the first place stems from the same right that you were kind enough to grant me).
This question is critical only for those who live in Zion whose goal is to expel me from here.
In this, the ultra-orthodox and the Palestinians (along with some who don't understand the interest) join hands.
Eli:
I would not attribute malice - neither to Amit nor to Haredi.
The mistakes they make are mistakes I encounter in many people.
It is not easy to break free from brainwashing.
A ghost: your baseless words and connection to reality are various illusory characteristics that often float in the worlds of imagination. By the way, I'm not surprised by you and your response since I've seen several previous examples and this characterizes you, including the lack of understanding about my identity. I was very clear on the matter and I assume that thinking that is only dichotomous as you demonstrate has difficulty understanding the full extent of the reality of life. It's okay, your opinion also has a place in our mortal world.
Michael, I understand that you are trying to stick to the argument that the Holocaust is not unique and there were many like it. Just so you know, this is exactly the argument put forward by the German researchers in the 80s, and it has become a comprehensive and global discussion on the issue: Is the Holocaust unique or is it just another "genocide". I will not start a discussion, but I will clarify that I was of the opinion that the Holocaust is unique in history and there are clear and weighty reasons for this, and this does not reduce or negate the horrors of the other cases of genocide.
Regarding your definition of yourself. Interestingly, I do not know and do not think there is a person who does not define himself as a person. But there are also questions of identity. True, being homo sapiens, we were "gay". When the human race developed, societies, tribes, cultures and later, later also nations were created. It may be that your ambition to return to the "dead days" of the "noble savage" from R. Descartes' seminary is indeed true, worthy and just and we will live in a utopian world of Arab life with every Jew under our vine and under his fig tree. Knows what ? I can agree with the view even if it seems that there is a regression in development to very ancient times (since the development of identity is a characteristic of progress in the development of humanity). It is possible that the symptoms accompanying the identity developed by man are too difficult and oppressive. Perhaps similar to a religion that has finished its role. But it is a utopian painting and has no dawn for today's reality. Cosmopolitanism may be right, worthy and just but currently unfounded in its utopias. Unlike atheism, for example. Atheism actually exists, is getting stronger and stronger and may defeat the delusional believers. This has legs and signs at least.
So we are all human beings and since humanity has evolved and developed a culture, part of this is the issue of identity and a central element of identity is belonging to a certain nation. Today there is no person who does not belong to some nation and there are no cosmopolitan people in contrast to atheists who exist, work and kick.
There are definitely those who have an identity problem and you are a living example of that. It's ok, I understand and accept you. I don't think you'll be convinced, certainly not here, I just hope the identity confusion doesn't make it too difficult for you. I, in any case, will always be happy to be there and help if…..
I know the members of "I am Israeli" and I was exposed to their interesting delusion of erasing the Jew and replacing him with an Israeli and they are also kind of confused.
"Taking care" of the question is not pointless at all. In fact, it is so important, central and principled that it affects our agenda every day. At the root of the "identity question" or "who/what is a Jew" are many controversies and various struggles among which we share. This is a critical issue for Zion residents whether you understand and acknowledge it or not. This is a question and issue that is one of the most important for those who live here.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with your full right to determine and answer these questions for yourself and to decide about your life in a completely sovereign and independent manner.
http://www.livestream.com/ideacity/video?clipId=flv_fd017d81-dc18-42cc-821a-18b86fdea840
Amit
I marvel at you. You wrote:
"The secular are mostly slack and careless, deep as a puddle in the summer and live the life of the moment and when they are required to adopt their brain cells they are portrayed as nothing more than spoiled religious people or what is also known as "secular but...."
After all, that describes you exactly. (I tell you this in all seriousness - I still can't understand whether you are secular or religious).
I'm saying that what you wrote about others actually describes you - based on the content of your comments.
orthodox
I believe in Catholo, the Prince of Darkness.
I believe that soon he will rise from the underworld and take all the orthodox religious back home with him.
Therefore, I demand from the government to allocate me personally a budget that will allow me to establish a party that can welcome him and help him catch all the ultra-Orthodox that he will take back with him to Saul. And redeem the secular Jewish people from the heavy burden that the ultra-Orthodox are.
What do you think?
Am I eligible for this budget?
Dear friends, this time I have to intervene.
I'm usually silent, but here I rebelled, what an ultra-Orthodox did is disgusting, and I think he's planted by the response organizations, he simply presented Michael as psychotic-paranoid, and instead of answering him objectively, he presented him as naked, and I think you all fell for it, except for one, and even Michael He was dragged after him and responded to this with further paranoia that an ultra-Orthodox and a friend are taking care of him and writing his life, that this ultra-Orthodox idiot will stop poking his stinking nose into other people's lives, and respond matter-of-factly to the substance of things. As soon as he saw that he was going to be defeated he stopped the discussion and no longer wants to comment, and now that he has managed to frame us and our opinions as psychotic paranoid symptoms, he goes on vacation.
disgusting!!!
By the way, colleague, from a purely numerical point of view, the percentage of Tutsis who were massacred in Rwanda out of the total population of Tutsis is greater than the percentage of Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust.
And of course, Haredi, I hope you enjoy your vacation.
Perhaps you will also find time to reflect on the things we talked about in a little while.
Truth, in my opinion, there is only one.
orthodox:
I think you didn't understand me at all.
None of the things I described, because of which I include myself in the Jewish people, is something that belongs to my self-definition at all.
I define myself (if I even have to) as a human being.
In my opinion, the definitions in which people define themselves and others (as different from each other) are the source of all evil in the world.
Choosing the place of residence is simply solving an optimization problem.
A person starts thinking about her only when he encounters problems.
Personally, I have never felt the need to justify my residence here.
At certain stages in my life I was required to ask a question (which never seemed to me to be a critical question) and at various stages in my life I decided to stay here - both for reasons of convenience (which I already mentioned in my first comments) and because of my completely different assessment than yours regarding anti-Semitism.
Today, of course, there are other reasons related to my age. For example - if I move to another country, I will not be able, at my age, to be insured under any framework.
In any case - I find your (yours and Amit's) treatment of the question - pointless and even outrageous.
I have the right to make the decisions related to my life. Do any of you disagree with that?
If not, then this debate is over.
Amit:
First of all - my answer to Haredi is directed at you as well.
Besides - even if you prove to me that there are other people who are wrong like you, it won't change my mind.
My opinion can only be changed by refuting the factual basis on which it rests and thus you fail (if you even try).
The Holocaust is special because Hitler was at the head of a powerful country with advanced technological capability. There is no doubt that other holocausts could have reached similar dimensions if only their perpetrators knew how to do it. Ignoring this aspect of a person's character greatly increases the risk that this kind of holocaust will indeed happen again.
orthodox
thanks for everything. May you and all of us have a good and sweet new year.
Who is God?
Thank you for your comment, I agree with all of it. I would just like to clarify something.
"The God of the Gaps", whether a hallucination or a reality, is a work assumption that has been reduced to this day and continues to be reduced, but there is nothing and nothing between it and the need to worship. In my question about faith in him I meant the mental need to worship.
"If you keep my laws, I will give you rain in due time, health and victories in war; And if you sew them, then I will show you what you will steal from me" is no longer relevant when technology successfully replaces prayers and sacrifices. However, for the purpose of eternal life in a world that is all good, something that technology has not yet brought an adequate answer to, it is relevant and how else. For this reason I believe that the main motive of the people to continue to hold the belief that worship is on its side is the desire to live forever. Convince a person that there is no life without a body, you removed from him the need to worship and you asked him out.
Those who worship the permanence of the soul without having God reinforce my hypothesis that belief in God is only a helpful but not necessary means. In front of them, although the creationist thesis does not talk about the survival of the soul, go out and see who are its strong speakers.
Michael: Alan Dershowitz declared, in a filmed segment that I watched, about himself as a Jew in his culture. In many peoples there are several cultures and the fact that the Jews have nothing in common with Jews who come from Arab peoples says nothing about the existence of the people. In fact, in the history of the people there were many periods in which there were different cultures, for example in the Bible some of the people cultivated a pagan culture while another cultivated a monotheistic culture, in the second house there were the Sadducees who advocated the written Torah, the work of sacrifices and the denial of the afterlife against the opposite attitude of the Pharisees. The Yiddish theater, the secular works of the Jews in the last hundred and fifty years are part of "Jewish culture" that you insist on not recognizing and seeing. Niha
The only "crown" I associate with survival is just the very survival of a people in exile for about two thousand years in the face of constant calamities from the environment. There is no other example like this in all of humanity. Obviously at the expense of most of the Jews who sacrificed their lives or apostatized. So ?
This is exactly why my grandfathers cut their foreheads, removed their hoods and became Zionists.
Your attitude about anti-Semitism and the ability to be saved from it is mistaken and wrong, and this is exactly where I agree with Haredi.
Regarding Hitler and Nazism as a cultural mutation, I would be happy to develop it when I have the opportunity, but it is part of a broad argument.
Regarding the Holocaust: it is unique and special in the history of the world and indeed received such a status in the United Nations. Genocide has of course occurred throughout human history to one degree or another. But the Holocaust is called that by a special name because it is a special type of genocide. But the dialogue is not opened here. I would be happy if I had the chance.
Michael
To define the self, the identity and the way of life and maybe even the emotional world, from a place of negating the other and even the negative other, religious anti-Semitism and the ultra-orthodox, etc., seems strange to me, somewhat paranoid. I don't know, it doesn't connect to me.
The explanation I gave is not wrong at all, you think differently and so do many other good people, but there is also room for a more optimistic view of humanity, by the way, Islam accepts those who assimilate into it with open and blessed hands, so that assimilation into Islam is a pretty good solution than Islamic anti-Semitism, at least better than the Jewish state in which The danger is more real and practical, what's more, crimes against humanity occur here as well, the concept of "Judanzim" was invented by a Zionist and a great scientist, and many good ones are going to the light.
Well, Michael, I imagine that when you were walking on the Danube with your partner and daughter, you were the happiest person, now it's my turn to leave the "land of sitting eating" and enjoy the land of milk and honey. And to the ghost, happy and sweet new year.
Amit:
There is no "Jewish culture" and the language is a wonderful example of this: no one spoke it and it was preserved only thanks to religion.
There is also nothing "Jewish" about Einstein.
He did not deny his Judaism and in my opinion he did not deny it only because he detested anti-Semitism more than he detested religion. This is exactly why I do this.
Alan Dershowitz does not represent anything Jewish himself.
In fact - Alan Dershowitz is a wonderful example of the human trait that is behind the existence of nations and religions - the need to see yourself as part of a framework.
Arthur Koestler wrote a lot about this in his book The Ghost in the Machine.
Woody Allen has nothing in common with Eastern Judaism.
I am amazed by the crowns you tie to the survival of Judaism and the Jewish people.
This survival claimed the lives of many people.
Indeed, religion is a collection of waters that preserves itself well.
Christianity seems to do it better than Judaism and Islam does it better than both.
The fact that Judaism has existed longer is only because it was first among the monotheistic religions, but unlike the other religions - it also really stood up to its end - and not because of its superior quality.
But it is natural, by the way, that as time passes, new species of religion develop that survive better than it.
It's a perfectly normal evolution except that it's happening in the world of memes.
The explanation given to me by an ultra-Orthodox regarding assimilation is wrong and I pointed out the facts that he ignores.
Didn't you see what Pat Condell had to say about it?
I have no reason to leave the country just to fall victim to anti-Semitism (the most prominent representative of which nowadays - but by no means the only one - is Islam).
I explained that the state put defensible borders where there were only religious differences and that this is an advantage when there is antisemitism.
In many parts of Europe Jews can no longer live.
Sweden, England and France are on the way to Islam and other countries are not far behind them.
In my opinion - the only sane country left is Australia, but it's hard to know how long it will last. It is enough for the leadership to change so that everything will collapse there as well.
By the way - the belief that Hitler was a mutation or that the Germans are a special people in which only the Holocaust could have occurred are precisely the beliefs that could lead to the disaster repeating itself.
Beyond the moral error here - these claims are also based on factual errors because serious crimes against humanity - including acts of genocide are repeated and happening in our world - whether it is the Armenian Holocaust or the genocide in Rwanda and similar attempts in Serbia.
Hitler was more successful but his motivation was a fault which unfortunately happens to humans many times.
jubilee:
In my opinion - apart from the fact that both beliefs express wishful thinking and require ignoring the facts - there is absolutely no causal connection between belief in eternal life and belief in God.
I have explained many times what, in my opinion, is the main reason for belief in God.
The cause is a useful evolutionary trait that we have that causes us to look for a reason for everything and, if we have not found an understandable physical process for it to occur, to assume that an intelligent factor is behind it.
This factor - when we do not find a person or an animal that was there and could have caused the phenomenon, he is the God of gaps.
In my opinion - first and foremost - God is the God of gaps.
Since many years passed until man - in his scientific activity - began to reduce the gaps - God remained unchanged for many years, but as science narrows the gaps in recent years - God changes accordingly.
Belief in eternal life does not depend on belief in God and is not a condition for it. There are primitive tribes that believe in the survival of the soul and hold many rituals to appease the dead - without having any god.
There are also people who believe in God without believing in the survival of the soul (in fact - the idea of creationism speaks only of God and in certain interpretations it can even be seen as negating the idea of the soul - otherwise the creationists would not be seen so religiously for chemical or physical processes that according to their hallucinations are not possible).
Of course, both the delusion of God and the delusion of remaining soul have been hijacked by the religious meme systems because they help these systems survive over time and help their inventors control the creatures.
Haredi: In light of your comment about the psychologist and his argument about religion. By the way, I have a fantasy to write an article about "religiosity as infantilism". I follow the stages of my 5-year-old son's development and I am amazed at how many times I see parallels to the relationship of God-Man from his childhood world.
I believe that every religious person, even the wisest, most talented and most serious, has an emotional-psychological place of infantility and immaturity and maturity through which he connects with the Sha'a (Y. Chaikin, I rejoice in the above initials). In a fundamental, deep and rooted way, this is the explanation (or one of the main ones) for the existence of the religious phenomenon among human beings.
Michael: Pat Condell is a British NL. A worthy atheist who is very, very dear to me.
Haredi: I absolutely agree and firmly assert that religiosity in particular and faith in general originate in an emotional and mental state and not an intellectual-intellectual state. I said their origin and root. Therefore, it only strengthens and strengthens the argument when it is clear from your words that disconnecting from religion constitutes a betrayal of the feelings of love for your family and loved ones. It only points to the religious fanaticism when they cut off contact with a family member who is not religious and decided to choose liberation from religion and a life of freedom and liberty. It is interesting that, for the most part and usually, the secular do not cut off and deny their descendants who have lost their minds in favor of their religion. If it happens that the children become estranged from their parents. A harsh reality indeed.
And to the Nicanians, who is charged with the right to a reality that does not exist:
1. You are confused and confusing with the paradise story. Why is my interpretation irrelevant? This is the basis of interpretation for understanding the story. The religious interpretations range in the realms of religious delusion and draw from it and are therefore invalid. What is unclear is how else can this story be understood and interpreted? The interpretation of the righteous on him is one of the correct, proper and righteous.
Every reality that was expanded was expanded within the framework of science. After all, there were many who tried to understand what reality is beyond their reach: this is how the myths, opuses, religions and other musings about nothing were born that blossomed like dust in the wind in the face of their absurdity, since their origin was belief, that is: imagination, debate, invention, illusion and other concepts that are similar in meaning.
In reality there was no cinema either until it was created. Well? So what ? So when a person eats the apple, he realizes the reality of contradicting the Creator's will. That is: it is true that such a reality did not actually exist, but it did exist by force. After all, the very prohibition in the first place shows that there is a reality of contradicting the Creator's will and all that is needed is to put it into practice. I don't understand what you want to say here and how it proves your "expansion of reality"……
God is an imagined fiction and a major literary figure in world literature and human culture. It's true, it's a fact. But to claim that there is a reality that has not been revealed and is not known yet and therefore God exists is already a hallucination that Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris (our own Jew...a good and kind man...) are talking about and I am following them tomorrow.
2. Since this is the second section where you claim that I am not one of you, please consider my limitations and simply give a clear, simple, extensive and more accessible explanation to me. Mom taught me to always ask the teacher and said that if I don't understand at least half the class doesn't understand (considering the fact that I'm average, not the stupidest and not the smartest). So I'm not the only one here and many, many, unseen multitudes are reading here. So also for their sake: speak and express yourself clearly and clearly while explaining, detailing and demonstrating your words in order to be understood. Was I clear enough in my request to you to be understood?
You make unfounded assertions about others and claim that I make such assertions about you…….For example, you wrote like this:
"You think that religion should also exist in terms of utilitarianism - according to the system of concepts you live in - who determined that this is so, who is trying to interpret God's will?"
It is not clear who you are addressing and what you want to say at all. If by "you" you mean Michael and Eli, then you are wrong, of course. According to our view, religion is unnecessary and is an excess and unnecessary remnant of the development of human beings and of the evolution of culture, and its only fate over time - disappearance. What you put in the name of God is really incomprehensible to me based on the context.
And I believe that you, who claim that I did not understand you, should re-read my previous answer to you. Man is evil and responsible. Its bad and negative products must be fought: religion is an excellent example. Also the polluting engine. and guess what?? The technological, scientific and enlightened spirit is indeed working in the direction and currently has the electric engine at the same time as a significant and noticeable reduction in the pollution of the traditional gasoline engine. The enlightened ones are working on constant improvement and optimization my dear. This cannot be said about the religious and the religion that is frozen in mitzvos and laws that cannot be disputed and cannot be changed or deviated from. The religion that sees the ancients as fallen, who created giants who led to geniuses, who stood up, wise men, and so the chain reaches to the fools who are now called "rabbi" and edmur with the "decline of the generations" whoever lives in this view is bound to deteriorate into existential stupidity rather than improvement. is not it ? Therefore, religion is not negative but as a spoiled product of man. Like the atomic bomb, which man fights to reduce its effect and damage potential compared to the nuclear power that is beneficial for his well-being.
Maybe you understood me more thoroughly now??
3. This section demonstrates wonderfully for everyone the difference between the perception of reality - electromagnetic radiation and the perception of hallucination - the "reality of God", in the absurd and fruitless attempt to develop, understand and know the "will of God". It is really absurd and ridiculous to create a god, to claim that he cannot be known, understood and grasped at all, to explain that he is an absurdity and an existential and conceptual contradiction, and to go so far as to arbitrarily invent acts that actually and practically contain "God's commandments" and that they actually exist in everyday life. I find only harsh, insulting and offensive words for this kind of perception, thinking and behavior and of course I will avoid them for all the good and proper reasons.
Perhaps on occasion, you will already reveal to the honorable forum whether you are religious and live such a lifestyle or "just" believe in God(s)??. Even though your words quoted below testify to about a thousand witnesses of your view:
"By the way - I am not here to contradict the necessity/essence/meaning of the mitzvot or the connection between the mitzvot" and God - this is a completely different discussion.
Michael: Yes, I'm desperate to some extent. Most of the secular are slack and careless, deep as a puddle in the summer and live the life of the moment and when they are required to adopt their brain cells they are portrayed as nothing more than spoiled religious or what is also known as "secular but...". However, I was happy to discover that my view of Judaism as a culture and a people is shared by many other good forces that strive to raise Judaism from the spiritual confinement and mental troubles imposed on it by religion. It is true that it is a nearly 200-year-old effort, but here in Israel it has a real chance - establishing, strengthening and continuing to create a Jewish cultural identity of the Jewish people. From here the good news will go out to the rest of the Diaspora and thus people like Einstein, Alan Dershowitz, Woody Allen who are Jews to the core, and declare themselves as such, will also be able to experience significant Jewish cultural content and not need "Yiddishkeit" and empty religious rituals that are meaningless in their eyes.
It is a fact that religion captured and united and kept the Jewish people in exile for 1900 years. This is a fact and cannot be denied. But the whole world was religious. That is why works of thought of all kinds and types came together under the umbrella of religion, both in Islam and Christianity. However, thinkers and philosophers worked and created within the religious framework. It is possible, it is possible and it is necessary to distill the treasures of culture from the elements of religion and belief. Like picking small pieces of gold out of mountains of ash and earth thrown aside. There are many peoples in which the cultural differences are very deep and yet they are one people.
The few things that are common to the people in their diasporas that are not really religious are the Hebrew language (even though it was not a spoken and everyday language), the Bible, the history and the events of the people united the people and were common to them. The holidays too. Some of them are really religious - the most extreme of which is Yom Kippur and others are national holidays that religion once again took over, distorted and castrated their meaning like Hanukkah. A holiday that celebrates the independence of Jewish sovereignty against a foreign occupier nowadays is celebrated by the seculars (...!!!!....) with the song "Maoz Tzur Yeshuati" which is a song of praise for the work of the victims and not "Who will praise Israel's heroes who will name them..."
Regarding the paranoid perception: the things were already said by me directly. An ultra-Orthodox explained to you perfectly how you can assimilate and your sons too, certainly your sons' sons. Can you identify the descendants of Herzl who have already assimilated into the generation of his sons??? and others ?? No they are gone. Today in Portugal and Spain there are those who testify that they are probably descendants of the Jews - there are articles about this. Is someone harassing them? chasing them? Looking for them? of course not. They are part of the people among whom they sit.
Hitler and Nazism were a distorted and disturbed mutation within Western culture. A mutation that cultural evolution decided that their judgment is clear - extinction and annihilation. Why are you afraid that you will be searched in Australia because of your Jewishness??? So deny it and be an Australian atheist. The fear of some "Hitler" emerging marks you as paranoid. Yes. In this I agree with Haredi. He is XNUMX percent right in his arguments that assimilation will solve the anti-Semitic problem. Assimilation does not live as a Jew among gentiles. After all, what is your soul? The vast majority of the Jews were assimilated throughout history and it was not known that he came to his death, otherwise we would have numbered several hundreds or at least tens of millions...!!!
Who is God?
Pat Condell is also a doggy person and doggies anyone who feels supported by him. But, naturally, his fanbase is dwindling.
Europe is becoming Muslim, and there are those who like to present it as a punishment for its crimes against the Jews for thousands of years, for example this "irrelevant":
http://irrelevant.org.il/2005/10/09/592
And maybe Islam will really take our revenge? After all, according to the Koran, the Jews received their religion from the Israelites - who were neither Jews nor Christians, but Muslims. On the other hand, this book also preaches to hate us because we, after receiving the Torah from the Israelites, distorted it.
But everyone hates the Jews. Even the Jews hate themselves. And Muslims are no exception to this rule. There are many reasons for the hatred of the Jews in the world and this is not the place to go into it.
I am using this stage to ask the science community to bring us a good article or a series of articles on anti-Semitism, Zionism, the State of Israel, the various Jewish currents and their attitude to the state, etc. To save time, I also suggest copying most of the comments that appeared here to the comments there.
orthodox
Your presence in this discussion (and others) shows that you have invested a lot of your time in us, and for that you deserve all the strength.
One of the regular commenters here uses the nickname "R.H", but you meant the one whose nickname is "R.H Rafai.M". These are two people who differ from each other in many ways.
In the stormy debate that took place here, which I tried not to participate in and most of the time I just watched from the sidelines, everyone spoke out of his mind; Many wise and wise things were said, but you have the wisdom to see that it is the heart that directs the mind.
Thank you NEACKNAME
From the sample of 5 (including me and excluding one participant who did not express a clear opinion) the following results were obtained:
3 deny both the existence of a world buyer and the possibility of life after the death of the body.
2 believe in a world buyer and do not rule out life outside the body, but neither do they deny it.
This finding does not strengthen my claim that belief in eternal life preceded belief, but it does not weaken it either.
This is a small sample whose population visits scientific websites and participates in discussions there.
And thanks to everyone who participated.
I did not delve deeper, and presented a superficial opinion
I could not understand your position and the explanation, if you could elaborate more
R.H. Refai.M.:
I relate very much to your words to the ultra-Orthodox, but I really disagree with the way you say them.
I would rather accept his claim that his words were not properly understood (or not properly explained) than accept the content of his words
Please, I would appreciate it if you could respond objectively as you responded and it would still be pleasant to read.
For ultra-Orthodox:
Your words about life after death are outrageous - not because I wonder how a person derives meaning for existence from something finite or temporary - (according to me only eternity can have meaning in terms of existence) -
According to this principle, meaning has the value of an experience and nothing else.
- But how do you present superficiality and a lack of depth bordering on negligence the position and words of Maimonides, the sources and foundations of Judaism.
You did well to mention in the opening "that you have never delved into it".
For Yuval:
Regarding life after death - I tend to accept that there is, although not necessary in the divine reality, and here you really have to go according to the human interpretation of the religion/divine reality - that is, the Halacha.
Halacha is an expression of God's will according to human tools and perception, and life after death is a human tool to express the meaning of divine existence in a world of human concepts.
I think that once an understanding of the possibility of a divine reality is achieved there is a set of equations and formulas that the person puts together to reach the result (whether or not there is life after death)
Hello R.H
You are upset, and I understand why, it makes sense that you would be upset
Indeed, I see some things differently from you and some of my words were not understood properly
As I mentioned in the response above, I stopped the discussion on the topic, indeed due to the fact that it is an emotionally charged topic
Sorry
Hello colleague
You touched my heart, how after all everyone has some common denominator, and you can learn and wait from each other.
When I responded the first few times, I felt really in the lion's den, and here I share some common opinion with each of you, and I learned a lot from you, and indeed Michael also changed my opinion and brought it to a more pointed and advanced place.
The most amazing thing is how behind every opinion or ideology, there is a person with a personal and touching story. The first person who brought me to critical thinking was a psychoanalyst I met as part of my work, who proved to me that my entire perception of God stems from my parent-child relationship with my attachment figure, and this on the one hand makes the Things are human as Nietzsche puts it, but on the other hand, because of this, it is possible to treat things with holiness as Kant puts things.
To me it is touching and exciting and gives a feeling of intimate closeness
Amit the Tzadik,
1.
The example of the story about the Garden of Eden - Hino comes to explain the term "New Expanded Reality"
You said, "For the time being, the closest, most accurate and correct means of knowing reality is science." There is no difference" - I have no dispute on the subject and this is precisely the purpose of science - knowledge of reality - and this is what it does/researches/operates/discovers - only according to tools and concepts that it can use - because they exist in the system of concepts of the reality that it investigates.
But I claim that this is exactly where science ends in its ability to understand what is beyond - for it is (currently) outside the system of concepts in which it operates - why the parable is similar: to a deaf man who can explore any field in the reality he experiences: biology, physics, mathematics, etc. except for the field of music (and I emphasize the way we experience it) - he will never understand the difference between classical music and heavy metal (and again I emphasize the way we experience it). - That's why science has no foothold at the moment - because it always moves in the space of the reality it discovers.
But there is no contradiction that one day he will discover - and expand reality and the world of concepts in which we live, as has been done countless times throughout history, every scientific discovery is within the scope of expanding reality, like the examples I have already given - did Plato think of an iPhone - it cannot It would have crossed his mind - and he certainly didn't think to send an SMS to Aristotle because all the terms and concepts of his time were in a narrower reality.
And again we come to my constant argument - that is why the existence of God cannot be contradicted by science and moreover the very insight that humanity has about such an existence - says that the divinity had to meet the human reality and expand it.
Your interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve is irrelevant as there are still endless possibilities to understand the story, I only took from the story the aspect of expanding reality - that is, the story in the Bible for the first time could connect and reveal an aspect of divinity through human tools.
Go back and re-read what I wrote because it seems to me that you have not completely understood the context of the story of Adam and Eve.
If you didn't understand, then I'll summarize - the story of Adam and Eve is the way in which the existence of a paradox can be conceptualized to humanity: - yes and not life in one submission, black that is white, etc.. Until Adam did not eat from the apple there was no reality of contradicting the Creator's will which in fact This is also his will (=sin=paradox)
2.
I am happy that you are exhilarated by crushing vanity into fine dust - but again you do not get down to the bottom of my mind and miss the point of what I said - and furthermore associate views with me that are not mine - as if I claimed at all that Hitler acted in the name of progress and the Enlightenment or as a result of. I claim that science has absolutely no ability to be guilty at all, just like religion - these two concepts are not voluntary and as such - the concept of guilt does not control them
In my view, science is a tool just like religion (we haven't yet dealt with the definition of the term "religion" so I guess you missed me) and man can use it to do good to the world or to do bad - I also have a problem with the definition of good and bad and as I said: "You They think that religion should also exist in the concepts of utilitarianism - according to the system of concepts you live in - who determined that this is so, who tries to interpret God's will?
The example of cancer is that the introduction created welfare and one of its prices is increasing morbidity for example the invention of the gasoline engine = emits pollutants = increases morbidity (maybe it would be better to walk...) - so is this good or bad? (AIDS - really an unrelated example - carelessness has always existed)
You said "The Enlightenment and science did not, of course, bring any disaster but only good" - just as you take the responsibility for the tens of thousands of people who were vaporized in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the science that stands behind it (just as we don't blame the gun but the shooter) - so I take the responsibility from religion and transfer the The blame for all interpreters of God's will.
And certainly religion led to great atrocities - but science also led to no less great atrocities.
4.
To your question, "So the person who does not have the ability to define, perceive and know God knows what his will is to such a level that he knows how to adapt "human development" to it???? Do not understand."
Man - indeed he does not have the ability to define, grasp and know God within the framework of the concepts and terms in which he exists - therefore he is required to develop the indeterminate according to his perception and concepts. –
I'll give you an example - think about why electromagnetic radiation with a shorter wavelength than light is called - ultraviolet (in terms of color?!) How can a person describe the phenomenon that is not in the field of concepts that he experiences? - but here is a matter of relation to a known concept and by the relation This can be used to build a new concept, (there are a thousand examples such as a black hole, an opaque nucleus, etc...),
-Like the will of God, man tries to translate the effect of the very existence of God into accepted concepts.-such as will.
By the way - I am not here to contradict the necessity/essence/meaning of the mitzvot or the connection between the mitzvot and God - that is a completely different discussion.
ultra-orthodox (leftist)
So far so good. The slime that spilled from his gush* you call your wits, just blows my mind!
You don't like this country, but still live here? For what? So that you can suck all the good things out of this country and then run away from here with your tail between your legs like a cowardly rat in case "the situation becomes security"??? Tap on you a piece of Zev*!
I suggest you study history and know what was the fate of those who 'stood by' during the great wars, or even what was the fate of those who defected to the side of the enemy. (Personally, I hope you fly out of this country and that your fate will be like the fate of those scum).
If the secular Zionists had not established the State of Israel, and fought for it, bastards like you would have been slaughtered like sheep while you were praying to God to save you.
If the State of Israel had not been established, there would be no place in the world for noble creatures like you!
The fact that there is a state of Israel and it tolerates garbage like you shows that the state of Israel is a pluralistic state. It is a fact that you and your ilk make sure to exploit to the fullest to destroy the country.
All the evil in this country is because of creatures like you.
Israel is perceived in the world the way it is perceived precisely because the crooked part of the government gives free rein to crooks like you to act.
The Jews living abroad are safe - this is only because the State of Israel exists!!
If the State of Israel did not exist, the Jews abroad would not be able to flee anywhere in the event that anti-Semitism was on the rise.
If you studied history you would know what happened to the Jews before they had a state!
All your statements against the state or against people like Michal Rothschild (whose toe is worth more than all the stinking ultra-Orthodox combined) who do a lot so that even creatures like you will have a place to live in the event that all over the world want to slaughter you - is a racist statement. What's worse is that you live in a country whose values you go against.
It is not for nothing that the Bible says "the earth eats its inhabitants" - the sentence was written exactly because of creatures like you.
Believe me (and you are an expert in this) that I use refined language:
In the event that a war breaks out, I personally (you have nothing to worry about my family) will take care of creatures like you first and foremost so that you do not interfere with us fighting the real enemies.
"Regarding assimilation, I do think it is a solution," - an ultra-Orthodox who embraces the idea of assimilation?
Go blend in, Shmok!
And here are two links from another source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flof7GqBJq0&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLE9BF35FFB9F33F14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9x3AEWHt3A&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLE9BF35FFB9F33F14
And here is a translation of another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVt-oeBx0kE
here:
I found a translation of one of them into Hebrew, for those who need it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjSL804Wxwo&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL329C8442CFE9C317
This Pat Condell is really a kind person, so I will bring two more relevant links from his words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaiZ3qbM-dA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vaw658Bow8
orthodox:
I don't know how knowledgeable you are about what is happening in the Diaspora, but just as I argue here with the opponents of democracy, I argue with anti-Semites abroad.
I have such a hobby where I roam the internet, look for statements like boycott Israel, locate their authors and start corresponding with them.
Just as I have already changed the minds of some ultra-Orthodox, I have also made some anti-Semites friends, but this is a drop in the ocean because anti-Semites are like garbage.
It is enough to see what is happening in European universities.
I also have experience from the years I lived abroad and I know that anti-Semitism has not disappeared.
I remember that when I finished high school (a Belgian school of NATO forces in Germany) and won every possible academic award, one of the teachers approached me after the award ceremony - a teacher I only knew by sight and I never studied with him - I think he taught Latin - and said to me: That's how it is with the Jews: either they are very smart - or they are very stupid."
By the way, a large part of anti-Semitism is fueled by the Muslims who nowadays occupy every country whose democracy is not defended.
You can see an example here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZtc2ma2GEQ
And here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIesXORjBps
Amit:
You claim support for your views where his has been given no support.
Are you that desperate?
In the conversations between us you also told me that you already accepted my opinion and you agree with the claim that our culture here is Israeli and that apart from religion it is not possible to find a "Jewish culture" that is common to the various diasporas.
If you came back and changed your mind, you are welcome to point to one cultural element that meets the definition of "Jewish culture" - that is - that is unique to Judaism and characterizes its various diasporas.
The truth is that I do not understand your last comment.
A paranoid perception?!
The fact is that the State of Israel - even in recent years - has served as a refuge for Jews from the USSR, for Jews from Ethiopia, for Jews from all over Europe - precisely because of the non-existent anti-Semitism.
The truth?
You pissed me off!
You can also refer to the sections to which I directed Haredi.
They are spoken by a person who sits among his people and perceives the moods there.
It is interesting that I launch into the ultra-Orthodox in the differences of opinion with Michael regarding the perception of Judaism as a nation and as a culture (vertical) versus Judaism as only a religion (Michael) as well as the claim that Michael has a paranoid perception and post-traumatic thinking from which he justifies our existence here and his Judaism. In fact, Hitler, who has long since turned to ashes and dust, determines today "who is a Jew." Michael, if this is not a small victory for the oppressor, what is?
But you already know my views and it's impressive that I launch into the Haredi in this matter against the perception that there is a hint of post-Zionism...
================================================== ====================
Nicene: Continue my answer to section 5:
A. Regarding the Garden of Eden, the "new and expanded reality".
I don't really understand what a "new and expanded reality" is. There is one reality. Man tries to get to know her and understand her. His experiences from time immemorial were expressed in the works of human culture - from works of art, continued in the creation of religions and continued in the philosophy and wisdom and idioms of different peoples and different cultures.
In the meantime, the closest, most accurate and correct means of knowing reality is science. There is no rest. To claim that the religious musings and delusions of our ancestors in the past and up to our "sages" in the present are an understanding/recognition of reality is a really ridiculous argument.
Regarding heaven and your interpretation. I have a Jewish - free of course secular - atheistic and humanistic view of the story which is, well, a story - the story is about 4 heroes: God, the snake, Adam and Eve. Here he has an evil God (Y. Haikin wins this innovation that I adopt to my heart - thank you dear...!!!!) who decides to create creatures and leave them miserable, stupid, without knowledge of the world and the morality of "good and evil". He is also a coward because he is afraid that man-his handiwork will resemble him and therefore forbids him to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: "For God knows that in the day you will eat from it and your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Oh yes he is also a liar. "Super Nanny" makes it clear to every parent that the ABC of parenting is not to just say things to the child and one must stand behind the words, promises and warnings to the child. This is what God, our Father in heaven, says to his children: "And of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will die." Well his promise, the first since the creation of the universe, is not worth the scroll it is written on....
This is a first hero. The second is righteous, kind-hearted known as "the snake". He actually tries to help Adam and convinces Eve to eat from the tree that will "open her eyes". She is eating and her eyes are open, followed by a woman (not her husband, her woman-man). The two beggars suddenly get knowledge and morals and for that they are punished..!!! God is punishing them for being wise, for ignoring the virtues of humanistic morality. There is no doubt that already in chapter XNUMX the Torah shows us the difference between humanistic morality (good and proper...) and divine morality (capricious, capricious, evil and bad, bad, bad...). From here humanity moves between the axis of humanistic morality (actually the only morality that is "moral") and morality that originates from God (not good...).
In fact, Adam and Eve are completely righteous in that they did not obey and listen to God's will, which as usual throughout the Bible and history turns out to be a capricious, capricious desire that originates from pure evil. In contrast to the first Jewish "knight of the faith" and the first evil Abraham who goes to slaughter his son without hesitation and reflection like a common and unwanted religious fanatic, Adam and Eve obey the humanist command and reject the divine command and therefore prove themselves to be the first humanists compared to the first religious Jew who is revealed in all his moral secrets together with the anti-God A moral he believes in.
And your arguments later play into my hands because these are the classic arguments of religious people and I die when they come up because then they can be crushed into a fine dust of vanity (forgive me for the cynicism, I don't intend to offend, I'm just experienced in dealing with believers of all kinds and types because there are things in common, after all, to all the madmen of faith and victims of religion .
You are absolutely right - man is the source of evil and wickedness. Being exclusive in his concrete existence in the world (there are also literary characters such as: dragons, dwarf fairies and orcs and also, even gods of all kinds and types) he is more evil. The Enlightenment and science did not, of course, bring any disaster but only good. The person who makes malicious use of science is worse. One of the main sources of evil is belief: the religious one as embodied in religions and the secular one as embodied in secular religions: Communism, fascism and Nazism, for example, are all religious beliefs and worldviews, such as religiosity, that God in religions has been replaced by the leader.
Therefore, since it is not possible to exterminate man or at least it is not desirable to exterminate him from the universe, he must be improved, perfected and brought up the evolutionary ladder while exterminating the bad and spoiled products of man's world. For example: religious views whether they are religious in origin or secular.
By the way, AIDS and cancer - what does it have to do with enlightenment and science in general???
B. "Religion and mitzvot, etc. - are (according to me) human development for the will of God"…………... So the person who does not have the ability to define, perceive and know God knows what his will is to such a level that he knows how to adapt "human development" to it??? ?
Do not understand.
For his words he was confiscated and given forty lashes minus one. Take care and be careful 🙂
And I'm glad that you feel welcome and loved thanks to me too. You are always a welcome guest with me
Hello Yuval
I thank you for the feedbacks, they are empowering.
Indeed, I know a little about life abroad, but I am done with the subject
I am now reading the book Ethics by Spinoza, it is amazing what a deep and orderly thinking
orthodox
I live in the city of Glasgow, which is in Scotland. We have Rabbi Bamburger's koiler to whom many young Jews from Israel come for a two-year study program. Sometimes I meet them (mainly their wives) in one of the supermarkets that sells kosher food and am happy to exchange a few words in Hebrew.
The ultra-orthodox community in Scotland is not large. It only numbers a few thousand. But she thrives and confuses beautifully. There are lubbichers here (as everywhere in the solar system 🙂 ) and opponents who complement each other's mina. And if you want, RL, also a reform community whose leader, Raba, eats vermin in a Chinese restaurant and not long ago converted to a husband.
You talk about debating with yourself about moving abroad where you can earn much more in your profession, pay less taxes, live your religion and your faith more, raise your family, your children and grandchildren with existential security and security, with calm politics and no public struggles, and on and on. Since you describe exactly the situation I'm talking about, I conclude that you are not just debating, but that you have also made inquiries. So you have another address.
Michael
I have reached a state of agitation and emotional flooding, and I am losing the right judgement, I loved "my people and my homeland" despite all the problems and distortions, my brothers and sisters, my parents and my parents' parents up to tens of generations back are ultra-Orthodox, and such are also my closest friends, like my personal family, my partner, long live my son And my daughters, I love them, I am close to them, and although I and other friends have very sharp criticisms of the ultra-Orthodox and much more than what you wrote, and we too as a family and as a community and as individuals suffer from the situation, I am still close and love them, and it is difficult for me to hear the things that are said here, not in their content but in their style.
The ultra-Orthodox are going through a somewhat slower evolutionary process, but the trend and direction are correct, today's ultra-Orthodox are not the ultra-Orthodox of the 80s, and the ultra-Orthodox of the 2020s will be much more advanced than they are today, there are very beautiful and welcome phenomena in the ultra-Orthodox public, and they are gaining great momentum . And I hope to be part of this process and promote these beloved and wonderful people and not leave the ship and go to another side.
With your permission, Michael stopped the discussion on the subject, and we will focus more on the "philosophical" issues, it is too sensitive for me
Michael
I feel welcome and loved here, especially after Yuval's feedback
On the contrary, I think that it is precisely you who appreciate me as I appreciate you, I meant that different emotions are involved in the subject both on your part and on my part, and this affects at least the style of the discussion.
I refer to the holocaust as something from which nothing can be deduced, there is something paranoid about living the holocaust like this today, there is a non-functional way of thinking to build things today when the holocaust is a guiding consideration, this whining about the holocaust even by statesmen like Begin was not well received to say the least , your thinking is ultra-Orthodox-existential, now I better understand your place even in the face of the danger of the ultra-Orthodox.
I disagree with you, completely and unequivocally, in what you say: "The situation of the Jews living abroad could be much worse if there was no State of Israel." The opposite is true, and besides what is true, the state of Israel could have been much worse, or it would not have existed at all, had it not been for the Jews living abroad, with their donations and lobbying.
I know the opposite, I have very close friends abroad, and they make sure that I have somewhere to escape when there is a security situation here in Israel, and every time something security happens in Israel, they call with concern.
The fact that the State of Israel is a good and safe place for the Jews is pathetic Zionist propaganda, having nothing to do with reality
Thanks
And I also forgot to add his ability to see things from above, which is one of the virtues of the philosopher.
We are all brainwashed to one degree or another. We are all "lost babies" just because we were born into the "wrong" families. Few of us gathered courage and moved to the opposite camp. I find that the political debate here contributes nothing to the burning of academic questions, so I do not interfere in it even though I have Lots what should I say.
And if an article about the history of the State of Israel and the Zionist movement appears in the news, you will see me at the head of the talkbackists.
Jubilee ( https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305807 :
I agree with everything you said in this response
orthodox:
I am really surprised that you claim that I hate the ultra-orthodox.
I hate you?
I simply hate those who try to turn me into a messiah's donkey.
It is true that these are ultra-Orthodox, but I am only angry with them because of what they do and not because they believe in nonsense or call themselves such and such names.
Nothing I said was an expression of hatred of any people.
All my claims dealt with wrongdoing.
It reminds me of an encounter I had with another ultra-Orthodox after the demonstration in Jerusalem against ultra-Orthodox violence.
I went there with the sign "Monkeys are fed up".
When the demonstration began to disperse, one of the ultra-Orthodox who watched it came up to me and asked me why I think all the ultra-Orthodox are coercive. "I don't force anything on anyone" he said.
I asked him how he comes to the conclusion that I think all ultra-Orthodox are oppressors, after all, the sign does not say anything about ultra-Orthodox.
Is it because the hat is on fire on the thief's head?
I don't remember exactly what we talked about later, but at the end of the conversation he told me: "Don't worry - we will win. We bring eight children on average and you two at most."
I asked him something like "What victory are you talking about? are you fighting me why are you doing this Is it because you still want to force something on me?”
Regarding life abroad - the assimilated people who were murdered in the Holocaust thought like you.
By the way - ultra-Orthodox were also murdered in the Holocaust because their rabbis told them they could stay there because God would protect them.
The situation of the Jews living abroad could be much worse if it were not for the State of Israel.
More than that - many of them allow themselves to live abroad because they know that in times of need - there is a country that will accept them.
As we know - this willingness of Israel to take in persecuted Jews from all over the world has already stood the test and with the exception of the blunders that cause distortions of the Law of Return it can be said that this willingness has even stood the test with dignity.
Michael
I understood what you said and also internalized the lesson. Sometimes, the brevity I use in formulating my words detracts from them.
The things I have seen in Haredi are a moderate attitude, honesty, humility and fearlessness of self-criticism. These are the qualities I hope to find in myself as well. Obviously he and I are very different in our beliefs, but these things are of secondary importance to me compared to human qualities.
I will tell you even more, I myself am debating with myself, why not move to live abroad, where I will earn much more in the profession I work in, I will pay less taxes, I will be able to live my religion and my beliefs more, and raise my family and children with existential safety and security And my grandson, with calm politics and no public struggles, and on and on.
There is a saying of a Sage: great is the love that spoils the line and great is the hatred that spoils the line, my love and your hatred of the ultra-Orthodox probably spoils the ability to have a serious and factual discussion. It seems to me that continuing to discuss this is just adding more emotions and more extremism, the main things have already been said on both sides.
I really liked the sentence you said: "My Jewishness is an association that is given to me first and foremost by my enemies and only then by my brothers in trouble." [Paraphrasing he says: My anxiety is an association that is given to me first and foremost by my haters and only then by my brothers in trouble.] This is a deep and true idea.
Regarding assimilation, I do think that it is a solution, to establish a state is to build a hospital under the destroyed bridge, Hitler was successful and even up to a certain limit they have been assimilated for a long time, Spain's martyrs for example he did not recognize, Hitler was also an extreme phenomenon from which nothing can be learned, most antisemites will accept those who assimilate Honestly to the end.
Suppose a phenomenon like Hitler arises again, assimilation is still much safer than the State of Israel, Michael, let's not forget that the vast majority of the Jewish people do not live in Israel and do not see themselves as Israeli at all, and they live well in a wide variety of countries with a better quality of life than the Jew Here in Israel both from a security point of view and from an economic point of view and also from a social and cultural point of view, both ultra-Orthodox and secular, and many Jews from the world's Jews have integrated into key positions both economically and politically and politically as well as culturally and scientifically.
So to say that the State of Israel is a good and safe place for Jewish life is demagoguery.
You want to tell me that you identify yourself as a Jew and live in the State of Israel, and do not assimilate in Australia for example, because you are afraid that Hitler will catch you there and kill you, in your life.
orthodox:
I don't know why you think it would have been better here under the British, but even if it had been just as good here, the question would still be asked what would have happened to all the Jews that the British used a great deal of force to prevent their entry here - even when it was clear that they were being persecuted in places their origin and they have no other place to be.
The establishment of the state gave an answer to all the Jews whose entry the English prevented here and to many more Jews whose entry would have been prevented if the English had stayed.
The question of whether you specifically could live is actually a question about your origin and the origin of your parents, but overall - far fewer Jews would have been able to live if the state had not been established.
In general, it is also interesting to take into account the fact that the English were expelled - more or less - from all over their empire and there must have been many reasons for this.
I do not find it appropriate to enter into a suffering contest with the ultra-Orthodox.
What is clear is that they are causing me unnecessary suffering and that if the existing trends (of the wild culture of people who do not carry the yoke) continue, the country will simply collapse.
It is no longer a matter of opinion. This is the assessment of all economists.
Indeed - in my doomsday vision - not only the countries and religions will be abolished. The artificial separation between nations will also be abolished.
I have already explained here to others that from my personal point of view, my Jewishness is an association that is given to me first and foremost by my enemies and only then by my brother in trouble.
The Nazis knew how to dig into a person's family roots to identify their Jewishness so that assimilation doesn't really work - at least not in a practical time frame.
It seems to me that as long as anti-Semitism has power - the State of Israel has justification and living in it is a good solution.
Hello Michael,
This is the end of the discussion for me. I just wanted to tell you about Thales and his successors..that the way you perceive reality depends on your belief in mathematics. As you know, we disagree on this. If you would like to answer me, you are welcome through Gan Adam's website.
goodbye
Moses
Hello Michael
I will not add extremism on top of extremism, there are many deficiencies in ultra-Orthodox society of all kinds, I have criticism [constructive with love] 100 times more than the things you bring up, but I do not see things as critically as you put them, every society has its problems and there are There is more danger from ultra-Orthodox society than from any other party, and the danger that does exist is mainly for the ultra-Orthodox public, the ones who suffer from the problems of the ultra-Orthodox are the ultra-Orthodox themselves more than anyone else.
I see the debate between you and me as a legitimate debate between parties in a democratic framework, I know your position, respect it and partly identify with it, I repeat again: there are serious deficiencies in ultra-Orthodox thinking and behavior, and I agree with you on some things, but I do not accept the style and the intensity and extremism And the generalization of things, it seems to me that you are wrong in understanding the area and analyzing the findings
The things were presented clearly both from my side and from your side and the audience will see and judge.
The more interesting things are the other things:
I don't pretend to present clear things about the State of Israel, I spoke from an open mind and from what I see, I could definitely be wrong.
I didn't like the statement that thanks to the country I have a life here, etc., it's an arrogant statement, I think [not sure] that if the British mandate had stayed here it would have been better, I don't like the country nor its values, but that's personal and subjective. I work very hard for a living and pay higher taxes than many other countries
I'm interested in your words regarding the Jewish identity, I have no problem with your opinion, but I don't fully understand, because if that's the case it's better to assimilate among the nations, that's the best solution, isn't it? Kant and humanism, and the issue of national identity, has no meaning for him, why doesn't he marry a foreigner and assimilate with her and live as a citizen of the world in any of the quiet and peaceful countries, why should he tie his fate with the fate of the Jew.
It is important for me to emphasize, there is no Kintor here in any way, but I am honestly interested in understanding this position.
And another clarification for Jubilee.
Since I responded more or less to all of Haredi's words, referring to his words is naturally also referring to his words.
jubilee:
I'm sorry if I didn't understand your intention.
The comment appeared next to a certain comment by an ultra-Orthodox and I thought it was a reference to the content of that comment.
Generally - it is not clear to me what you include in "worldview" and what not.
Michael!!!
I did not express any blanket support. You are taking my words out of context And big. I said to him "It seems to me that you and I share a common worldview", and this may have many meanings that do not necessarily refer to your philosophical and/or political positions.
Thanks for the link back to your article. I read it and your review on Amazon (I enjoyed seeing that you also write very well in English) and I would like to state and emphasize that on this question you and I are in complete agreement. I am also very inclined to agree that these things have an effect on the moral conduct of man and society, but I did not go into it here because, as I said before, I see it as an inappropriate hijacking of the discussion.
orthodox
Please accept my apologies for the poor wording.
Of course, it is permissible not to know. And the awareness of not knowing is even a virtue, as we remember Socrates.
During the discussions I found a lot of honesty and humility in your words, and this is mainly what I meant when I offered you friendship.
Jubilee (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305693):
I agree with you about the hijacking, but I didn't hijack the discussion.
I am merely responding to the questions I was asked.
orthodox (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305702):
Democracy needs protection from anyone who tries to harass it.
I did not argue otherwise.
Factually, however, the main opponents of democracy in our country are the ultra-Orthodox and most other religious groups.
And they clearly oppose! It is not that democracy is worthless in their eyes, but that in their opinion it has a negative value and should be eradicated.
And they not only say - but also do.
The examples I gave are only the tip of the iceberg.
The Karta parking lot riots, "price tag" crimes, refusing to identify themselves to the police, modesty vigils, blocking streets, etc. are all examples of organized opposition to democracy and the motivation for all of them is religious.
The ultra-Orthodox (in general) are none of the good things you described.
A person who does not work and does not serve in the army does not contribute to society.
He just sucks the field.
This is true for the ultra-Orthodox on the street - whether he behaves this way because he feels like it or whether he behaves this way with the encouragement of some party.
Every time it is discovered that an ultra-Orthodox has committed a crime, a protective wall of ultra-Orthodox is immediately raised around him who try to prevent the enforcement of the law regarding him - whether it is Wallach or whether it is the starving mother.
I guess everyone remembers the "he is entitled" demonstrations where thousands of brainwashed people who did not even know the facts screamed that the criminal was the court and not Aryeh Deri.
Even Mother Taliban and Elior Chen received a considerable amount of protection.
Elements in the ultra-orthodox establishment are working to proactively take over secular settlements, while expelling the secular from these places.
I personally know people who have not yet come out on the question of being active partners in these criminal acts (which also include a fictitious change of residential address - for example, from Bnei Brak - where the ultra-orthodox rule is guaranteed to the ridges - when the takeover of it began).
The factors are (perhaps) institutional, but their soldiers (and we are talking about many) are private individuals.
Your definition of the ultra-Orthodox is very narrow.
You only refer to Mea Shearim as ultra-Orthodox.
Therefore, your claims about the aspirations of the ultra-Orthodox do not reflect the reality on the ground either.
Many of the ultra-Orthodox want a Halacha state.
The others are simply trying to cover up the fact that without the state, the infrastructure it builds and the protection it provides, they wouldn't be able to live here and maybe they wouldn't be able to live at all. Their saying that the state does not interest them is possible only because the state exists and only because it is tolerant towards them.
The description of your state Israel as the cause of anti-Semitism is blinded by great blindness.
I assume that the holocaust and all the pogroms happened before the establishment of the state.
Anti-Semitism still exists (and among the Arabs it has always existed - the speaker Amin al-Husseini even collaborated with Hitler) and the direction of many of the arrows of anti-Semitism towards Israel is not a result of the actions of the State of Israel but a result of anti-Semitism.
The point is that when the arrows are aimed at the state and when the state is strong - the citizens are usually not harmed by these arrows.
I have no interest in preserving a Jewish identity.
What interest could I have in this?
What is a "Jewish identity" anyway?
If it's about beliefs that seem to me to be vain beliefs - I'm certainly not interested in that.
I want an enlightened country.
Democratic state.
I want the state to be able to be a refuge for the members of the Jewish people - not so that they can keep their Jewish identity but so that they can keep their lives.
The distortion of the Law of Return and the distortion of the budget are indeed the result of the fact that the democracy in Israel has not internalized the fact that it should be a defensive democracy.
That's why there are religious parties - and that's why all this distortion of justice was caused.
I mention again: Hitler also came to power in democratic ways and this was possible because the democracy was not a defensive democracy.
When you talk about unfairness in opposing the phenomenon of choosing life at the expense of others, you completely reverse the creator.
At the moment - because democracy, as mentioned, does not defend itself, such a choice is legal - but it has never been decent and never will be.
Jubilee (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305709):
Since you expressed such sweeping support for the Haredi's words - see the things I wrote to him as directed at you as well.
You are welcome to point out at least one point where he is right and I am wrong.
Besides - I repeat and refer you to my article on the subject of life after death (https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-soul-exist-2501098/ ) and also to the interview given by Professor Sompolinsky here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page
jubilee
I'm not biased, I just don't know
Is it okay not to know?
It is clear that I grew up in the discourse of heaven and hell and the world wondered, but does it really exist beyond the discourse, I never delved into it, in this question, unlike the question of God, it is clear that I will have a solution,
For me it is not relevant, the fact that I keep Torah and Mitzvot does not come from a place of reward and punishment, but from a place of searching for meaning, education and habit.
Life after death has nothing to do with the basics of the Jewish faith at all, it does not appear in the Bible at all, maybe once in Samuel when they asked the prophet, but it is known to be a sin, meaning it is not true and correct. And certainly it has nothing to do with worshiping God, which is something that is given to life, "Neither the dead will praise Him nor anyone who descends like Him, and we will bless Him from now until the end of time Hallelujah" this is from the Tanach.
I think that the Tanach was written in the days of Ezra the Scribe, this is how it is in our sources, and besides that, the Tanach has no holiness and power on its own part but on the part of the sages, and on the part of the people who accepted the things.
Thanks Amit
I responded, but it turns out that I'm incredibly censorious. Please be patient.
Thanks Amit
Michael and Amit deny both beliefs. R.H. Refai.m claims that they are valid but did not explain whether he is misleading or binding. Haredi obligates the second faith but is not sure about the first. NEACKNAME has yet to make his voice heard.
Reminder: My opinion is that belief in Hala preceded belief in Sha'a and is stronger than it. We understand that belief in Sha'a is meant to support belief in Hala and not the other way around. Therefore, if my opinion is correct, the debate about Hala is more substantial than the debate about the Sha'a.
And Harini apologizes for using abbreviations that were forced on me due to censorship.
Yuval: Regarding life after death, my reference is that it is one of the nonsense that man invented. His existence is as absurd as God.
Nicene:
1. Yes, it is possible. time will tell. In the meantime, as I mentioned, there are preliminary signs that science will prove me right and as we know we are at the very beginning of brain research and there is still a long, long way to go and lots of discoveries. In the meantime, this is the evidence that is available
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=searching-for-god-in-the-brain&modsrc=most_popula
3. Inaccurate. There is backwardness, degeneration and stupidity in the state education system. Fundamental correction and change is needed. However there are many places where a good education is given. There is no principled interest in secular education against skepticism and criticism. In religious education in general and ultra-Orthodox education in particular, there is and there is. There is nothing to compare at all.
4. Absolutely not. Existing and non-existent are not equal at all. What exists, is perceived and known is at an infinitely higher level of certainty than what we think, imagine or believe that maybe, there is a possibility, or it does or does not exist. But maybe in your world there is equality between the two. Well, I hope you understand otherwise.
5. A long section and I will refer to it later.
Regarding the MDL (degrading to religion). I didn't claim in the first place that you are like that and I accept your words that you don't belong to this band.
R.H. Refai.M, response to response
Indeed, I really do not see the equal equivalence between the question of whether there is a God and the question of whether there is life after death. I believe that just as there is a clear solution to the chicken and the egg question, there is also a clear solution to your question. Eggs existed in the world even before there were chickens and belief in life after death existed in the world before belief in God.
Unfortunately, I could not understand how the rest of your words relate to the main issue.
jubilee
Indeed, I read your response (to which you refer) after I had already written my response to you.
You are welcome to refer to my response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305718
In response to your comment.
R.H. Rafai.M
Since you wrote, this response has been released:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305713
You are welcome to refer to it and significantly increase the number of participants in the discussion.
Thanks in advance
jubilee
Do you really not see the equal equivalence between the question of whether there is a God and the question of whether there is life after death?
Imagine the following scenario: you die. they buried you So and so years passed (let's say 5 billion), 0 was swallowed by the sun, everything that was inside it was swallowed by the sun (including the remains of your body). This is how the world continues to exist without you (after all, the world will not return to its original state). This is the real eternity. Forever you will not be able to return. Can you understand the meaning of this eternity? I'm sure not. No one can imagine such an eternity. Look at the mathematicians throughout history trying to understand the concept of infinity or trying to understand the meaning of XNUMX.
It is not surprising, then, that one would want to give a clear answer to this 'eternity'.
The mathematician cannot answer such a question, but the religious knew and how else would he know. (I guess you can already guess the answers {or answer} religious people have come up with to answer this question).
Although you are not so young anymore, let me give you a little tip for the rest of your life (I wish you a long and fulfilling life): make the most of this moment that you are here and find satisfaction in everything you do. When your time comes to know the truth, treat it as the supreme happiness - where is the 'icing on the cake' - that here is your time to discover the truth. Don't regret what happened and hope to 'reach higher peaks' after life.
Maximum - nothing will happen, and it won't bother you. After all, the end is the 'peak' of every process, and every end is a new beginning 🙂 .
Thank you Avi
Unfortunately, I have no experience in WordPress development. Otherwise I would offer my services to the public for free.
In the matter of life after death - a summary of binim
Michael's opinion is firm, an ultra-Orthodox seems to lean to one side but not decisive. NEACKNAME and Tzadik have not yet spoken.
I believe that the belief in life after death existed long before the Bible was written. It is seen beautifully in the magnificent and less magnificent Egyptian tombs. This is also seen in burial forms discovered in prehistoric cultures. The ancient mythologies talk about it and so does the Hindu mythology which is alive to this day. Buddhism does not attach importance to God, but life after death is of utmost importance.
However, in the Torah in particular and in most of the Bible in general, things are different. As part of the adoption of monotheism by the priestly sect that wrote the Bible in the days of King Josiah, all metaphysical entities were erased, including the souls of the dead. Belief in life after death was only accepted in Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period, but then they no longer wrote the Bible but began to develop the Oral Torah.
As Haredi points out, the great interpreters of the Bible do not preach this belief, but popular folklore embraces it with great love. I believe that most believers in God are those for whom he plays a (central) role in managing their next life and therefore, if they stopped believing in the afterlife, they would also stop believing in God.
As you know I work with WordPress, on the one hand it's good because it's a standard, on the other hand I can't ask the programmers to develop all kinds of things for me.
hello my father
Even so, I believe that the software should be updated. For example, if your impression of the writer is positive (and I hope it is in my case), then his email address can be used as a kosher certificate.
Hello Haredi and thank you for your nice response
It seems to me that you and I share a common worldview. I would love to correspond with you as well Not publicly. Please write to me, if this is good for you:
ivrit.yuval00@gmail.com
Hello Haredi and thank you for your nice response
It seems to me that you and I share a common world view. I would be happy to correspond with you in public as well. Please write to me, if this is good for you:
ivrit.yuval00@gmail.com
Hello Yuval
Regarding life after death, in the sources of Judaism the whole matter was reinforced mainly by the Kabbalists, according to Rambam the whole concept of reward and punishment is a "false" concept, also the whole matter of the resurrection of the dead does not take on a simple meaning.
Maybe in this matter we were influenced by Christianity and Islam, I personally would rather it all end here and now, of course I have a fear of death, I'm also intrigued and wondering if there is something, even if there is I won't feel and think about it, because my body is dead, so what? It's interesting that I never thought about it, there are things I do and live in it and not at all aware and feel that I'm in the wrong
I know that Rabbi Nachman of Breslav said that whoever comes to his grave he will take him out of hell, I know that Rambam said that there is no such thing as hell and heaven, interesting
what do you think
Hello Yuval, today I was away from the computer for several hours.
Michael
In any case, democracy needs protection from the secular just like the ultra-Orthodox, the difference between the ultra-Orthodox and the secular is only roughly that the ultra-Orthodox does not see democracy as a value and the secular has some who may, but in everyday life the prosaic ultra-Orthodox is democratic and law-abiding and contributes to society, I think you have exaggerated a bit, you are making us animals of prey It's just not accurate within Ami Anochi, there is a big gap between what is written in the sources and what happens on a daily basis, you have to differentiate between the ultra-Orthodox on the street and the ultra-Orthodox parties and how they present themselves, and even there, in the end, everything is done within the framework of the law and within the framework of democracy.
I'm not going to defend the situation today and the leaders, I completely agree with you that the situation needs serious reform, I'm trying to defend the ultra-orthodox person, we are human beings and brothers, let's not get carried away.
Regarding work: I don't understand the research, I just took my family from my side and from my wife's side, from my side, my father, my sister and I are self-employed above average salary, my brother and two sisters are employees close to average salary, my brother teaches at a yeshiva a hunger salary, my brother-in-law studies half day half day Marketing manager average salary, two other brothers study in yeshiva. On my wife's side, one brother-in-law is self-employed, a second brother-in-law is employed, a third brother-in-law is studying in the kollel, around the synagogue many people I meet are working, it is true that it used to be less, and even today there is such a notion that they do not work, but it is becoming less and less, the trend is positive.
There is an abysmal difference between the religious and the ultra-Orthodox regarding the state, the religious does see value and importance in the state that it be a Halacha state, the ultra-Orthodox has no interest in a Halacha state but to disconnect from the state and separate religion from the state, this is fundamental, the problem is the hypocrisy of some of us that where there is a deep pocket the hand is pushed There, and the problem is that it is in the name of religion, etc., and it is said that it is not a thieving rat but a thieving bastard, the problem is systemic, we must separate religion from the state.
I am not sure that the State of Israel is a safe place from anti-Semitism, I do not know how to research it, but the State of Israel is a dangerous place for Jews, and there is also an indirect effect of the state's policy on what is happening all over the world. On second thought, it could be that the State of Israel only caused damage to the Jewish people in terms of anti-Semitism and deaths, if the State of Israel had not been established, there would have been fewer Jewish deaths during the Second World War, I count the casualties of Israel's systems and the attacks.
There is no similarity between the State of Israel and France, no matter how you spin it, we are an immigrant nation, who behaves unfairly towards the resident people, and it doesn't matter what we think, it matters how the world sees it, and the world sees us as a foreign occupier.
I don't see how you preserve a Jewish identity, without Judaism without certain customs that distinguish the Jew from the rest, but you have no interest in preserving identity, and you are of the opinion that there are no nations but individuals.
Regarding the Law of Return, I don't understand what it means, I know that it causes suffering to many people and not only from the Nazi aspect, but from the everyday human aspect, and it's probably complex, but ACP is within the framework of the law and democracy, also the budgets for the ultra-Orthodox and everything you claim is within the framework Democracy, the ultra-Orthodox in general is law-abiding, you outrage me, and it's not so much from the point that I'm defending the ultra-Orthodox situation, but from the point that your words are disconnected from the field, but we are to blame because we cause all of this with our "outspoken" behavior.
It's okay to fight in the ultra-orthodox establishment, I also agree with you on some things, but all of this should be within the framework of law and democracy, and within the framework of fairness and honesty, although I think it's wrong to educate like this in general, but an individual can choose the path he will follow, and within the framework Democracy allows a person to choose what lifestyle to live and a person can choose to live a life of hardship and poverty, and since democracy allows for a welfare policy and the ultra-Orthodox is law-abiding and pays taxes and his debt to society, democracy allows him to enjoy welfare budgets, and there is nothing immoral here, you can fight it and change it In a framework that allows but not out of hatred and unfairness.
thanks Michael
I loved “[Avi Khol] grabs a mouse and a keyboard” 🙂 and Harini gives you credit even though Abi Blizovsky preceded you.
My mother gave me my name even before I was born. Interesting anecdote: I am not a musician, but all my children hold a bow or play on the piano keyboard.
By and large, you are right in your common demand for many and the best of us (who are getting fewer and fewer, unfortunately) for a country worthy of human habitation. However, I believe that it is not appropriate to hijack the original discussion for a certain narrow unrelated matter.
Moses (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305591):
Since I did not rely on Thales in formulating my positions - I have no need to return to him.
I determine my positions based on the facts I meet in reality and not based on quotes.
A nickname with a spelling error of evil (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305592):
I guessed in advance that you wouldn't understand.
Jubilee (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305593):
It's time to stop this arrogance.
No one here is a politician, but every sane person who does not flee the country should make sure that it is fit for human habitation.
As for the afterlife - once after a friend pressured me to read a book that tries to promote this nonsense claim - I wrote a review of the book on Amazon - a review entitled The kind of hoax that motivates suicide bombers.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R27MSJUJ1A01EO/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0671657860&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=
This vanity belief is one of the horrible beliefs that make people despise the only life they have and others in favor of life (literally) in the next world.
Later I also had the opportunity to write an article on the subject on the science website:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-soul-exist-2501098/
This is not the subject of the article, but since you asked...
Jubilee (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305595):
I don't think that people who comment here only comment so that yours won't be boring.
I personally don't mind boring you if I think my words might bring someone back to the right path or prevent their deterioration.
As for your question about the link - this is something that any mouse and keyboard user (notice what a wonderful play on words - Yuval - the father of every violin and organ user) can do.
Just right-click on the # sign above the comment and select the option "Copy link address"
orthodox (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305620):
It is clear that not all secularists support democracy, but it is true that all religious currents except the reformers oppose it.
Just a few examples:
"Advise and sew" is really the anthem of the law-breaking settlers.
"...and we pray to the Lord of the world, please free us from the curse of the new democracy sent to the world. Because only the Holy Torah is true democracy." Rabbi Elazar Menachem Man Shech (Leader of the Lithuanian ultra-orthodox movement), Book of Letters and Articles, Part Five, XNUMX
"We must remember one fundamental thing - the entire Knesset is against the Torah. The very thing that people stand up to and declare that they are the "legislators", this is against the Torah from heaven....even if they vote in the Knesset in favor of holding mitzvah, this is against the Torah....all the laws that people believe from their hearts, with a majority vote one way or the other, this is it against the Torah. The representatives in the Knesset are our "lobbyists" [and despite being members of the Knesset] there is no recognition of the existence of this institution called the "House of Legislators". Rabbi Chaim Shaul Karlitz (from the rabbinical data of the Lithuanian public), from a review of Yad Na'eman 31/05/00
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3969208,00.html
Although there is a difference between the ultra-Orthodox and the national religions, the difference is only in the method by which they try to establish a Halacha state.
For example - Rabbi Moshe Zvi Naria - founder of Bnei Akiva, once said about Israeli democracy (and I quote): "We don't have tolerance, we have patience!"
In other words - he gives the process more time but his hope is that it will happen.
In another place, he expressed his sympathy with the following opinion: "The five-pointed raised hand in lawlessness and the ways of the Gentiles] means the secular founders of the state, 7], with no trace of the true holiness of Israel, which covers its clay with the slag of fake nationalism, with the grain of history and the affection of the language [...] He is about to be turned into a destroyer and a monster, and in the end as well into the hatred of Israel and the Land of Israel, when we have already seen from experience […]. Without the light of the Torah, it is impossible to buy the pure nationalism that befits a holy nation, and a different nationalism will turn into a blasphemy" [Channel XNUMX, Deuteronomy in memory of Moshe Zvi Naria]."
http://www.inn.co.il/Articles/Article.aspx/5202
There is no lack of moral arguments for our being here and there is no need to invent a "Jewish culture" (which in my opinion, apart from religion, does not symbolize anything) for this purpose.
I have already written about this a lot in the past, but the simplest thing is to ask yourself why the French do not need any moral explanation for their sitting in France.
You can find an example of the answer I gave to the question here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/taub-report-on-unemployments-among-ultra-ortodox-jews-and-arabs-1404100/#comment-267747
Personally, I think that the state is a bad thing.
This is true for every country because countries - like religions - create artificial differentiation between people and as a result cause wars, but since there is antisemitism - the State of Israel is necessary.
It is actually the only country that has a real justification for its existence.
It does not add differences between people but only gives the existing differences defensible boundaries.
Of course, the ultra-Orthodox establishment's takeover of the Law of Return invalidates the only justification for the existence of the state, and today there are hundreds of thousands whom the Nazis would have murdered because of their Jewishness, but the State of Israel does not grant them citizenship because they are not Jewish enough for the ruling ultra-orthodox sect.
my previous response (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305666) is directed to NEACKNAME, but is open to all
Let me explain.
a) When a certain topic is discussed, and in the course of the discussion its definition changes or that from the beginning it is defined to be undefined, then it is a fruitless discussion.
b) In Buddhism, for example, life after death is not the derivation of the entity from section (a). This is also the case in many mythologies, old and those that are still revered, each of which hangs the Halah on a different factor.
I believe that almost every one of us has the desire to live from time to time, and the mere knowledge of certain death clouds the mood of the owner of this desire. Therefore, I believe that this is why the belief in Hala developed. From my familiarity with religions and mythologies I can testify that it is shared by many more religions than the belief in the subject of section (a) and therefore it seems to me that this is the main and important belief.
And I ask again, and not only you: Is there life after death or not?
Thank you Avi
Hooray! Employee!
https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305593
https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305595
https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305616
When explained slowly I understand quickly.
But wonder why my comments dried up for so long. I launched them around 11:00, and at 14:43 they were still waiting. If it's because of work load, then that's a good sign and I welcome it. On the other hand, I think it's worth updating the stored vocabulary and/or upgrading the blocking program. So far, my blocked comments have been released eventually.
jubilee:
"In the eyes of many believers, God is transcendent and therefore distant. Since its definition is flexible, the debate about its reality and function is fruitless. However, life after death is a topic close to the hearts of many people, including those who do not belong to the religious crowd." –
I didn't understand how it could be that the debate about God is fruitless and his possible derivation to life after death is not fruitless?!!
Each response has a title, simply copy the link from it.
Yuval, you must have written a reserved word.
September 12, 2011 at 10:24 am#
Amit Hadzadik
Again I don't get relevant answers:
1.- I said that the interpretation of the Bible is the product, not the generator - I am not bringing it as evidence, but it is certainly possible to learn at a deeper level what is said in it and gain insights - but not proofs
2. Quote "I guess a few more years of research is good and we will also solve the "God question" and dismiss it as nothing more than a neurological disorder" - I wonder why you state that yours is permissible to assume and mine is not - your sentence can be reversed to the other side and therefore it is meaningless
3. You are right about the religious education (I assume) but the same can be said about the "enlightened" secular education.
4. Quote: "Your demand to prove the non-existence of God is ridiculous and I assume you know it" - again, I am not demanding to prove anything from anyone - but I am talking about the possibility of an expanded reality - that this possibility cannot be contradicted and I brought the gaps of realities as evidence - And for that again I don't get a direct answer.
As far as I'm concerned, existing or non-existent are equal in their strength - therefore the burden of proof is not only on me.
5. Thank you for the correction - that's not what I meant (certainly short of knowing his will) - but I meant that this is the nature and nature of the matter - what would happen if we could achieve it with complete knowledge/acceptance - there was no doubt
And this is my interpretation of Adam's first sin - after all, what did he already do? - ate an apple?? - No - but transgressed the will of God - meaning he created a new and expanded reality for the first time - God's will does not exist (paradox) - and here is the meaning of their eyes being opened, - no more "knowledge" - but the first person (whether the story is simply told or narrated to illustrate to us the matter according to a system of concepts that we can grasp) - brought/discovered/expanded the reality of "doubt" in the world.
To see a new reality = their eyes were opened.
Regarding religion/god/faith and its "destructive" effect on the environment and in general on humanity (as you imply in my imagination) - you ignore the fact that the actions were done by people - and not by religion.
It's like I would blame the Enlightenment and the science it brought about for the most catastrophic disasters on humanity and horrors on a massive scale (remind me - also World War 1 and 2, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, global warming, cigarettes, radiation, cancer - the incidence of which in the Western world has only increased AIDS - all this is religion or in the name of religion?!!)
Human behavior is responsible for the horror, not science or religion. - What if those who do not act out of hallucinations and harm the environment?! (Einstein, Oppenheimer and his friends probably had to be neutralized - these Jews again...)
You think that religion should also exist in terms of utilitarianism - according to the system of concepts you live in - who determined that this is so, who is trying to interpret God's will?
The religion and the mitzvos, etc. - are (according to me) a human development for God's will (even if God commanded directly - his words were processed into the human system of concepts) and one of the ways to express the meaning that it exists is the religion and the mitzvos.
A note and clarification - to all the mishmachabat (those who paste the name of the machabat) - all the things I say are according to my opinion and point of view and represent only me and I assume that they do not at all reflect or are accepted by the religious (although I assume that there are certain launching points in the perceptions)
Michael
If I understood you correctly, your fear is about the issue of democracy, and the division you made seems too extreme to me, it's not that the secularists are democrats and the ultra-orthodox are anti-democrats, as you said, democracy should always be fought for and among the secularists as well, [it's interesting that someone here suggested joining the fascist Lieberman], especially in the country With security problems and control over a foreign people, and the ultra-Orthodox are not anti-democrats and anti-science and progress as they are portrayed, which is true that the ultra-Orthodox do not see democracy as a value and certainly not a supreme value, but with democracy as a practice of life the ultra-Orthodox have no problem with that, on the contrary. I live in the wonderful ultra-Orthodox community, and what you see from here you don't see from there.
On second thought, I am indeed not sensitive enough to the other side - the secularists, when a person sees his relatives drifting after what is foreign and alien to him, it is indeed a disaster for him, I would not stand for it, the truth is that it is easier for me to think that my son will return in question XNUMX, than to put I put myself in secular shoes and to think that my son will repent, is much scarier.
Personally, from my ultra-orthodox position, I do not see any value in the state, and perhaps the other way around, I treat the Israeli government like the British mandate without any priority, the mitzvot of the return of the land of Israel is not related to the state, and even regarding this mitzvah the judges are divided, even more than that, it seems to me that the land does not belong to the people , and in particular not according to Rashi's words at the beginning of Genesis, which explicitly says that it is impossible to claim ownership of the Land of Israel. Even more than that - the people of Israel never ruled the land, perhaps for a very short period of time, on a very small piece of land, while many other nations lived within the territories of the Land of Israel.
This is my personal opinion, but in a more general view, perhaps there is significance for the defense of the state, to preserve Jewish culture, a culture that connects the people to the land, so that there is some sort of acceptable moral argument for us to be here and some sort of motivation for the people to stay here, and just in general to preserve the Jewish identity, Therefore, there may be a place for some kind of "religious" legislation, I'm not saying what and how, but it seems to me that it would still be complicated to preserve a Jewish identity and nation without any connection to the Torah and mitzvot, and the ultra-Orthodox or the religious have a role here, although it may be that they It is not filled properly, but that is not my personal opinion.
editorial board!
Am I blocked?
Michael
Fortunately, everything is written here, and the symptoms of the syndrome are not noticeable.
This particular response was an attempt to imply to Hakima that he was boring.
And she asked me: Can an ordinary commenter bring a link to a certain comment, as you did, or is that also a privilege of the members of the editorial board?
For politicians and other debaters and interested parties
The subject of the article is theological, and with your permission I would like to divert the discussion back to the philosophical-academic layer.
I believe that religion embodies a factor that influences even more strongly than belief in God, and that is the belief in life after death (and the eternal punishment or reward that awaits the believer after the end of the excise life).
In the eyes of many believers, God is transcendent and therefore distant. Since its definition is flexible, the debate about its reality and function is fruitless. However, life after death is a topic close to the hearts of many people, including those who do not belong to the religious crowd.
Please give your opinion, ultra-Orthodox and secularists. Is there life after death? Does our behavior in this world dictate our eternal destiny?
It is clear that this also has enormous implications for politics, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from this disgusting abomination.
Michael Hatzadik:
You said: "What is the best way to protect the country, improve its economy, increase the welfare of its residents and more.
In this question - the goal is shared and there is a dispute about the best way to achieve the same goal:
How is this different from the dispute with the religious-Torah political concept?! - It can be said that the abolition of democracy in their view is also a means and differences in approach on the way (and not the goal) to achieve the same goal you dream of - (the best way to protect the country, improve its economy, increase the well-being of its residents)
With your words, you slander an entire public as if its purpose is not to "protect the state, improve its economy, increase the welfare of its residents" - the fact that I also think they are on the wrong track is no less than my complete lack of trust in Israeli politics and in those who are supposed to represent the people.
Michael. The one who established science in its current form was the first philosopher Thales. He led to giving up the stories of mythology with the gods and strove to understand the world with the help of reason and logic alone. The debate between religion and science today needs to go back and understand Thales' choice. In other words, is it still possible to combine imaginary stories and logic.. :)
Amit Hadzadik
Again I don't get relevant answers:
1.- I said that the interpretation of the Bible is the product, not the generator - I am not bringing it as evidence, but it is certainly possible to learn at a deeper level what is said in it and gain insights - but not proofs
2. Quote "I guess a few more years of research is good and we will also solve the "God question" and dismiss it as nothing more than a neurological disorder" - I wonder why you state that yours is permissible to assume and mine is not - your sentence can be reversed to the other side and therefore it is meaningless
3. You are right about the religious education (I assume) but the same can be said about the "enlightened" secular education.
4. Quote: "Your demand to prove the non-existence of God is ridiculous and I assume you know it" - again, I am not demanding to prove anything from anyone - but I am talking about the possibility of an expanded reality - that this possibility cannot be contradicted and I brought the gaps of realities as evidence - And for that again I don't get a direct answer.
As far as I'm concerned, existing or non-existent are equal in their strength - therefore the burden of proof is not only on me.
5. Thank you for the correction - that's not what I meant (certainly short of knowing his will) - but I meant that this is the nature and nature of the matter - what would happen if we could achieve it with complete knowledge/acceptance - there was no doubt
And this is my interpretation of Adam's first sin - after all, what did he already do? - ate an apple?? - No - but transgressed the will of God - meaning he created a new and expanded reality for the first time - God's will does not exist (paradox) - and here is the meaning of their eyes being opened, - no more "knowledge" - but the first person (whether the story is simply told or narrated to illustrate to us the matter according to a system of concepts that we can grasp) - brought/discovered/expanded the reality of "doubt" in the world.
To see a new reality = their eyes were opened.
Regarding religion/god/faith and its "destructive" effect on the environment and in general on humanity (as you imply in my imagination) - you ignore the fact that the actions were done by people - and not by religion.
It's like I would blame the Enlightenment and the science it brought about for the most catastrophic disasters on humanity and horrors on a massive scale (remind me - also World War 1 and 2, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, global warming, cigarettes, radiation, cancer - the incidence of which in the Western world has only increased AIDS - all this is religion or in the name of religion?!!)
Human behavior is responsible for the horror, not science or religion. - What if those who do not act out of hallucinations and harm the environment?! (Einstein, Oppenheimer and his friends probably had to be neutralized - these Jews again...)
You think that religion should also exist in terms of utilitarianism - according to the system of concepts you live in - who determined that this is so, who is trying to interpret God's will?
The religion and the mitzvos, etc. - are (according to me) a human development for God's will (even if God commanded directly - his words were processed into the human system of concepts) and one of the ways to express the meaning that it exists is the religion and the mitzvos.
A note and clarification - to all the mishmachabat (those who paste the name of the machabat) - all the things I say are according to my opinion and point of view and represent only me and I assume that they do not at all reflect or are accepted by the religious (although I assume that there are certain launching points in the perceptions)
Jubilee (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305536:
Sometimes I get the impression from your comments that the "written/oral" structure that exists for the Torah also exists for the Tort.
This syndrome is usually recognized only by its oral manifestations.
orthodox:
I must say that I am thrilled by your responses and the openness you show.
The fear between the left and the right is different.
In fact, it consists of several types of fears, each of which has different reasons and a different meaning.
The first debate between them basically expresses their answer to a practical question:
What is the best way to protect the country, improve its economy, increase the welfare of its residents and more.
In this question - the goal is shared and there is a dispute about the best way to achieve the same goal.
This is indeed a critical question and the fears in it stem from the fact that we do not want to be forced - due to political considerations - to take steps that we believe will worsen our situation.
It is a legitimate fear that at one level or another is a fear that there is no way to avoid once a country is made up of many individuals.
Other fears on this level are related to different goals (and not the best way to achieve a common goal).
Here the situation is more difficult because beyond the question of survival there is also the question of whether I even want to live in a country that will survive and fulfill the goals of the other side.
This type of difference is often motivated by religious considerations, so I will explain the fear of it when I talk about the fear of the ultra-orthodox.
The ultra-orthodox express different goals than mine. Goals, one of the most important of which is the abolition of democracy.
I'm not talking about you personally but about the formal streams.
In fact, this is a common goal of all religious currents except the reformist current.
Everyone wants to establish a halachic state here (which by definition is not democratic because it is not humans who set the laws) and the differences in their ways are differences of the type I described in the first part - that is - in choosing the best way to achieve this goal.
Some are breaking the yoke of democracy right now and some are playing the game in the meantime until the goal is achieved.
In my opinion, the abolition of democracy is a red line that must not be crossed in any way because even if our generation wants (statistically) to give up its freedom - it has no right to give up the freedom of future generations - and if democracy is abolished, it will be impossible to return it without a violent coup.
Democracy - if it is not defended - can lead itself to destruction.
This is what happened in Nazi Germany.
The Nazis rose in democratic ways and abolished democracy.
To defend against such a possibility, the term "defensive democracy" was invented.
It is a form of democracy where anti-democratic political activity is prohibited.
Because as mentioned - the goals of the religious currents are anti-democratic - parties striving to achieve the goals of these currents should have been outlawed in a defensive democracy.
If you pay attention, you will see that the parties that are currently playing the game also deviate from democracy in places where they feel they can.
In a democratic society there are no classes that are dictated by politics, but in our society there is a class that works and deals with the defense of the state and there is a class that is exempt from all of these.
It is not democratic - even though it was achieved in "democratic" ways.
In conclusion, I would emphasize again that some of the differences between the goals of the left and the goals of the right are based on religious differences.
Some of the goals of the right - such as that of the "complete Land of Israel" or that of not dividing Jerusalem - are goals that stem from mainly religious considerations.
Hello Michael
I repeat after a lot of thought about your words, there are some things you brought up that are indeed problematic for me, and I don't understand them in Judaism, on the subject of God things are quite clear to me except on the subject of the people of Israel, the prophetic tradition.
I also thought about your fear of the ultra-orthodox, and I didn't understand what is different from the fear of a right-wing person from the left and vice versa, it's all politics and big parties vs. big, small vs. small and these vs. these, it actually seems to me that the fear between the left and the right is much stronger and more existential than the fear of religion, not like I understood what you were shouting about, but this is politics, and that's fine by me, this is the way of democracy
Nicene: mahbat and dalta are two words for the same essence. Like, for example, liar and cheater - two words with the same meaning.
It is not possible to know with certainty about all the possible things that do not exist - like a dragon or fairies or elves, goblins and the like. So what ? Those who assume their actual reality are seen as delusional. Anyone who does all kinds of acts, thinks that the imaginary creature enacted laws or gave "commandments" and also fulfills them is already defined as a "religion victim".
And for a more substantive reference: 1. Why exactly is the Bible or the Torah used as evidence?
2. No I will not explain to you what imagination is because I assume you know exactly what imagination is even you have it. Regarding illusion, yes, you are right. Obviously, the answer to what man creates for him is not found in the brain and there are already the first hints of this in the study of the brain which is at the beginning of its beginning. I assume that a few more years of research are good and we will also solve the "God question" and dismiss it as nothing more than a neurological disorder. Here is the stimulus that creates the illusion.
3. I don't know if you are from PAT or MDL. I responded to Michael's words. There is a situation where you are like that. But maybe not. What does it matter, really? The fact that Michael and I differ stems from the fact that we did not join the religious melting pot that suffers from the problems of a dogmatic, rigid education plagued by skepticism, criticism, etc.
4. Your demand to prove the non-existence of God is ridiculous and I assume you know it. You can't prove something that doesn't exist. Whoever claims its existence bears the burden of proof.
5. Regarding God, a matter of principle: if you claim that he is beyond definition and recognition, then he is not relevant. When you claim that part of his "desire" is that we don't know his existence, I really shudder and suggest that you consult a professional. Try to find out for yourself how you know what the will of the one who has no definition and cannot be known.... You still "know" certain things about him. from where?? God is not relevant at all and the discussion about him is unnecessary and fruitless. We do not discuss what does not exist.
What else ??? The matter is not so simple and innocent. After all, behind this lies the assumption that the same undefined and unknown thing has a connection to the world: He created it, He chose a people, He gave it laws, He communicates with certain people. There is already relevance here. When a person hallucinates and begins to act in reality in accordance with the hallucinations and harm the immediate environment and other people, action must be taken. That's why I asked what exactly you claim about this god? that it exists? OK. Well and...? Is there a transition? Let's discuss this and assume that he exists (between the 2 ears of the believer only...). So what do you claim beyond the existence of God who is connected and belongs to the reality of life??
NEACKNAME
You come here with faith in Hashem like Daniel to the lions' den. Almost everyone here is looking to devour the believers without salt. Glad that you are alive and that your faith has not diminished, and the lions in the group will be waiting in the wild for the next victim.
Give me one argument that I haven't specifically given my opinion on - and I'll give you ten that you haven't responded to at all...
I explained to you that you convinced me that you are not trying to understand and therefore it is a waste of my time.
How many times do you expect me to try to explain to you only to discover that you have no regard for the things I say?
Michael the dear and R. H. Rafaim
I am surprised that your reaction is only towards her and not towards "Mishnati" - I thought that among the Doss it was forbidden to ask or make claims of "heresy". . .
But okay, I'm just getting reinforcement from it (and probably others too...)
For Niknak and fans of the genre
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXhBmEloYxE&feature=related
: )
Sausage:
When you say that we do not decide because A means A and B means B, you are treating us as one person.
Imagine if I told you that you call yourself a Nicene and Aryeh Deri calls himself Aryeh Deri and therefore you do not know how to decide you are not called and your judgment cannot be trusted.
Even in that case, wouldn't you understand how ridiculous this behavior is?
The same is true when you expect one consideration from us.
Please continue to entertain us
Joel:
You're wrong, but it's really a waste of time.
We have the real idiots to argue with and we waste our time on each other.
To be clear: I really think you are wrong. I really think that the one who has a reading comprehension problem is you - I just think it's a waste of time.
That's why I also avoided using insulting expressions until the moment you came to the conclusion that you can't do without them.
sausages
If you want your words to be treated the way they deserve to be treated, as you expect, then my suggestion to you is that you interpret your doctrine on this site:
http://www.jokes.co.il/
Michael
Indeed, reading comprehension. The following sentence is not about influence, but about attitude. Introducing the complex concept of "equal rights and opportunities" into the discussion of that period is an expression of slight anachronism.
This is not what I said about the kings, but I mentioned that the kings according to Judaism are "worth" less than other kings. Fact.
Even within the aforementioned inequality there are different degrees. For example, an unequivocal demand for judgment according to the case and not according to the attribution of one of the parties; A demand for tolerance towards Grimm and much more.
I didn't say you stepped forward. They did not fabricate a single God but it was a continuous process in the overall system of belief in the world at that time. After all, there was an attempt at such a belief in Egypt as well and there were other things, such as two gods according to Zarathustra - not really far from the formation of the Jewish faith.
If it is not clear to you why in the ancient world, and in fact until recently, belief in a power above man was self-evident, you have a fundamental flaw in the development of man, the state, society and his knowledge of the world around him
Differences between people according to various components have existed since at least the dawn of written history, that is, the ancient civilizations - something like at least 6000 years.
What a secular country and what shoes. If everything that has happened to humanity is perceived by you in contemporary terms, you should call your anachronism to order. He really freaked out.
You are confusing, fundamentally, between a fairly new set of concepts with a really new application - and between these are thousands of years of all the other cultures.
Judaism's legal system was very advanced for its time in many essential areas. women? Do you know what the status of women was in the capital of wisdom of the ancient world, Athens? Priesthood status? Do you know how important it was to the Egyptians? Or with the Mayans?
I thought that only ultra-orthodox Jews were unable to understand history in its course and context for reasons of the structure of the faith. I was wrong.
Dear Michael said:
"Sausage Sausage:
One person accuses you of a crime.
Another person accuses you of a crime b.
And you cheerfully tell the person that you put together person A with person B that he does not know how to decide.
keep us entertained.
By the way - for your information (and I assume you know this from your personal experience) - a person can be a philanderer and a philanderer (and an idiot) at the same time"
First of all, reading comprehension: - I did not address "a person" - but I said "your judgment"
And again, your conversation and answer reminds me of a XNUMX-year-old (former convert) - that there are no substantive answers, moving to other lines that do not directly attack the problem / claim, but the one who raises it
You still haven't directly answered any of my arguments - if you're tired or you don't have an answer, this is also a way to end a discussion without getting personal (and there's another thing thrown in here that people don't speak from emotions)
Avi,
"Nick Nim, there are no emotions, you simply renounce your need to prove the existence of something you invented and demand others to prove its existence out of thin air."
– Something I invented?? -And who exactly am I demanding to prove his existence out of nowhere?????!!!
I asked them to prove that it is impossible for God to exist =/or that a reality more extended than the world of our concepts and perceptions is not possible - I claim that this also requires proof or contradiction.
Joel: Make a distinction between "denying God" and "denying the possibility that he exists".
The example you gave is not relevant - your concept of God is an attempt similar to what is done in the Bible and its incarnations to describe a connection/phenomenon of an expanded reality with tools from the narrow reality.
I brought evidence of the possibility of differences between worlds of concepts and perceptions - and throughout history new realities were discovered that changed the face of human perception (there were many existing realities in human history - that the term ultraviolet, cell, ribosome, atom, etc. - was not relevant and existed, but Since things were discovered, consciousness and human reality were expanded)
According to me - God cannot be proven - because the lack of "knowledge" of his reality is part of his will otherwise what would be the purpose? - After all, even at Mount Sinai - the people sinned, because they had the option of choosing
The knowledge that passed on the people in Sinai is equivalent to our familiarity and our connection with the Creator
I would be happy to have a direct reference to my claims (including the previous ones) and not just to answer me about general things
Yoel:
It's really exhausting.
Question: Who talked about influence?
Answer: Yoel talked about influence.
Proof: "The fact that the leading figure is a creator of the world means that kings, for example, are just ordinary mortals, which is a great step forward at that time."
I remind you that this whole stupid debate started from this wrong statement.
To remind you: the kings can be "ordinary mortals" only when there is such a thing as "ordinary mortals". Otherwise the kings are at most "unusual mortals".
So don't tell me you didn't talk about progress in the direction of equal rights and opportunities.
You said that the Bible took us forward in erasing the differences between the king and the rest of the people and I showed you that it didn't.
Before they invented the only God - the king was not the only God (because they hadn't invented the term yet).
After the fibruk - he or someone else was in many cases the messenger of Almighty God.
Nothing fundamental has changed under the influence of the Bible.
And what is an essential thing? An essential thing is a step in the direction of equal rights and opportunities.
I didn't claim it was an ancient thing.
I argued that before this there was no substantial step in the direction, despite your presentation of the Bible as a substantial step of this type.
So now you're saying you didn't say that at all?
What can I answer to such a thing?
Da?
Also regarding the last thing, I understood what you wrote better than you understood it when you wrote it.
You talked about how people are the ones who create the classes and religion is not to be blamed for that.
I say that is not the face of things.
In secular countries, there are no positions of the type that you so lauded the abolition of which did not exist, and I suppose that if you check, you will find that there are actually people in them.
In other words - humans can create a fair and logical social structure.
Of course, they can only do this when there is no religion (and religion is, as we know - a system of rules of behavior attributed to a superhuman origin) that prevents it.
Judaism's legal system prevents this - whether through the definition of the status of the priesthood, whether through the treatment of women, whether through the treatment of gentiles and foreigners, or in other ways.
Sausage Sausage:
One person accuses you of a crime.
Another person accuses you of a crime b.
And you cheerfully tell the person that you put together person A with person B that he does not know how to decide.
keep us entertained.
By the way - for your information (and I assume you know this from your personal experience) - a person can be a philanderer and an idiot (and an idiot) at the same time
Nikanii: "Looking at reactions that are factual and not motivated by emotions, disgust and fear of anyone who destabilizes your calm world..."
Here is an example of a perfect reversal. In the Olympics you would get more than 10. Isn't it, if there is a God, the last thing anyone would want is to loudly claim that he is gone, both because he went to hell and mainly because of the damage to his immediate interests.
God, as we know - and he said it many times and also proved it - he avenges and monitors; So why come out as a buffer against the existence of such a being? And you further imply that the calm world is the one that denies God...
Besides, you should decide: in a discussion like this, are we dealing with the inner world of the person? After all, if so, what does that have to do with science? And on the other hand, what does this have to do with the existence of such a great being?
As of now, as they say in court, you have not lifted the burden of proof. More than that: you didn't even approach her.
Nick Nim, there are no emotions, you simply renounce your need to prove the existence of something you invented and demand others to prove its existence out of thin air.
Dear colleague Amit HaTzadik and Michael:
How can you trust your judgment if you can't tell the difference between Mechabat and MDLAT and MKLAR...?!
My main argument is this: that it is not possible to know with certainty that there is no God any more than the certainty that there is. What is God? - I am short of defining. What does it mean? - As above (probably I haven't delved into the subject yet).
Michael said: "Neackname:
All in all, you came back and proved that it's a shame for me to invest any more time in you.
You're just a stupid little brat and you're not interested in understanding what's being explained to you. Repeat and explain."
This is a sentence that is easy to write, but it does not reflect a factual answer and is more suitable for the language of the Pans (or the Syrians or whatever you want to call it) - every explanation you repeated and explained did not touch the point - you continue to bring examples from within the framework of our concepts - you have no ability A centimeter to see beyond and you are not ready/able to accept the possibility of a reality with a more developed framework of concepts - even though I brought proof that indeed there may be different systems of concepts in reality.
Again, give me proof that a paradox cannot exist in any reality
Amit HaTzadik - You probably didn't follow what I said about "the book".
The book is a product - and not the generator - and it is possible to accept it as evidence if you go into the depth of the things written in it.
The book does not claim that there is a God more than the existence of the book.
You said imagination, illusion, invention - can you describe and explain what imagination is? If I manage to understand the process, maybe I'll come to the conclusion that I'm imagining...all these words are empty of content for the matter I presented
Illusion - is the closest word - but every illusion has the same factor. In an illusion, a mistaken feeling is created due to a mistaken reaction to an existing stimulus - there must be some stimulus that will cause the "illusion" - what determines whether the feeling is indeed mistaken or not? - You probably won't be able to judge (After all, you still live in the "illusion" that I create)
I don't understand how I deteriorate into religion more than your lack of factual answers?
Looking at comments that are factual and not motivated by emotions, disgust and fear of anyone who disturbs your calm world...
NEACKNAME
The Bible is a human creation, and its leading claim that it was written out of communion with divine reality is no more valid than the conversations held with the gods of Olympus. or thanks to the Hinduism. Or my jaw connection, like it was yesterday.
I refrain from referring in this place to the whole matter of the relationship between the creator of the world and the intelligent creator and between his people who did not really want him and who were not too impressed by him, and on the other hand were chosen to be a chosen people. It does not belong to the topics of this discussion and does not belong to this hostel. And if, after all, a universal creator is involved in this, either something is fundamentally flawed in it or it is an invention of someone who has appropriated the relationship with God.
One way or another, what you say is a late interpretation that attributes to the divine essence matters beyond earthly reality. What to do, that's not what it says in the original. According to the standard of the Mishkan, the standard of the sacrifices, the intervention at the day-to-day level in people's lives, practical activities and more.
The biblical God is much more "advanced" than the gods that were around, but it is still a being that exists every day and solves everyday matters - and generally "corresponds" with you. Philosophy, infinity and other matters were not relevant then.
Moses knew God, Jeremiah was in contact with him on a regular basis. Basic concepts such as the nature of sacrifices are completely different. The God of the end of the First Testament is different from that of the Exodus, and certainly from the one that followed.
And so in Judaism, in a close context: the world to come and Satan were not in the beginning, they certainly started to circulate after the Babylonian exile and Alexander's conquests.
Not to mention the characteristics of God according to the Rambam, for example, which have nothing to do with the being who speaks to Abraham, or the one who came in a dream to the king of the Philistines. Or the one talking to Balaam.
Of course I'm not contradicting myself, you just didn't understand. I argued that if the universe needs a beginning that originates from someone else to the universe, this principle requirement can be contained on God himself who someone created.
Not one principled claim that it is impossible for such a successful world to exist and it was not created by someone else (including the watchmaker, etc.).
According to this, a wonderful being like God, who is much more than a sophisticated watch and even more valuable than this world - all the more so.
Michael there is more than a hint that NEACKNAME is a degenerate (degrading to religion which is a more correct and proper phrase than repentant....) but I hesitate to answer him lest, God forbid, an innocent surfer who reads his words will be influenced and deteriorate, God forbid.
Nicene tries to convince that God is a reality or a fact that exists beyond the space between his two ears (where he definitely exists). However, he agrees that God cannot be defined at all and that God is beyond our perception, our knowledge and our ability to check and verify his existence. If so, how does he claim his existence???????
All we have is this book which is placed in the Ark of the Covenant and which constitutes the fundamental book of our people. This book tells stories and conveys insights and, among other things, claims that "there is God" (I have a cramp....). A-B-L everything that makes God exist is faith alone without a shred of evidence. If there are already enough hints and moreover that this book is not divine and cannot be divine. The book contains contradictions, mistakes, duplications and duplicated stories, and more and more people are doing doctorates on the subject. It is clear that God Almighty exists only between the two ears of the believer and even the "divine point" was found in the brain, where he was created "God". Beyond that, we are in the realm of this belief, which is synonymous with illusion, imagination, invention, and the like.
To Michael
Who talked about influence? I was talking about expressing things.
Again: reading comprehension. I wasn't talking about humans, I was talking about the place of the ruler, and I was also referring to progressive laws. Where did the idea come from that you or someone in that period influenced the equality of value and opportunities of human beings? These are ideas that have, in part, a history of 200 years, maybe a little more.
I didn't say he solved any problem in this area. This is absurd. I mentioned that it has advanced elements.
And about the last one, again a problem, but it's probably me. I argued that these matters are generally human characteristics, which found expression and guidance by the Tanakh but are also found in other cultures and in other places that had nothing to do with the aforementioned work.
The meaning is that it's not the lion, it's human society.
True, since a part of human society created the Tanach, then these things have an expression in it as well.
I hope I managed to phrase it correctly this time.
Joel:
There is a difference between reading comprehension problems and comprehension writing problems.
The Bible describes (at least in part) different chapters of the history of the people of Israel.
Every passage that was written - was written - obviously - after the period it discusses was over and can, therefore, only affect what happened after it.
As a rule - the ability of the Bible to influence the period of the Bible is limited.
What you say at the end of the response is exactly what I have been saying all along: the Bible had no effect on the matter of equal value and opportunities for human beings.
This, as mentioned, is the opposite of what you said at the beginning of the debate.
After all, I also did not say that the Bible created the problem and the first time you tried to put these words in my mouth I repeated and made it clear.
I only said that - contrary to your claim - he did not solve the problem.
The matter of mentioning humans is, in my opinion, a rather ridiculous thing.
After all, it is clear that if there were no humans, the Bible could lie like a stone that cannot be turned without causing damage (and by the way - the concept of "damage" would not be defined in such a case either).
This, of course, is also true of hallucinogenic drugs and atomic bombs.
Nickname:
All in all, you came back and proved that it's a shame for me to invest any more time in you.
You're just a stupid little brat and you're not interested in understanding what's being explained to you. Repeat and explain.
"Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak purchased a new BMW and is looking for a buyer for his Audi 6."
Disgusting, and after that they ask why it is necessary to separate the state from religion, the connection of the state to religion destroys every good part, destroys and takes out the pure and holy in religion, if we do not come to our senses in time, religious Judaism will be eliminated, the budgets and associations blind the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox and they do not notice that the process of self-destruction has begun and with a grant under the auspices of the State of Israel budget
To Michael:
1.
Once again I see that you do not get to the bottom of my mind and only reinforce my words-"we are talking about electrons and ultraviolet-" solely because of their existence and by existing terms that we have obtained with our minds or by recursion-the fact that you cannot see them does not indicate their non-existence of course And the analogy is clear
2.
God cannot be defined as a name that we cannot perceive or define black that is white, yes that is not, etc.
Part of his definition - which is not definable in our system of concepts and perceptions. - If I could define him, he would not be God.
3. You said:
"Even if there is such a reality (and in my opinion there is not) its existence cannot be deduced from logic. Only experimental findings can indicate its existence." –
Reality has nothing to do with "in my opinion" - (and why is your intuition better than mine?) Also, an experiment will not be able to indicate the existence of a reality to which the laws of the experiment do not apply - that is, the experiment will be carried out with tools that you define or that are defined in the world of our perceptions - who said they are free validity?
Beyond that - the knowledge of God or anything at all is not possible - after all, there is nothing in the world that is 100% understood by the mind
That's why it was mentioned in the Bible "And the man will not see me and live" - and even Moses did not reach the absolute achievement
This is the essence of the tree of knowledge - until the first Adam did not eat from it there was no reality of sin in the world - how is it possible for there to be a reality that goes against the will of God? Can God create a stone that he cannot lift? - It turns out that there is such a reality - and it is the idea that the eyes of Adam and Eve were opened and they knew that they were naked - until they were exposed to sin, such a reality did not exist wider than the world of concepts that they lived in because of their sin, their world of concepts was expanded that there is another reality that God does not exist with 100% knowledge - And this is the divine reality.
Therefore, blind from birth is the closest example to perceive gaps in reality and a limited world of concepts. - Anyone who does not recognize that the world of our concepts and perceptions is limited - is an infidel in reality, and if there is no certainty that is possible and has a higher probability than any alternative theory - (It is interesting to see that according to your world of concepts - Precisely the believers are unbelievers and it's interesting why one should disbelieve in something if it does not exist with 100 percent knowledge...)
4
I don't understand where the quote from my statement came from: "The fact is that in response to the question "Why is there anything at all?" You settle for the answer "because from the beginning there was already something much more complicated and much less understandable".
- If I were required to answer this question, I would answer: - Because it is God's nature/will.
5
"Don't try to convince me through logic that there is a reality where logic does not rule."-
I claim that there is a wider reality than our range of absorption (who is more enlightened?)
Probably at this stage the sighted man will despair of explaining to the blind - what the color red is, which the blind can understand with his logic that he is limited even though he does not understand what he is limited to.
- Why can't you understand?!
6
As for my sweetener, this is logic. that there must be a wider reality than perceived - and if this does not agree with you, refute the argument
Paradox exists = paradox
Joel:
1.
The expression - "stale book" - was not used by me - but a repetition of Michael's words
The Bible is a human creation that was influenced by a connection with divine reality - after all, in the Bible itself God tells Moses to write this Torah - that is, there is a process of interpretation of reality by a human being who certainly tried to connect the people to their God through human tools - there is no In this to contradict the religion in itself which is not the words of God - because this is the closest representation we probably have.
The most influential book on the history of mankind (and this is a fact) - probably has no place with the term stale.
"The biblical God is a different being than what we are talking about today" - no, our interpretation is different and has developed or retreated. - And it is clear that there is a difference between the perception of those who were closer to the knowledge of God (Abraham, Moses, the desert generation) and the later generations
Regarding the sentence:
"It's really not clear why the beginning needs a beginner who is an entity; According to this principle, that entity also needs a beginning
...the point is that according to contemporary knowledge, what was not available in other times, allowed the universe to start from "nothing" - and for that it does not need something that preceded it. "
You contradict yourself in the sentence - why does this being need a beginning - if according to contemporary knowledge: "allow the universe to start from "nothing" - and for that it does not need something that preceded it. ?!
God does not need a beginning - and therefore it is exactly God. - and it is good that contemporary knowledge recognizes this.
Yoel
Your every comment just adds wrong information.
Islam does not claim continuity but primacy. Muhammad did not found Islam but only rediscovered it. This was the religion of our father Abraham, and there is also a reference to it in the book of Genesis (Chapter XNUMX, Verse XNUMX) "Malchizedek, King of Islam (in the Pentateuch in our hands it says "Sholem") brought out bread and wine and he was a priest to the Most High God, and he blessed him and said, "Blessed is Abram to the Most High God, the ruler of heaven." And the land" This episode is not mentioned in the Koran, since Muhammad forbade wine, but Abraham is the first Muslim.
The fundamental principles of Judaism that you speak of are those of Rabbinic Judaism. Rabbi Akiva rejected the worship of the priests in the Temple and forbade reading the external books that tell about the priestly ceremonies. In his day, Christianity was already an existing fact.
Even if the word "holy" does not appear explicitly, one can see, for example, that the dynasty of the House of David is holy by virtue of a divine promise. The Bible was rewritten many times, and the sanctification of the kings was erased from it. But the priests of Jerusalem before the time of King Josiah made a very good living from holiness and sanctification.
And you probably didn't understand that the sentences I highlighted were not mine but a copy-paste from your previous comment.
But all this is not the main thing, but my stupid care for the little ones. The main thing, as you say, is the people, and in that I agree with you.
To Michael
I talked about the Tanach, and the Tanach is a collection of books bounded by time - and I referred to that. If there are problems with reading comprehension, I'm sorry.
Also later there is a problem. There is no arguing that Christianity and Islam claim continuity. My claim is that these claims not only have no basis in the original text, but they fundamentally contradict what was said in the original, especially in Christianity. What to do and the Holy Trinity, since God has a son, the claim that he atoned for the sins of the world by crucifixion, etc., stand in total opposition to the fundamental principle of Judaism.
In principle, all people can be equal even though there is a God and they will have different opportunities. However, this has never been the case and it has existed in any culture, Tanach based or not.
How is it that none of the hypocrites pretending to be creationists have yet noticed that three stars came out?
Amrod...:
Let's start with the fact that I don't know that they were not written by an ultra-Orthodox.
I'm just guessing that. I'm pretty sure of that, but I don't know who wrote it.
Now - what affects people is not who said but what was said.
The presentation of the Omer as ultra-Orthodox can be interpreted as a stupid "artistic device" but it has no contribution to the content of the matter.
The description itself - whether it was given by an ultra-Orthodox or whether it was written by someone who was fed up with the ultra-Orthodox - is a correct description of the situation (for some ultra-Orthodox only roughly and for other ultra-Orthodox precisely).
In your opinion, does describing true facts deserve to be called incitement (and another wild incitement)?
After all, the problem is with the facts and not with their description!
Joel:
I don't think our argument is really important.
You were talking about the Bible and now you say you meant its influence on the Bible period?
It doesn't quite add up.
But it can be said that you were actually talking about the Torah.
The point is that, as mentioned, both Islam and Christianity accept it.
you say no They say yes.
Another matter is that it is really not important because it has nothing to do with these and other religions but for purely logical reasons - the assumption that God is above all does not result in equality between humans - just as in the army the Chief of Staff is above everyone but nevertheless there is a difference between a private and a general.
After all, what is important is not the fact that everyone is called a human being (something that was probably true throughout history, with the exception, perhaps, of the time of Nazism) but the demand that all human beings have equal opportunities.
Yuval Chaikin
"I believe that you were not accurate in these words: the gods were higher than the kings - unless the kings were raised to the rank of gods, which was an accepted situation in many places in the great civilizations. There are no saints in you and this is a Christian invention. The basis of Christianity is opposed to Judaism.
Most of the kings of Judah were raised to the rank of saints after their death, as it is written in two places in the Chronicles: "And they burned a great pyre for him", for King Asa; "And they did not make a fire for him with his people like the fire of his fathers", about King Yehoram.
Ancient Christianity precisely parts of the temple worship. In every church there is an altar on which wine is poured, as the priests did in the Temple in Jerusalem."
————————————————————————————————————
The gods were superior to the kings, but kings gained divine status upon their election. Indeed there are no saints in you. Indeed, the basis of Christianity is contrary to Judaism - where are my inaccuracies exactly, or approximately. I don't know that I claimed otherwise.
The kings of Judah were raised to the rank of saints? From where to where? There is no such thing in you.
Copying modes of worship is one thing, different principles of the Godhead, the status of original sin, the essence of Jesus, and more that are fundamental are quite another.
To Michael
The fact that Christians claim that they rely on the Bible is exactly that: a claim that they do so. But they don't. If they really did that, they would not be able to market the new religion in the world with such success.
Regarding the invitation: I was referring to the time of the Tanach - and not to Judaism in later stages - and I pointed out that unlike other cultures, and because of the uniqueness of the biblical God, there was no place for human beings who were given one or another divine status. That is: kings are less than they have been considered elsewhere.
The matter of St. Harry does not belong because of the completely different time and because it concerns completely different principles of Judaism, certainly in this context which is the Kabbalistic context.
If these things were written by a non-Orthodox hand, they are wild incitement.
Although you present their credibility as flawed but confirm that their content is true.
Joel:
Regardless of the fact that there were saints in Judaism, as Yuval pointed out, and as the name "Harry the Saint" indicates, the saints of Christianity are also a good example for me.
After all, the Bible is also accepted by Christianity and therefore the saints and Gods of Christianity testify that the Bible does not prevent the elevation of certain people to special ranks - even to the point of divinity.
After all, I did not claim that the Bible created the phenomenon. All in all, I wanted to debunk your claim that the Bible abolished the phenomenon!
The castes are indeed a horrifying phenomenon, but my words were aimed at lifting them from the people of individuals and not at the issue of classes.
Mordechai Shalulita:
Indeed, the content of the words is true, but the claim that an ultra-Orthodox wrote it is a false claim and damages the credibility of the content in the eyes of those who doubt it.
This is a phenomenon that I encounter a lot - inserting one lie into an accurate presentation of facts and thereby screwing up everything.
I remember, for example, an excellent presentation on anti-Semitism that I had to not pass on because it included - in addition to the many important facts - the false claim that the English removed the material about the Holocaust from the curriculum.
Here too - one lie lowers the credibility of the rest of the claims and results in the presentation doing more harm than good.
Yoel
I think you are not accurate in these things:
The gods were superior to the kings - unless the kings were raised to the rank of gods, which was an accepted situation in many places in the great civilizations. There are no saints in you and this is a Christian invention. The basis of Christianity is opposed to Judaism.
Most of the kings of Judah were raised to the rank of saints after their death, as it is written in two places in the Chronicles: "And they burned a great pyre for him", for King Asa; "And they did not make a fire for him with his people like the fire of his fathers", about King Yehoram.
Ancient Christianity precisely parts of the temple worship. Every church has an altar on which wine is poured, as the priests did in the Temple in Jerusalem.
To Michael
The Torah is a collection of books that include fascinating stories, excellent writing from a literary point of view, advanced legislation, along with fundamentally flawed things from a moral point of view, lots of contradictions, incoherence, excessive detail in some places - just like in life. The language in my opinion is wonderful.
The gods were superior to the kings - unless the kings were raised to the rank of gods, which was an accepted situation in many places in the great civilizations. There are no saints in you and this is a Christian invention. The basis of Christianity is opposed to Judaism.
The Bible is really not the only factor that exists in our time that prevents the treatment of certain people as "just another human being". It is a very important principled basis in this matter, but there are cultures that have nothing to do with Tanach and even there that is the way things are (India and the castes).
And the main thing: these are the humans who behave like this.
An ultra-Orthodox did not write, not an ultra-Orthodox wrote. What does it matter who wrote or who thought. The numbers are correct, the picture and the writing on the wall
The responder will respond:
I also received this several times by email and I replied to the sender that I do not believe that an ultra-Orthodox really wrote it.
I will respond to the commenter
In the big cities of China, having more than one child per couple is against the law.
With today's technology, it is not difficult to maintain this law.
Is it possible to legislate like it here as well?
When religion and archeology meet: the ultra-orthodox fear of the Enlightenment disappears
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1241177.html
I just got it in an email
Relevant or not, the politicians among us will decide and react
Avrach's quote online
The state built me a house for free and also pays me a salary
1) The state built special neighborhoods for the ultra-Orthodox, where my wife and I "bought" a 3-room apartment when we were 20 years old after we got married. The state also made sure that we did not take out a mortgage, but funded us a fund for the ultra-Orthodox from which we can take a "loan" that we will pay back "when we can with the help of God"... At the moment the monthly repayment is 1200 NIS per month for our own apartment.
2) The state pays me an income guarantee because I am a priest registered in the yeshiva - 2800 NIS every month.
3) The state pays the yeshiva millions, and the yeshiva gives me a monthly grant of 1800 NIS
4) We have 7 children, and the state pays us 3000 NIS in child benefits
5) My wife and I do not officially work, so we are exempt from property tax, taxes, health tax, etc.
6) The children attend Torah education, which the state also funds for us, including a hot meal and free transportation.
7) I work in black as a driver for some ultra-Orthodox businessman. Earning NIS 3000 a month on the side like that.
8) My wife works illegally as a babysitter, and earns NIS 2200 a month on the side.
In summary, every month 12800 NIS comes in net, clean... And the only debt is 1200 NIS per month for the apartment.
Ahhhh……bless us…… Righteous people, their work is done by others."
The friars are not dead, they are just changing and currently sitting in protest tents!
Joel:
Everyone and his taste.
I don't remember enjoying or learning anything from reading the Bible.
In any case, my words when I spoke about the stale book, were aimed at the Torah.
Wherever there were gods - there were humans - including the kings - inferior to them. Not only in the Bible.
On the other hand, the Bible also did not prevent certain people from rising above others - whether by reaching the status of saints or a religious establishment or even - in Christianity - reaching the status of a god.
The Bible is actually the only factor that exists in our time that prevents the treatment of certain people as "just another human being".
Michael
Indeed, there are texts in your book that are horrifying in description and worse: in the moral field in general, that which is led by the God of mercy and grace in particular. The matter of the masterpiece does not refer to these contents - after all, there are also contents that are a sublime masterpiece - but in the context in which I wrote: as a human creation.
And this includes both stories, and the presentation of characters - certainly their combination. The binding of Isaac is a crazy idea in every respect: principled and experiential. However, the story itself is a literary masterpiece (see Auerbach's Mimesis, Chapter 1). See how such a highly regarded figure as David is presented in the Bible - and even how God is presented.
The biblical God is neither who knows what his abilities are, nor does he have human weaknesses, nor can he be manipulated by humans (or the devil, in the case of Job).
The Tanach is not of one piece - not only in its historical longitude but also in the different messages (including different lines to the character of God) and also in the four sources that make it up and in many cases some of them are intertwined.
The Iliad and the Odyssey are human masterpieces, yet some of the basic principles there are completely wrong.
The Tanach is much more than that, for better or for worse in its messages but also in its other qualities.
In some cases, it is really great when there is a meaningful plot "hole" in the stories. Like the three days when Abraham and Isaac went to Mount Moriah or the laconic reference in which we learn that Abraham and Sarah were no longer together at the end of their lives, or the judgment on David because he did not know Abishag.
In the acts of legislation, all of which are God's goshpanka, there are also extremely advanced elements. In general, the fact that the leading figure is a creator of the world means that kings, for example, are just ordinary mortals, which is a huge step forward in that period.
And above all: the Tanach must be read in its historical, cultural and conceptual context - including its advanced sections and including the first ever commandment to genocide or divine murder.
Joel:
There are interesting texts in the Bible and there are horrifying texts.
Factually - this is one of the deadliest books ever written.
The things written in it are not true, but the intention (the malice of) their author was to be understood as truth.
I don't know what is so exemplary about him.
The word "miracle" is sometimes used in the meaning of "example to follow" and sometimes in the meaning of "miracle". I don't think that an enlightened person of our time would allow himself to write a book that is even remotely similar to the Bible, so it is not a masterpiece in that sense, unless we want to repeat the exercise of hoaxes on a global and historical scale.
Is it a miracle?
Not to me.
NEACKNAME: "First of all, I don't understand what a stale book and why you call God. - I don't think that knowledge about God began with the Bible or God as you imagine - the Bible is at most a description in human concepts and tools to connect the reality of God with the threshold of perception the human".
In my opinion, the Tanach is a human masterpiece, certainly not a stale book. Which does not give what is told a truth value. Even in very mundane events, he is not closed about what happened and why; The opposite (look at the book of Joshua and try to find out if the whole land was conquered and if so why not and what are the reasons for that even though it was not).
The biblical God is a different being than what we are talking about today. It is indeed an abstract entity, but it is revealed to people, actively connected to their lives and embodied in a visible way - and see the meeting with Abraham, including the portion of meat and butter or to contrast its much later description by Ezekiel. His presence among the Israelites in the desert and his involvement has nothing to do with the same God we are talking about today.
It is really not clear why the beginning needs a beginning that is an entity; According to this principle, that being also needs a beginning; Or, in the lady's triumphant proof to Bernard Russell, that the world rests on elephants - "there are elephants all the way down there".
The point is that according to contemporary knowledge, what was not available in other times, allowed the universe to start from "nothing" - and for this it does not need something that preceded it.
If you want to bring God into this business (big bang, etc.), it means that you are introducing something that does not belong to this system. The one who really needs it - will both be perfumed and tell one thing about himself: he is the one who needs it.
NEACKNAME:
Not crossing the threshold of logic, huh?
Can you point to one thing I said that doesn't make sense and what doesn't make sense about it?
Allow me to answer for you: you cannot.
The only situation in which my words will not cross the threshold of someone's logic is that there is no such threshold - something that results from the absence of its entity the threshold of logic is supposed to be a threshold.
Let me help you figure out what stale book I mean.
I mean the Torah.
The word "God" was not used before Judaism.
It may be that you decided to call soccer shoes by the name "God" but in this case - you have no reason to expect people to understand what you are talking about.
Define to me the God you are talking about and I will tell you if I think he exists (as mentioned - if you define him as yellow cheese or as the inequality of averages - I will agree that he exists. If you define him as the creator of the world who did not know that the rabbit does not rummage, I will tell you that he does not exist, If you define it as an indefinite thing I tell you again to define for me what you are talking about if you expect any reference).
When you explained the dragon thing, I saw that you understood what I was talking about regarding the recursion.
I promise you that any definition you provide for God - if you provide a definition - will have exactly the same properties.
Regarding the colors - you did not understand what I said at all.
After all, everyone is talking about infrared and ultraviolet - colors they have never seen.
Everyone also talks about electrons they haven't seen.
Maybe you still didn't understand what I said with the recursion.
Do not try to convince me through logic that there is a reality where logic does not rule.
It's a stupid attempt doomed to failure.
Even if there is such a reality (and in my opinion there is not) its existence cannot be deduced from logic.
Only experimental findings can indicate its existence.
Your odds calculations really don't interest me.
Your intuition, so far, has not proven to be something I should consider.
The fact is that as an answer to the question "Why is there anything at all?" You are satisfied with the answer "because from the beginning there was already something much more complicated and much less understandable" indicates only the same irrationality that I opened with reference to.
After all, if this is your answer - the question immediately arises "Why is there anything at all?" Which (see it's a wonder) is exactly the same question you pretended to answer.
Certainly the word "God" has an effect.
Lots of people have already died because of the madness hidden behind this word.
A lot of people also died because of the "superiority of the Aryan race" which does not exist.
What this even belongs to the discussion between us is not clear to me.
What you presented as "math" at the end of the response is not math. It's just hashing signs. I tell you this as a mathematician.
Michael-
Certainly there is no chance that I will understand you if your logic does not cross the threshold of logic for me.
First of all, I don't understand what a stale book and why you call God. - I don't think that the knowledge of God started from the Bible or from God as it is depicted in you - the Bible is at most a description in human concepts and tools to connect the reality of God with the threshold of human perception.
- It may be that for you God = Zeus and your entire system of concepts regarding him are material and human - therefore they are from all the words and attributes that pass in recursion to us - and therefore he is not possible for you because he is outside your system of concepts
But who said that because we fail to contain something in our perception system it does not exist?
Apparently you really don't understand the end of my mind if you brought up the example of the maiden's cloak - two terms that I understand, know, and can put together in my head and understand the meaning of the connection between them - I can't put it together in my head: "it is possible that is impossible" "creates everything and is not created "
Do not compare phantom pain with being blind from birth - phantom pain is a pain felt by someone who previously had a limb and not someone who was born with a limb, a person blind from birth will never be able to understand what color is, and if theoretically we were all blind - the word blindness as we understand it - would never exist penetrates the threshold of our consciousness. (And would that mean that we are not blind?)
To build devices that will help us see colors that we are unable to sense - this is the same as a blind or deaf person who through surgery began to see or hear - and therefore is not an example related to the matter I presented
Again, everything mentioned by you above does not create any new concept of meaning outside of our system of perception and understanding
For me, the recursion functions in a way that what I think must be based on something that exists - every imaginary thing is a connection of concepts from a system - the concepts we live in - the concepts exist but the connection created between them does not have to exist (such as a dragon built from a system of concepts familiar to me: head of a snake with wings and a tail and teeth and spits fire - each term that by itself exists separately the connection between them does not).
If you say that God does not exist - this definition itself is proof that he exists - and I mean God as he is perceived by me and it may be completely different from what is perceived by you.
The very talk of a paradox (not the dry word - but the meaning) - means that a paradox exists
You are talking about words and physical experiences - and I am talking about the possibility of a world with a framework of perceptions and concepts that is outside our limited reality - that in such a world there can exist a paradox of black being white, yes being not, etc.
Can you let me describe a color you haven't seen? - not only that you can't even think of it.
There is no proof that God exists in exactly the same way that he does not exist - and the possibility that he exists is perceived by me as all
way more than the chance that something started from nothing and randomly led to our creation and writing these lines.
You have no explanation of how the singular point was created - it had to start from something that started from something = in our system of concepts it must start from something because we live in terms of beginning and end - (or infinite beginnings) - and if it can be argued that it has always existed - with me there is something that was before it Despite the paradox
And this is the brevity of God for me.
We can ask why we think we should have a relationship with something outside of our frame of perception? - in the same way we can ask why a blind person needs to understand what color is?
I think that everything that exists must have an effect on something - look how much this thing called God (or we called him God) - affects the writing of all these words, both yours and mine.
I think that the gap between our perception system and the blind's = the gap between our perception system and the divine.
A blind man sees.=God's knowledge.=Paradox
A paradox exists = a paradox. = God's existence = God's existence exists. - Of course, you can give the opposite sweetener, but the meaning will remain the same -
A paradox that does not exist = paradox = an existing paradox = the non-existence of God
Hope you can give me the sweetener better.
NEACKNAME:
You convinced me.
But not in what you wanted but in the fact that there is almost no chance that you will understand.
There is nothing different in the definition of God than there is in the definition of Zeus.
It comes to your mind through words that are written in some stale book and all the words were defined in the same recursion that I talked about.
Of course, when you come to use these definitions to attack the existence of God, then he immediately becomes "undefined" for you.
It's his invisibility cloak (another phrase that describes something that doesn't exist).
There are many things that are really not defined in this god.
Either because part of his definition includes internal contradictions (he is both merciful and nerdy as well as vengeful and vigilant) and because some of the attributes are not addressed at all in the same legend.
You can talk about all these things just as you can talk about an unfamiliar color.
In fact, actually, much less because we know the mechanisms that create the sensation of color better than the mechanisms that create hallucinations (although we are slowly making progress in this as well).
That's why we can build devices that allow us to discover that insects see colors that we don't.
The progress in brain research is only now beginning to understand how (following which malfunctions) mystical sensations are created in the brain.
An interesting part of what is known about this appears in the book The God Impulse by Kevin Nelson.
It should be understood that this does not impair the understanding of the things by the people involved in them.
They really feel with their senses things that don't exist - just like those who suffer from phantom pain - their hand can hurt even though they don't have a hand.
All of the above, as mentioned, is just an expansion - in the form of a lyrical digression - for the benefit of those who try to understand at all, but the principle remains as it was - every word we understand is understood - in the end - based on sensations we feel directly.
to a colleague
And it has already been said by whoever said that if the ants had created God for themselves he would have been a super ant.
Regarding creation, the matter of "being out of nothing" is almost in the status of the apple that Eve ate and gave to man. An apple does not appear in the story, but it does appear in Christian paintings.
Below is the announcement
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was in confusion and confusion, and darkness, on the face of the abyss; And the Spirit of God, hovering over the face of the water."
There is no "no". There is a country in a chaotic state that needs to be put in order - what happens with the sky and the separation between the water and the land, to create the sea - there is an abyss in the country, and above that it turns out that one thing already exists: the water. God did not create the water. Indeed, on Monday, when he separates the water from the earth - he does not bless. One way or another, there is no creation of the basic material in the saying.
And this is also one of the signs of change: "there is nothing" and similar concepts did not exist then, but they did develop later. And so God, the Creator, has always received the most advanced human expression of superpower.
Then there was the infinity thing and today he is an intelligent planner.
God is in a continuous process of being upgraded by humans. After all, they wouldn't want to leave their Numero Ono with lesser degrees and abilities than what is offered to them by the recognition and knowledge that advances over time.
Amit the Tzadik,
Let's go back to the word you mentioned - "healthy" - and now let's understand according to the recursion that Michael mentioned - how it rolled into our consciousness:?!
"We understand these words for one of two reasons: (in this case the word creation = creating something from nothing)
1. Or we experienced their meaning in a combination between our senses and the experience (which we also experienced with our senses) that the things we experienced people usually call by these and other names.
2. Or they defined them for us.
If you defined them for us - use the words.
These words also make sense to us for the same two reasons."
Now again before we jump in and say that creation is made up of the couplet: there is - out of nowhere - familiar and well-known concepts (which we will also put into recursion and find out what the meaning of is and what is not) but their attached meaning is a metaphysical meaning that we cannot think of out of nowhere (literally).
Joel is also possible to add that in front of a clear physical perception of God that fulfills God, he becomes abstract later on. Indeed evolution at its best. Cultural evolution of human ideas.
Anyway, who said there is no "health"?? Only faithless secularists and liars. Certainly there is creation as it is written in "Encyclopedia Galactica, vol. 1, p. 55: " In the beginning man created the gods. In his image and likeness he created them. And man multiplied on the face of the earth and as the image of the people the image of his god. And man created his God and saw that it was good..."
Michael,
Harry Potter, Zeus, Ashtoreth, etc. - their essence is a story - and are not within the scope of anything that innovates something in the world of concepts and terms in which we live - all the descriptions are taken from living and kicking reality
Harry Potter = a boy (knows the term) connects to him the other familiar concepts such as birthmark + shape of lightning + black hair + the word story = there is nothing new and we have not renewed any concept
- Even if they created a statue and worshiped it - the statue itself was composed of existing forms, also the beliefs that it is responsible and has a connection to the fate of those who work it - an idea that is still tolerated within the terms and concepts in which we live.
you said:
"Impossible things are simply impossible." - This is only because it contradicts and is outside the set of concepts that Ben Inosh is able to grasp - we are not able to grasp the reality of "yes and no" life in one submission
We are unable to contain the logical fallacy that God can create a stone that He cannot lift
All because we live within a limited framework of concepts.
I will simplify it: - blind from birth - cannot perceive the term color (and I mean exactly the way we perceive this term)-
The framework of terms and concepts in which the blind lives = why we feel towards the lack of understanding of the possibility of a logical fallacy.
The blind from birth is unable to understand what exactly he is limited to and his whole world picture.
Additional examples - a person with no innate ability to sense pain - will never understand what pain is, will never understand what a fragrance is, etc. and a deaf person will never enjoy Mozart
This is where the recursion you mentioned only comes in with the word and the meaning of God/Almighty etc.
- I mean that because at some point humanity experienced a connection to the Almighty - then this connection must have occurred
Now before you jump: the definition "Almighty" is also made up of existing words and concepts - this is true, but the new essence created by combining the words and its meaning is a concept that was subject to what created it
Make an attempt - try to describe to me something outside the framework of known concepts, try to imagine or describe a color that you have never seen, try to describe a smell, a taste that you have never been exposed to. - That is why I do believe that if we talk about something of substance - it has an existing meaning and at the very least it cannot be given with certainty can conclude that it does not exist
Anyway - I'm not talking about God in terms of religion at all
to NEACKNAME
The thing with God, in the Metuta from him and the believers in God's Word, is that he has undergone evolution.
He who appeared, created, spoke to people, did deeds, made demands, interfered in history and family life, is a certain type of being.
The point is that later on - with the fact that he no longer appeared so much, that the things he said about the way the business is conducted didn't really work, and especially when additional elements were added (i.e. Ahura Mazda vs. Ahriman) and also Greek philosophy went from Athens to the "world" - he passed Changes. Thus, for example, the devil came as the one who represents evil - then the business is not really monotheistic.
Isaiah [XNUMX:XNUMX], in order to maintain the principle, stated that God is also responsible for evil. It doesn't fit with other things, but nothing in this business fits with other things - which proves that there is a God but He is incomprehensible to man who cannot perceive Him. And this is proof that we are dealing with something truly beyond us.
Both because of this and because of other things, later more was needed, and not for nothing philosophers tried to give it completely different contents - including self-contradictory infinity, treating the world as a system that cannot exist without God, and more. Just think about the influence of Greek philosophy on the Rambam's perception.
In the end, science arrived, and among other things took from God his two sources of authority: the creation of the world and the creation of life.
Therefore, God at this point in his career became an intelligent creator who created microevolution sometime after organizing the big bang.
The situation at this stage is simple: the source of knowledge about God is in one book that tells about his revelation; Later, this entity was clothed with other contents according to the period - its level and needs. The God of today is not the God of the past, nor the one who was at the very beginning.
What remains to be ascertained is only what he thinks about what is being done to him and what he intends to do about it.
There is a communication problem (eye above) but with God's help we will manage. And even if not, your eyes see that arrangements and excuses for the situation are not lacking.
One way or another, the combination of an institutionalized system that controls human life (religion), education, the fact that science is unable to help the frightened human soul in day-to-day life and also in the great things (such as life, the universe and everything else) guarantee longevity to God at this stage.
and we shall say amen
Amit:
You didn't mean it but you proved my point.
They don't say hot sun but they do say superstitious faith and the reason is simple: not every faith is superstitious.
NEACKNAME(https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-305017):
Kudos to you for the full quote of my response.
Now you just have to understand them.
How about Harry Potter?
He also has a fan club.
Does he exist?
And if you want to dismiss Harry Potter for some reason then what about Zeus? What about Ashtoret? What about Baal or Seth or Osiris?
The fact that something can be talked about does not mean that it exists (you will find further clarification of this in my response https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-303265 ) But the situation with God is much worse: even talking about him logically is impossible because he is really undefined.
That is - in the Jewish religion it is indeed defined, but when someone dares to rely on this definition to deny its existence - the religious immediately jump in and say that it is not defined.
It does meet the criteria you presented that a "creature" that contains the possible and the impossible in one subject can be both defined and undefined at the same time, but this "definition" does not even need anything external to be disqualified because impossible things are simply impossible.
Yoel
I'm not talking about people's interpretation of that event (= religion?), I'm interested in whether the above recursion is valid in God's aspect?
Does the fact that we are discussing whether it exists or not has any meaning - after all, we are not discussing the existence of "fun YouTube/icon" that I just scribbled on the keyboard - just like we wouldn't be talking about dinosaurs if we hadn't discovered their fossils 300 years ago and just like the blind from birth That he will never want to see the view from the window.
You haven't experienced it. You learned about him in a community that maintains a very long tradition of belief in a higher power, and this higher power was also revealed - according to that tradition and its written expression - to people, who otherwise would not have known of its existence.
Everything else is a system winding around itself trying to find new ways to confirm this myth, a necessity in light of too many problems with the source, too few answers in the face of other matters.
This whole section of God who is infinite but is an object of appeal and did things outside of himself - is the fruit of late ideas as above. This is what happens when you want to dress late philosophical principles on a completely different kind of being.
Sorry to burst into an open door:
Michael Rothschild said:
August 25, 2011 at 19:55 pm #
.
"
I must say that I am really amazed by the debate that is going on here about something so elementary.
We use words.
We understand these words for one of two reasons:
1. Or we experienced their meaning in a combination between our senses and the experience (which we also experienced with our senses) that the things we experienced people usually call by these and other names.
2. Or they defined them for us.
If you defined them for us - use the words.
These words are also understandable to us for the same two reasons.
This can be expanded a bit, since we can also invent words ourselves and therefore we can decide to give a name to a certain sensory experience ourselves or define our own definition. But it doesn't change anything in terms of the following consideration:
Since each definition takes a certain amount of time and since we only live from the day we are born, the recursion of definitions has an end and all definitions are ultimately based on things that we understand in the first way.
This.
This is true for every word - including the words we use in mathematics.
What is not clear here?!!!". - end of quote
The word "God" - we understand it or experience the existence of the word and its meaning - for 2 reasons
1. Or we experienced its meaning in a combination between our senses and the experience (which we also experienced with our senses) that the things we experienced people usually call by these and other names.
2. Or they defined the word for us.
Is this recursion valid here? - Without something experiencing God, could he express him in some way or conceive him or his idea out of nowhere (and I don't care in what religious context or not)
And the example given about the non-aggressive dragon - a combination of tail (familiar) + sharp teeth (familiar) + green color + tongue of a snake - is not something abstract
An almighty God who contains the possible and the impossible in one bow that is nowhere but exists - I can't contain it in my mind but nevertheless the thought of him as such stole into my head - is it because I experienced him or is it because he was defined to me that way?
And last on the topic of faith: "Superstition is a baseless and baseless belief that has become widespread among a certain culture or society." Indolence is immanent to faith as heat is immanent to the sun. They don't say the sun is hot, but the sun, and it's clear that it's hot, so there's no need to say that. So at the end of the day, any faith, whatever it is, is insipid. This is different from knowing.
When we use the words in this way and in this sense, we understand that the various religious assumptions that lead people to perform various actions such as: keeping kosher, Shabbat or tefillin because there is a God who commanded it, whether the goal is mystical like "establishing a relationship" with God or rational - carrying out the mitzvah because it was commanded ( in the style of the Leibowitzian approach) is an assumption based on faith (superstition) because it lacks foundation and foundation. The view (faith) that there is a God and I can turn to him in prayer and even influence his actions and reality through prayers is all based on faith (prayer).
When I perform "secular" actions such as connecting to a mask and an oxygen cylinder when I dive in water because I know that I cannot breathe in water, I do not believe but know and perform the actions out of knowledge.
And I was just kidding...
In politics, honesty is an extinct species. Please have plenty of insurance.
Amit:
The Wikipedia definition of faith does not, in my opinion, reflect the common usage of the term, but I can get along with you because it is consistent.
I particularly like the sentence "Belief is related to the concept of "truth" and "correct". Man's faith defines the method for determining the truth by man. In this sense, there is a difference between a direct approach and an indirect approach. According to the direct approach (which often corresponds to religious beliefs), belief directly determines the truth. According to the indirect faith (which characterizes, among other things, modern science), faith defines only the tools for finding the truth (for example: belief in the validity of sensory experience as determining truth), while the truth itself is determined in another way.” which I have already had the chance to use in different variations of it myself.
By the way, there is a contradiction between Wikipedia's definition of belief and its own use of this term when it defines knowledge:
" Knowledge is a person's certain recognition that a certain claim is true. This is different from assertion, which is the belief that a certain fact is true but without certainty."
jubilee:
Indeed, I personally approached Lieberman with some suggestions because what is important to me is the issue itself and not the party.
It may sound strange coming from a "leftist" like me, but I think Lieberman is not only charismatic, but he also has intellectual honesty and the ability to push things, and therefore - even if I disagree with some of his approaches, I definitely see him as an excellent partner for promoting the issues we both believe in.
I already had the opportunity to discuss my proposals (briefly) with Danny Ayalon and we have more meetings planned.
Lieberman is anti-Orthodox and charismatic. Maybe ask him to join? He will also bring with him quite a coalition...
Regarding faith, I believe that there is a fundamental and essential difference between the words: "knowledge" and "belief" and knowledge is not a "particular" case of faith but something completely different. Since the words are a human creation and therefore summarized it is necessary to check what their common meaning is and what we mean by using them. Maybe we'll use a wiki that reflects some kind of overall agreement.
1. Faith: "Faith is a feeling of certainty that does not derive from empirical proof. In many cases, the experience of faith is involved in an inner conviction that is deeply connected to the believer's perception of reality, therefore many times contradictory evidence is not enough to dissuade a person from believing in something... usually faith fully or partially involves an irrational dimension of thinking.
For example, the statement "Mom's refrigerator is white" is not a belief, because the information about the color of the refrigerator was received by the sense of sight, transferred to the brain, and compared to the previous sensory and linguistic information about colors until the statement that its color is white is received. This statement is considered to be objectively correct, and empirically proven (experimentally)."
You can see the entire entry in Wiki, but there is another sentence that defines the difference between the religious and the secular view:
"A secular view assumes faith as the primary determinant of human life, while leaving the rest of human knowledge to sensory experience. This sensual experience is achieved through direct means (watching events, for example), through communication between people (for example: reading a newspaper in order to understand the world), or through systematic means, mostly called "science". These sensory means are the components, according to the purely secular concept, of human knowledge, and mediate faith and knowledge."
According to Wiki, knowledge is: "A person's certain recognition that a certain claim is true." This is different from a hypothesis, which is the belief that a certain fact is true but without certainty."
Hope I'm clearer.
Regarding culture and education: Israeli culture is part of Jewish culture. Like the Jewish heritage that we must know and study. Of course, this does not come in place of or at the expense of scientific, rational education that includes criticality and skepticism. In fact, traditional education must be - from a methodological point of view - secular, that is, the tradition must be studied from a critical and skeptical position and not, as I have already emphasized, from a faith-religious position. It is possible to learn that there are prayers in the religion of Israel, but there is nothing to teach and let children pray in school. This is the intention.
The Jewish heritage certainly includes the religion that was the main thing in all human civilizations until the 19th century or so.
But human cultures have created - even within the religious framework - philosophies and thoughts that are not exclusively religious and I have already given examples. Beyond that, it must be remembered that religion by its very nature is a harsh and rigid censor and the Jewish religion is no exception. Therefore, in the heritage of the Jewish people there are works (for example: scrolls stored away, external books, Spinoza and more) that were censored, confiscated, and/or eradicated and distorted by the religious and the religion. Their studies were banned and taken out of religious settings. Therefore it is clear that there is a Jewish heritage that is not religious despite and in spite of the religious dictatorship that existed.
orthodox:
For many years there has been talk of changing the government system.
Not only have they not succeeded in doing so so far, but even if it happens - I'm not clear how it will prevent the blackmailing of the ultra-orthodox parties - they will surely pass the blocking percentage and use their pressure press as a balance.
In the existing parties - there do not seem to be many members of the Knesset who understand the importance of the separation between religion and the state. Certainly there are none among the leading candidates of the existing parties.
Therefore it is not clear to me how you suggest people to act.
Tommy Lapid brought 15 mandates just for the message of hatred for the ultra-Orthodox.
Our message is much more logical and constructive and what we lack is just a charismatic and well-known figure to win this whole election.
One of the considerations people make is "why vote for a small party and risk the vote being lost".
This is, of course, an idiotic consideration because since it is clear that the existing parties will not separate religion and state (as they have not done so so far), this consideration means, pictorially, the following:
"It is a shame for me to waste my vote on a party that will try to save me from the death that is guaranteed to me if I am not elected. It's better for me to use my voice effectively and that way, at least, I can choose the executioner"
So it's true - there are a lot of idiots - but I'm still trying to open people's eyes.
Hello Michael
I agree with you on the issue of separating religion from religion, but I completely disagree with you on the way.
The way to achieve the separation of religion from the state is not through the party of light.
The Party of Light is Kreuz, no one takes it seriously and it will not pass the percentage of blocking.
She will also pass the barrier and bring ten mandates into the conference, she will not be able to separate religion from the state, there were many more than ten chakims and more than one party that was their goal and they did not succeed.
Michael, I appreciate and respect honest people, people of ideology like you, and even if their opinions are different and even contrary to mine, they are the type of people of quality that is disappearing.
But in my opinion your struggle will not succeed, you are like a voice calling in the wilderness, the Light Party is not serious, and your and your friend's comments on the site are not that significant either, I hope you do not treat the separation of religion from the state as seriously.
The election system needs to be changed and the small parties abolished, and this will already make some change, when there will be no religious parties. The way to influence the issue is through the major parties, see Feiglin's entry, and public opinion, see the social struggle entry.
More and more people understand, and even more so in the ultra-Orthodox public, and voices are growing louder among the ultra-Orthodox rabbis, that the duty of the hour is to separate religion from the state, there is nothing that has harmed religion as a whole and the ultra-Orthodox individual as an individual, as budgeting and the connection between religion and the state.
Successfully
jubilee:
I am willing to do a lot to stay in Israel.
More than most of the ultra-Orthodox - you can be sure of that.
All in all, I mentioned one caveat to my willingness to stay in Israel and that is - if it turns out that in order to stay in Israel as a secularist I will have to "exterminate" the ultra-Orthodox.
There is still a lot to do before I come to the conclusion that this is the case.
If I come to the conclusion that this is the case I will have no choice because I am not prepared to commit crimes against humanity. I know that this is actually one of the things that some ultra-Orthodox are willing to do, but there are many things that I am willing to do and they are not (for example, working for a living, serving in the army, thinking logically and much more).
Machal (and Amit)
Basically, there is no argument between us. For technical reasons I will shorten my response:
I support your 'idea of globalization', I also think that the world would be better without countries and without religions.
I agree with you that anti-Semitism exists and therefore a state (or 'sanctuary') is needed for the Jewish people.
I also think that it is in the power of the Jewish people to be a 'light to the Gentiles'. That is, to be the people who knew how to take the first and right steps to make the world a place without state borders.
In September-October we will all know better, than we know today, what the future of the State of Israel is expected to be. I hope that, if a Palestinian state is established, that the Jewish people will know how to make the most of the 'side effects'.
I came to know that the Jewish people have a culture and it is the 'Israeli culture' - emerging before our eyes in the last sixty-three years. Jewish heritage is an important part of Israeli culture, but it is not the culture.
The religious try to preserve the Jewish heritage by making it their culture.
In doing so, they distance themselves from the emerging Israeli culture - and actually distance themselves from the seculars.
As long as the seculars continue to develop Israeli culture, the rift between the religious and the secular will grow.
It is very important to teach Jewish heritage in educational institutions (and other places). But it is no less important - and in my opinion even more important - to teach practical subjects in educational institutions that will help Israeli culture grow.
As Israeli culture develops, so will the rift between the secular and the religious grow. A rift that can cause civil war.
The solution to prevent the rift is to separate religion from the state, so that we can prevent bloodshed, and make Jewish heritage connect to Israeli culture.
(By the way, write the words 'Jewish culture' in Wikipedia and you will be amazed at the results 🙂 )
To Michael (and the other politicians),
Although I share your opinion and your heart's desires, and as long as I have not established my own political movement, I will support the Or party (and if I happen to return to Israel at a later date, I will also cast the correct ballot in the ballot box). However, despite my support, it is clear to me that it will not work.
If it is really important to you to live in this country, which eats its inhabitants, you will win. However, it seems to me that this is not your point of departure, and please accept my apology for being caught up in the sentence you said: "If it turns out to me that the only way to live here as a secularist requires the extinction of the ultra-Orthodox - I will just leave the country". If you take into account the possibility of leaving the country, and it doesn't matter for what reason, then in the fight against those who swear No To leave the country at any cost you lose in advance.
orthodox:
I have no interest in exterminating the ultra-Orthodox, but only in removing the threat they threaten me with.
If it becomes clear to me that the only way to live here as a secularist requires the extinction of the ultra-Orthodox - I will simply leave the country.
The solution I advocate is indeed the separation of religion from the state.
It's a solution that can work well - the fact is that the USA is sane even though it has a religious majority.
I too - like Amit, am one of the founders of the Or party, which is its main goal.
You may be surprised to hear, but the debates I lead on the issues of religion itself - even though they are conducted with ultra-Orthodox - are aimed, as far as I am concerned, mainly at the secular readership, or at an audience that has not yet decided what it is.
They are designed to help people make decisions that, in my view, are the right decisions - both regarding their self-definition and political issues.
jubilee:
I didn't make it to Budapest.
We rode from Passau in Germany to Vienna.
Some of the hotels had internet but (on purpose) I didn't take a computer with me and on the phone it's not convenient.
Moses:
I have already published my letter to the Ministry of Education on the science website.
See here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/on-positive-and-negative-energies-1908085/#comment-77152
Amit:
When I tell you something and you believe me - do you think it's an illusion?
ghosts:
Regarding my right to live here, see my response to this:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/taub-report-on-unemployments-among-ultra-ortodox-jews-and-arabs-1404100/#comment-267747
Regarding education:
Indeed, my perception is (as you will also see from my answer to Moshe) that the problem is in education and in fact it is not an education that should be unique to Israeli students but that all students in the world benefit from it.
However, in Israel we have a special problem of an ever-increasing takeover by the Halacha state, and therefore rational education is especially important here to protect the state from this drift.
That is why in my view it is also Zionism.
On the issue of Jewish heritage - Amit and I have an age-old dispute on the matter.
In my opinion, apart from religion, there is no Jewish heritage - apart from religion, there is nothing common to the various Israeli Diasporas and what is accepted by us - the Israelis - as heritage - is an Israeli heritage/culture that was built here in Israel.
True - the Jewish religion was the first to introduce some moral laws that are still accepted by us today.
She was also the first to enact "moral" laws that we completely reject.
We have no reason to adopt the bad things into our culture and the good things should be adopted whether they originate in Judaism, whether they originate in another religion or whether they originate in secular thought.
As I have stated many times before, to me the world would be much better without religions or countries. These (and others) are frameworks that create artificial differences between people and thus cause wars between them.
In my opinion - if it weren't for anti-Semitism - there would be no reason to establish the State of Israel because it is simply another country that will naturally add to the fact that there will be more wars.
The point is that anti-Semitism exists and therefore the State of Israel is necessary to be a refuge from it.
In other words - the State of Israel does not create new differences between people, but rather it anchors within the borders of the protected people (man-made) differences that already exist.
Heritage is the entire cultural-spiritual creation of the people. It is from the word "inheritance". What previous generations bequeathed to us. It consists of all the cultural assets of the Jewish people. For example: the first monotheistic religion from which 2 other mighty and wide-ranging religions emerged with an unprecedented influence on the world. For example, a unique and special thought - ideas of morality and justice that are already attributed to the prophets; Unprecedented ideas in the world of the second century BC of rights for slaves; A revolutionary idea: the Sabbath. Another one: the week - the first unit of time that is not natural and subject to the forces of nature: day, night, day, month, year, season. 7 days as a unit of time is a human invention that is not "natural". In contrast to the Greek concept of time and destiny, the concept of history as historiosophy - history has a purpose, man has a destiny, man can influence the world and reality through his actions. Later these ideas were worked on and translated in Europe to the Enlightenment revolutions, Enlightenment, etc. A concept of time that is not circular like in Greece but spiral and progressive. There is more of course and this is just a taste. Unfortunately, I myself only learned - with great effort and luck - about some of the treasures and assets of our culture - of the Jewish people - through digging, digging, searching and interest. Share great ideas and assets today too. I don't agree with everything, not everything is true, but it is worth knowing and learning. Our education system is particularly failed and backward, especially in this area. The scientific, technological and other fields will be fixed relatively quickly and easily, the problems, setbacks and limitations are already known. Committees have already researched, tested, discussed and reached conclusions, findings and recommendations and there is only one place left. At this end of our identity - a robbery and a break...!! I fear that if he takes a step in the direction he will only be in the dark, ignorant and faithless direction of religion. This is a recipe for disaster.
Amit
What is heritage? What is Jewish culture? What does it consist of?
R.H. Although you addressed Michael directly, but since this is an open platform, I will respond, with your permission: it is important to remember that the public called "the Jewish people" or "the People of Israel" has existed in one form or another for about 3000 years on the stage of history. This nation has one and only one religion for better or for worse. Many in this nation are tired of religion and have thrown its shackles over them. They are still Jews and belong to this Jewish people who received a mandate from the nations of the world to establish a state for them in their historical homeland even before the existence of Arabs and certainly Muslims in the world. For the Arabs the land was a place of residence without any special importance, beyond Jerusalem. During all the years of Arab and Turkish Muslim rule in the country, it was a marginal and remote province, and for more than 1100 years of their rule, they built one and only one city here - Ramla. The fact that a question arises and there is no clear, unequivocal and uniform answer to it by every Jewish citizen in this country proves how flawed, wrong and in need of correction the education is.
Is there a Spaniard or a Frenchman who does not know what his "right" is to his country????
Education: Part of the comprehensive upgrade and correction of education must also be in Jewish education. And there is a clear and unequivocal difference between religious-Jewish education and what is called Jewish. It is possible, possible, necessary and obligatory to teach Jews in Israel about the cultural heritage - yes also the religious one since it has a thought that is not only religious rituals. But not to teach religious-faith education with all the superstitions of religion as are transmitted and introduced today in religious education in Israel.
That's my opinion.
Machel
Welcome back to Israel, as you can see - we missed you 🙂 (because of your absence from the discussions - now I appreciate your participation in the discussions on the site even more, thank you for devoting your time for all of us so that we can learn and become educated).
a few questions:
How would you answer the question: "What is your right to this land"? (What right do the Americans have over America?)
I would answer that our country received a mandate from the British, was recognized by the United Nations as a country, and therefore the right of the Jewish people to this land stems from the recognition of the countries of the world in the country to the Jewish people in the specific geographical area.
Beyond all this, there are the archaeological findings that indicate that in the past the area was inhabited by people with a Jewish identity. It is true that there are findings that indicate that the Muslims and the dinosaurs also lived here, but I assume (just assume - not sure) that the findings related to the Jews exceed the number of findings that belong to any other people.
(This is my simplistic answer).
Regarding education:
Why call 'education' - 'spiritual Zionism'? Why does the motivation have to stem from 'spiritual Zionism' and not from education?
At the beginning of the discussion I wanted to write about education, but I refrained from responding (except for the response to a colleague).
In my opinion, the separation of religion from the state should be done first of all by stopping all government funding of the institutions, organizations, and religious parties. This is the first step that will cause a significant reduction in religious education.
After all, the religious children will not disappear (I assume that the religious ones will not leave the country as a result either), and then they will have to look for new educational frameworks. I assume that some of them will turn to educational institutions that belong to the secular sector.
As soon as there will be reform in the non-religious educational institutions (more science studies for example) then not only the secular will benefit, the religious will also learn how to get out of the darkness into the light.
Michael Peace be upon you and welcome back to our dead country. I understand and define "faith" as follows: "Synonyms for faith are = imagination, in the discussion invention, mirage, illusion." I prefer to create a complete separation between it and "knowledge". It simply creates a difference between those who are called "the delusional of faith" and others we call them, for example, the "enlightened". Nevertheless, there is a difference between my "belief" that the plane will take off and my "belief" that putting on tefillin is a "direct line" to the Creator of the world. Or basically it's the same thing and all the difference is the probability.?? When you write to the ultra-Orthodox a sentence like this: "The motivation to question the veracity of the religious stories increases as they know more about the truth and recognize the contradictions between it and those stories." You mean that he believes in stories and his belief is imagination, invention and hallucination and that in contrast to belief there is "truth" and this is what I mean by the term "knowledge".
In one of the links you provided, Michael, I found the following comment and I am copying it verbatim:
” I believe = I don't know.
2. It is impossible to believe and know at the same time. One can know or believe.
3. It turns out that if you choose to believe you choose not to know…”……that's it.
Michael,
Welcome back.
can you send me please
A copy of your letter to the Ministry of Education?
Moses
apologetic
Please delete my defiant response
to the knowledge system
Have I become persona non grata?
Welcome back Michael
From the fact that your name was mentioned many times during your absence, it is clear that we miss your wise direction very much.
Is there no internet in Budapest?
: )
Michael
I am interested in an answer, not from the theological discussion point, but from the practical point.
It seems to me that I understand your position, the place of the danger that religion entails and the war that is bound by it, my question is: isn't the solution the separation of religion from the state.
And if this is indeed the solution, your war should be directed inward towards the policy makers, and it seems to me that there is a good chance of succeeding in this,
I don't see how you manage to change reality and lower the level of danger in the tactic of attacking religion in its essence, it is lost, the masses of the people love religion, even if they don't really believe, you see it in the ballot box and in various footfalls, and not in the context of elections specifically but From a psychological point of view, almost every celebrity has some hidden father, I do think you will succeed if you attack religion as destructive when it is part of the management of the state, in my opinion it is even more destructive to religion.
All the response organizations receive state funding, [this is absurd in my view, as Israel finances Hamas and the like, and in fact it also does that] and the funding comes from political power, it's a vicious circle, there is no political power, no funding, no organizations.
Hello Michael
I was already content to forget the good taste in your comments, welcome
I read your comments carefully, some of them renewed my understanding and sharpened my understanding, and some of them I either didn't understand or I didn't agree with, but both these and these are factual and enjoyable unlike other responses.
My problem is, are we an optimal "couple", since our needs are different, and depending on the attitudes and also the emotional ones. As you put things correctly, you come from a place of existential danger, and I come from a place of self-examination. I have an interest in you and your opinions in order to hear the criticism and sort out the straw from the straw and reach new understandings, and my question with this forum is it suitable for achieving the goal.
I care so much that you are standing in front of me from a place of war, it also arouses feelings of guilt and pity in me, but mostly I care that I feel that the discussions cannot be conducted objectively, and from a place of learning and respect, I hope and dream, that you also have other aspects so that in a personal meeting And not from the place of threat and danger, there will be such a possibility that you can also bring help to my beliefs and opinions, regardless of where you are there and the beliefs and opinions you adhere to, so that there can be mutual fertilization, despite the contradictions.
Friends:
I came back from the Danube.
It was wonderful.
I still have a lot of things to do so I will start to reintegrate into the activity here little by little.
Here is the first swallow:
colleague (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-303560) and ultra-orthodox (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-303623):
In my opinion, "knowledge" is a private case of belief.
We assign a probability of correctness to every claim about reality.
When the probability we attribute is very high, we call the belief "knowledge".
The exact description of the degree of our belief in the claims is a probabilistic description and phrases like "knows not", "doesn't believe", "believes", knows yes" are nothing but ways to roughly indicate the probability of the claim, according to our perception.
Faith has nothing to do with social conventions.
For this, the word treaty was really invented, which is another word.
Although the word "treaty" is derived from the same root, but in a complex way which is the source of the difference in meaning.
A "treaty" is called a "treaty" because we believe that the others who sign the treatise will uphold it.
That is to say - the belief is not in any claim expressed in the treaty (and not every treaty must contain claims about reality - those for which the term belief is at all relevant) but in a claim about the manner of action of its signatories.
There is no knowledge without faith.
Knowledge is, as mentioned, a belief to which a high probability is attributed.
The fact that I do not act on certain information may be due to many and varied reasons.
When someone lies - I can call him a "liar" and I can use a more refined expression or even say nothing to him.
This does not belong to my belief that he is a liar, but to other considerations that influence my actions (perhaps I am afraid that if I call him a "liar" he will kill himself, perhaps I am afraid of violence he will use towards me, perhaps I think that everyone sees that he is a liar and there is no need to say so and get into unnecessary conflicts, etc. ).
orthodox (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-303753):
It is not true that most of the sages of the world accepted that there is a God. In fact the opposite is true.
You can read, for example, in the following links:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/748/479.html
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html
The fact that in the distant past everyone - including the scientists - believed in the existence of God only points to the power of religion in ancient times and the difficulty a person has as an adult to overcome the brainwashing he went through in childhood.
In addition to this - the motivation to question the veracity of the religious stories increases as one knows more about the truth and recognizes the contradictions between it and those stories.
When science had not yet discovered many contradictions between the claims of religion and reality, no one had a reason to make the mental effort involved in breaking free from the past brainwashing.
orthodox (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-303794):
The word "God" appeared in the Bible and I don't know if anyone used it before.
What is the basis of the decision to try to give it a different meaning than the one attributed to it in the Bible?
In my opinion, this is an attempt (not always conscious) to keep one's eyes open and bring, in the end, to a belief in the correctness of the claims that appear in the Torah, thus providing the source of authority for its laws.
I repeat: words as a tool for communication between people should represent agreed meanings and not private meanings. Otherwise they have no value. If two people argue about God but each of them means something different by this word - they are wasting their time.
This is true for the word "God" just as it is true for the expression "Jewish religion".
The claim "most people do not understand what the Jewish religion is" is nothing more than emptying the phrase "the Jewish religion" of its content and turning it into something that cannot be discussed at all with people who are outside of that group of "understanders".
If the majority of people attribute a certain meaning to the expression "the Jewish religion", then for reasons of efficiency - this is the meaning that everyone should attribute to it and the minority should choose another expression to represent "the thing he means".
Jubilee (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-303847):
Your question of why I believe in something or don't believe in it is to me a meaningless question.
At the beginning of my response I explained what faith is to me.
According to this explanation - I cannot choose what to believe.
The reality I encounter forces my beliefs on me.
People argue about their beliefs for many different reasons.
Some do it to whitewash things with themselves, some do it to gain the satisfaction that may come from persuading others to accept their opinion and some do it because they fear that others' adherence to the belief that they are arguing puts them at risk.
The same person can argue about subject X for reason A and subject Y for reason B.
This is the case for me as well.
Specifically - the debate about religion is mainly motivated by considerations of the last type I mentioned.
I know that the tone setters in Judaism are not like "Orthodox" and they intend to impose on me a system of laws that in my view is immoral and intolerable.
So, for me, this debate is usually heated - I'm just fighting for my life.
In such a war, I use, naturally, several tactics.
One of them is exposing the lie in the beliefs that create the imaginary source of authority for religious laws - but this is only one tactic.
This tactic can only work in a few cases: only with people who are really interested in finding out the truth.
Towards other people it is necessary to apply legislation.
For my part - that they should not believe anything true, but that they should know that if they insist on not serving in the army they will be banned and if they insist on not working they will not receive a penny from the state.
For my part - let them believe that I am a sinner - but that the laws of the state will not allow them to "punish" me for traveling on Shabbat.
This tactic also involves debates, but these are not debates with religious people about the religious belief, but rather debates with others about the methods of action that will allow us to prevent religious coercion.
ghosts (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-304175):
Physical Zionism depends on spiritual Zionism - if there is no motivation - they do not act.
If someone is not able to defend the claim "what is your right to this land" and understand that this right does not derive from the Torah - he may bow down to the lies of the Mahbatim and leave the country or agree to religious coercion.
Indeed, the material problems that confront us are not the same problems that the founders of the country faced.
They are still important problems but the threat to our very existence is less direct and many people are already building their lives without considering it.
I started my personal involvement in the public debate on religious issues when I saw that in an internet debate, between parents whose children were captured by the Breslavs and the Breslavs themselves, one of the mothers wrote something along the lines of "I don't know how they managed to convince him. I gave him everything he wanted. He wanted to enroll in a basketball major at school, so I enrolled him in a basketball major....”.
Do you understand the matter?
That lady did not understand that at the critical age where her son is, when he is looking for answers to questions about the essence of life, basketball studies do not begin to give the answer at all.
You can imagine the frustration I felt because even though I thought her words were stupid I didn't want to attack her in my comments and thus help the Breslavians.
That's why I ignored the nonsense she said (Yuval: an example of motivation for maintaining and arguing or preventing it) and attacked only the words of the Barslevs.
At the same time, I wrote a letter to the Ministry of Education in which I explained that they must introduce into the education system content that will train the children for critical thinking, that will try to help them deal with philosophical questions, and that we will protect them from falling as easy prey for the Batatites.
This is part of "spiritual Zionism" and it is most necessary for us.
orthodox (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-304260):
I am only referring to the question at the end of your comment.
The UN Human Development Report, which ranks the countries according to various indicators, including both religiosity and ethical level, reveals that the most secular countries are also the most ethical.
This is nicely described in the Q&A section starting at the 58th minute of Sam Harris's lecture at the following link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1232718550543562442&hl=en
It is recommended, of course, to watch the entire lecture.
Yuval and R.H.https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-304304):
Regarding the formation of the first living cell there is less information and currently there is no dominant theory.
Some of the speculations on the subject can be seen here:
http://sciam.co.il/archives/1833
And here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
And here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/rna-the-immortal-molecule-1801092/
And here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/rna-the-immortal-molecule-1801092/
And here:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3675264,00.htm
Jubilee (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-304363):
Not all html text enters freely here.
The editing mechanism filters part of it and allows its entry only to those with special privileges.
Xianghua (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-304402):
I already had the absurd arguments based on a misunderstanding of probability.
One of my references to this nonsense can be found in the following comment:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/#comment-281844
magnificent. We will end with this optimism when you vote for the "Or" party which is one of its 3 main goals and convince your friends as well and determine the achievement of the common goal.
Amit
In my opinion, the solution is simple, and it is the separation of religion from the state, and the end of the budgets for the priests.
It is a mistake to fight religion, a war that is impossible and predestined for failure, and its results are a life of existential anxiety, a situation that has many negative consequences that are irrelevant. And it's a pity.
You have to fight with all your might, and victory is possible! Separate the religion from the state and stop the budgets. The connection between religion and the state, which destroys every good part, also with you and no less and maybe even more so with us.
—–
Yuval, God forbid, I addressed your words in my previous response, I didn't quite understand your questions, try addressing them to me personally
orthodox
I saw that you made it a point not to answer me, so I won't waste many words on you. I will only speak to you in the language of the health insurance fund: "just a question".
And before that a short explanation. For some time I have been researching this phenomenon called "faith" and examining two questions:
a) What is the evolutionary advantage of religious belief (that is, without using the word "gross", how did it happen that so many people for thousands of years want to surrender themselves to some superior being).
b) Does religious belief contribute to the advancement of humanity to a better future.
And the question: Do you have anything to contribute to my research topic?
Hoping you will deviate from your principles just this once,
With great respect and thanks in advance
Haredi I am happy that you can see "the person behind the writing" here in the virtual world. Your words are indeed touching and there is no doubt that we are all human before the different shells we put on during our lives.
I will answer in points, for convenience according to the topics you raised:
1. You wrote: "Behind my words, too, there is a turbulent and embarrassed soul that is looking for a way." You asked later about the source of the storm of emotions. So, unlike you, I don't feel embarrassed or "looking for a way". It was in the past and it seems to me that I have "found" my way in life and I am more or less cohesive. The source of the storm of emotions lies in the reality that, as you mentioned, proves that "the ultra-orthodox are winning". For me this is a disaster. It turns out that I have many partners who belong to my view. The difference is only in style, decisiveness, bluntness and perhaps the intensity of emotions. See for example how Y. Haikin treats the matter. exactly like me. All the difference is in temperament. Maybe the distance and the cool weather in his place of residence have an effect....:-).
I compare an attack to the end of the days of the Roman Empire when Europe sank into 1000 dark years known as the Middle Ages in which the progress of Western civilization stopped and even retreated. This is the source. I am the father of two children and I want a good future for them and not black from black what awaits us when the dominance will be in the hands of the black wearers of your community. Indeed harsh words that reflect a bleak view of the future expected of the people living in Zion where those who will set the tone will be the Shas people and the religious in general and the ultra-Orthodox in particular....
2. Regarding true opinion. I believe that it is much more convenient for you to wander here and on Erez Gerti's website because they threaten you much less. "Deat-Emet" was founded by someone who spent many years studying religion and Talmud. The content there deals with the Holy Scriptures themselves and refutes them and shows severe internal contradictions with internal evidence and not external evidence, such as other sites. That's why your feelings about the "style" have no end. The style is scholarly in a yeshiva style - if you looked at the counters for example.
3. Regarding Zionism - I will clarify the question - the members of the ultra-Orthodox community oppose the existence of the State of Israel and are therefore anti-Zionist. Zionism considers a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. The Smolans (those extreme leftists from the seminary of G. Levy, Amira Hess) are of the post-Zionist type who oppose the State of Israel in its current form and are also a type of anti or at least non-Zionist, but we will not go into that corner here and I will content myself with the fact that they are assigned to me in contrast to the leftists. The question is whether you hold to the religious view that the Zionists sinned against heaven when they violated the prohibitions of "climbing the wall" and all and see the existence of the state as a complete and utter sin or even as the view of the moderate ultra-Orthodox who are not anti-Zionist only non-Zionist for all that is implied.
4. Regarding the prejudices and automatic thinking, these are the characteristics of the religious education system. I am of course opposed to this and uphold a skeptical and critical, creative and innovative way of thinking. Of course it is dangerous for religious people. The late Israel Segal said that when he met Rabbi Shach after he was freed from the burden of religion, he answered the Rabbi's question that in fact he followed in his footsteps and asked more and more questions and did not stop "inside the box" but asked questions "outside the box" which religious people do not do and therefore remain in the world of religion.
5. "If religion is indeed the source of evil, or if evil is sophisticated and uses religion, it seems to me more that the source of evil is in man himself, Indian religions also bring evil in their wings?"
Indeed the source of evil (and good...) is in man himself. The human heart is bad (but also good) from his youth. Religion simply determines good and bad and does not allow to improve, correct and uproot evil. The Halacha is frozen and forces the religious person to make excuses and twist in a framework that also contains evil, what to do. By the way, you raised a good point - in India and the East, the polytheistic religions are not as violent as the monotheistic or "Abrahamic" ones (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). In India there is a conflict between Muslims and Hindus because Muslims are religiously intolerant. Dear Haredi, one reading of the Torah is enough to understand how violent, cruel, vengeful and controlling the biblical God is, a mass murderer and destroys entire populations, has whims and other unfavorable and flattering qualities. This certainly reinforces the fact that: "In the beginning man created his God in his own image and in his likeness he created them...". That is why there are so many types of God. Every culture and society has created its own god that suits it. That's how it turned out.
6. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in God. There are atheists of all kinds and different and opposing camps. This is a "negative" definition. That is, she only points to what not. It has no positive content.
Humanist, on the other hand, is a "positive" definition that includes information and content about a person's worldview. So is a liberal who comes along with a humanist, usually.
It is true that the humanist judges each person as an individual, but this does not prevent reference to diagnosed groups. For example, when a crowd of people dressed in black, numbering many thousands, riots and goes berserk in the streets of Jerusalem, one can see those wearing black as a group belonging to a certain camp with a certain view, even if not all the members of the camp rioted and went berserk. It is simply much easier to explain this when there is a state of war and the Syrian army - let's say - attacks the Israeli army. When a helicopter pilot sees a group wearing uniforms he shoots them even if they are just bespectacled clerks doing office work and haven't seen a rifle for more than two weeks in abbreviated training....something like that about the judgment of groups and individuals.
It is clear that when I sat down to study with the ultra-Orthodox from the BVB I did not see him or him as representing all the ultra-orthodox and not even his stream, but he was "Yitzhak" for me. Still, this does not contradict a reference to the Lithuanian-Orthodox stream as a group. I hope you understand that it is complex, but this is life - somewhat complex...
Yuval is right.
my father
You need to register on the Gravatar website.
xianghua
Although the probability is small, it is not zero. And given enough time and/or enough space, it will come true.
Yuval, if science accepts any number, then there is no point in probability. We could argue that all of nature was created in Mecca and that's it. Obviously, no serious scientist would claim this because it is *unlikely*. That is, science does calculate probabilities.
Regarding the Earth - you will know...:)
xianghua
A number, no matter how big or small, is just a number. As long as it's not zero and infinity, any two numbers can pair with each other in any combination to create a third number. And if the four known arithmetic operations are not enough, you can look for other operations.
With your permission, I would like to expand on the pollution question: not only meteorites and comets came from outer space. The earth itself also came from there. How do we know that the earth is not polluted?
orthodox
Your writing is captivating. But do you speak on behalf of a large public?
R.H
I agree with you on everything except thatThere is no connection, because these are two similar phenomena. On the other hand, I also do not insist thatThere is a connection. Simply, when I see two similar phenomena I suspect.
But this is not important for the claim that left chirality is a product of natural selection. Not necessarily because one has priority over the other, but because in the living world there is no place for both; And as soon as a slight random priority was given to one, it took over the "market". To illustrate: if a flower produces nectar with right-handed sugar, bees that consume left-handed sugar will not be able to benefit from it.
Hello, colleague
I will answer first first and last last
I don't know what "Zionist" means, so I can't know if I'm "anti-Zionist", but my view is very similar to the extreme left, I agree with most of Gideon Levi's articles, this is my personal view, but it is also based on the education I received.
Indeed, feelings have an important and correct place in our lives, you felt me and touched my heart, behind every warrior there is a human child full of emotion for life and heart, you put things from a human place that allows honest and loving connection, despite the difference in opinions. I also direct the same words to Yuval Chaikin, who aroused love for you in my heart despite the difference and distance, I identified with your words, behind the words there is also a turbulent and embarrassed soul looking for a way.
I'm interested in what excites you on the topic of religious and secular, more the emotional place, what does it mean to you, it doesn't excite me at all, I don't have a personal emotional problem with the current situation, and it must be because I'm too self-absorbed. I also think that the fight between the ultra-Orthodox and the secular was decided to the detriment of the secular, but my opinion is unequivocal that it was also decided to the detriment of the ultra-Orthodox, and the ultra-Orthodox lost much more than the secular. I have already expressed my opinion here, that we must reform the whole issue of religion and the state, and immediately stop all budgets, and in particular the funding of the Abrakh and income security, the current situation destroys every good part among us - the ultra-Orthodox, and maybe this is due to the system of government and elections, but you understand this and I don't .
Regarding "Daat Emet" and the ultra-Orthodox society in which I live, I emphasized that this is personal subjective thinking, and of course another person will see it exactly the opposite, I like Erez Gerti's website, most of the articles in the science, but I don't like the style of Daat Emet, the same Regarding the ultra-Orthodox society, I know there are many, including my ultra-Orthodox friends, who see extremely negative things in the ultra-orthodox society, but I do love and appreciate the ultra-Orthodox society the most. And I wrote the things in the context of some of the commenters.
Personally, I am deeply stuck in prejudices and automatic thinking, and for that I owe thanks and gratitude to you and the site and the other commenters, who bring me to clarify with myself mercilessly. It moves me to hear from you that you received enrichment from the religious side, it brings me to a new perspective on you, accept my assessment, here is a shattering of prejudice.
It is indeed important before any discussion to clarify and define the concepts we are talking about, and this is probably where we fall short, both in our discussion and in the other discussions here. My problem is that there are so many topics being flooded at once, that it is very difficult to focus and have a meaningful discussion.
I agree with you that man is an animal, and it is the most developed, by the way, I am of the opinion like some of the ultra-Orthodox thinkers who do not deny evolution, the Jewish religion is not creationist at all, but I do think that man is also with the most evil and negative instincts more than all the prey animals.
I am satisfied if religion is indeed the source of evil, or if evil is sophisticated and uses religion, it seems to me more that the source of evil is in man himself, do Indian religions also bring evil in their wings? They must have done endless studies on it.
Humanist and atheist, is it a camp or views? I really don't know how the seculars are structured. There are "piousnesses" from organized societies, to me it looks more like separate people, I think that as a humanist there is no place at all to examine a society but each person on his own, right? Even in ultra-Orthodox society, not all groups are equal and not all opinions are equal.
good week
Yuval, 200^4 molecules is much more than is possible in 14.5 billion years. And this is only for the first generation of replication.
Regarding finding nucleotides in meteorites - how do we know that the meteorite is not contaminated? In addition - even if there are nucleotides, who will connect them to each other? For this, a rather complex polymerase protein is needed.
jubilee,
There is nothing to compare and there doesn't seem to be any connection. Lefties (myself included) make up a significant percentage of the population like any other recessive mutation while L chirality is almost absolute.
R.H
And why do most people write with their right hand?
It seems to me that the things are related, and evolution also has something to say: by chance, a system that encodes one chirality arrived in our sphere (or survived in it).
jubilee,
Another possibility is the panspermia theory, which holds that bacterial spores came from space and settled on Earth. This would for example explain the anomaly of D and L that almost all amino acids in nature are of the L conformation even though there is no clear chemical reason for the above matter. Of course panspermia also has no evidence except that such a journey is probably possible under certain conditions. If it is true, the question arises as to how these bacteria were created and why they were with L in the first place, but this is beyond any possible knowledge now.
*
The evidence suggests a possibility. That's more than we've had in hand so far.
R.H
The experiment indicates a possibility. That's more than we've had in hand so far.
On the other hand, perhaps the inclusion of the experiment with the primordial soup will lead to the creation of a substance that is not a nucleic acid, but is a catalyst (a primitive version of an enzyme) to create a molecule that replicates and encodes, by the way, more complex structures.
We have not yet deciphered all the DNA codes. I assume that the "still" matter has anti-entropic mechanisms that we do not know yet.
The bottom line didn't work for me. Need to go back to the book
time Machine I still don't know how to do it. But I still remember chemistry experiments from high school.
I am currently experimenting with html. This is similar
jubilee,
So what? So there are nucleotides in meteorites. Does this answer the question of whether the nucleotides that formed the first replicating molecules on Earth came from space or were created by a chemical process here?
And who told you that the first molecule was DNA? Maybe there was protein? Or something else?
All this finding means is that there is a possibility that the first nucleotides came from space. I think we'll still need the time machine to find out what happened.
R.H
Maybe we can manage without a time machine. Here is a copy-paste of an excerpt from the article by Dr. Moshe Nachmani:
Researchers working in collaboration with NASA have obtained evidence that some of the building blocks of DNA, the molecule that stores the genetic instructions for life, originate from meteorites and that they were probably formed in space. The research provides support for the theory that a collection of ready-made components created in space and brought to Earth by meteorites and comets that collided with it helped the development of life on our planet.
jubilee,
Apparently DNA was not the first replicating molecule. It is much more likely that it was an RNA molecule.
We probably won't know who she really was until the first time machine was invented.
It might be possible to show the formation of replicating molecules and start evolution in a test tube, which would show that the possibility at least exists, but the question of whether this is exactly how life began will probably remain open.
For that matter, evolution is a false theory. For that matter, it has problems, unresolved matters, unclosed areas and in general it does not answer such and such fundamental questions. For that matter, evolution does not meet the standards required of a scientific theory, certainly not one that claims to present a complete array of the development of life, based on the false assumption that there was indeed development at all. As mentioned, for the purpose.
So what is the conclusion? - and this is the wonderful part of this whole far-fetched story. If evolution (and/or the big bang) does not meet the required scientific standard, then there is only one possibility: the story of the act in chapters XNUMX and XNUMX of Genesis is-is the correct description of the conduct of the world, and is-is the proof of the existence of the God who created it.
The fact that everything written there contains a commercial amount of internal contradictions in several circles, stands in complete contradiction to proven facts, appears in a book of faith that has hundreds and thousands of contradictions, and the influence of other beliefs from the environment shouts loudly in it - it doesn't matter anymore.
The idea that because evolution does not pass a strict scientific standard is the proof of the truth of the stories of the Torah - which do not even meet normal textual criticism and elementary logical requirements - is one of the absurd expressions of a thought that it is.
(And we haven't said anything yet about the huge body of evidence for evolution, a matter that is always tried to be ignored. For the very same reasons).
The religious argument that because evolution is wrong then the biblical story is right - when it fundamentally fails on any critical scale - is a fundamentally distorted statement.
The meaning is simple: those who want their world of knowledge and overall recognition to be based on the way science works, do not, in fact, have any possibility of having a dialogue with those who believe in ancient myths and accept them, despite all their refutations (and when it doesn't work, turns to the biggest excuse industry in history, Commentaries of sages on the Torah).
The claim that intelligent planning is an alternative (Paley's clock) falls right from the start: given the basic elements of the inanimate and the living, intelligent planning, even at the level of an average watchmaker, is not here. Such a watchmaker would not finish his first working week in Switzerland. Chaos, entropy, junk DNA and millions of basic failures in design and execution are just some of the problems.
And we have not yet said a word about God's essence and abilities as it is presented in the Bible, chapter XNUMX onwards. And the fact that the foundation of the earth, even according to the story, he did not create - including the water - but only arranged.
So whoever wants an imaginary friend and a set of imperatives for an ordered life for his personal and social reasons - he will be disappointed.
It has nothing and nothing to do with the above matters.
And we have not said anything about the fundamental problems in the essence of God, including his being infinite but one that is outside of us, to this computer, to the car and to the stars (and here too there is more and more) and on the other hand we turn to him, as a certain entity - and that is how it was always presented, until this too failed. And also about the moral failings (and there are more and more).
In the face of all this there is a simple solution: there is no such thing, and the story is, well, just a story.
R.H. Rafaim: I didn't quite understand your arguments. What is the connection between the problems of physical life and spiritual life?? We are no longer in survival mode and there is room for integration. Why what happened ? Is there no spiritual life here in Israel? Your arguments are somewhat puzzling. I argued that part of the energy invested here should go to the issue of secular Jewish identity, which is distinctly non-religious. What is happening today? Anyone who feels like a Jew and wants to celebrate the holidays of Israel, or to celebrate one of the rituals of life (marriage, burial, etc.) needs the religious ceremonies designed by him - religious. That's what I aimed at and intended. In addition, it is appropriate to integrate into the state education system also studies of tradition and heritage, not in the religious-religious-historical sense or manner. Definately not. Well, let's leave the topic, not sure it's here.
Yuval, I explained at length and in detail and it seems that I have exhausted the answer to you on the particular topic you started.
Haredi: First of all to your general response: You mentioned that you studied at the Mahah Sha'arim High School. I know there are many there from the anti-Zionist camp of the ultra-Orthodox sect "Satmar" and other abominations. Do you belong to this view??
Second, I guess you found "hate" in my words. I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the source. I argue, I also act from an emotional place, I admit. I am a person who includes both mental and emotional sides. This is how it turned out…..I do everything in my power so that the intellect leads, controls, criticizes and supervises but I do not suppress or neglect or repress the emotions. They have a place in our lives. In my opinion, this is the way to live fully and correctly - to combine the two.
And this issue of religious and secular causes me strong feelings. thanking. I believe that the country is moving to a less good place as the power of religion increases in our lives and as the number of religious people increases. Filled me the little one. Detailed reports of researchers established this, among others, Prof. A. Sofer Maun. Haifa and Prof. Ben David from Center (forgot the name....).
Thirdly, regarding Daat-Amat: an excellent site that analyzes the religious-faith view in a serious, sharp and precise manner and highlights the problems. There is no doubt that the website is not intended to attract many Halacha observers and it has a certain way and intention. Your comment about the site is too general and difficult to refer to and I am not clear where there is "pure hatred" there. By the way, I hope you distinguish between the question and answer section where the visitors of the site comment and debate and the rest of the site that gives informative information. This method of claiming "hate" or "damage to dignity" is an instinctive reaction of religious people and I and my friends encounter it all the time. frequent.
Regarding your feelings that you belong to an elite camp, I will not comment at this stage.
For an answer addressed directly to me:
Every human being has prejudices. It's such a human-psychological piece, what to do. I am aware of this and therefore deal with the prejudices in my opinion successfully, as much as possible. I hope you don't intend to claim that you have no prejudices. I can tell you that my language and attitude, which has some aggressiveness, perhaps aggression, bluntness, decisiveness and more, comes from the long time I spent debating and dealing with religious people. There is a certain erosion, there is already an understanding of the view and what is expected to come in the next phase of the discussion (and I am almost not wrong, the power of experience...). I compare it to a combat soldier versus an official at a rear base. Yes, the combat has more roughness, bluntness. what to do it happens I try not to offend personally and if necessary I will not be ashamed to apologize.
You are right about the mutual enrichment - in my opinion there were only a few who enriched me. From the religious side...!!! Yes Yes. There is an advantage in such a deep and thorough study of our origins and tradition, and I, who grew up in an education system that gave up on this, feel a little lacking, so I support such a study, but not in a faith-religious approach, of course. Why would I extend? Here is Nathaniel Leibovitch's article from today. I sign his words:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1240367.html
Faith: a broad topic. I don't know such a thing - "need not to believe". You wrote: "Even if a person is clear to him beyond any doubt that there is a God, still without faith it is nothing, the person has to want to accept the things about him in addition to knowledge, knowledge itself is not enough." If I know there is no need for faith. My desire to choose or do certain things is different from my knowledge of reality. Faith is completely unnecessary here. It is important that we understand and clarify the concepts of knowledge / desire / faith.
To sum up your words: In my opinion, man is not a "terrible animal of prey" but rather the most developed animal in evolution. He is indeed an animal in the sense that he is an evolutionary continuation of animals and the animal world. Indeed, the thin layer of culture and morality can be torn easily and quickly and this indeed happens to a person a lot and then he is not an "animal" but I prefer to describe him as a "savage man". That is, still human but devoid of human culture and morality. So he is able to reach terrible situations and dark corners. In many places man indeed behaves like a "savage man". Belief gives rise to the religious-religious worldviews whether they are religious or secular. The secular religions of the 20th century are based on faith and are just as problematic as the religions. So is communism, fascism and nazism. In some cases the god was replaced by the cult of the personality of the leader on duty. People believed in all of them with complete, fervent and fanatical faith.
I associate myself with the humanist-liberal-atheist camp. No crimes have ever been committed in the name of these views. No country whose culture and values derive from these views has behaved murderously. If you want to check and compare then against the religion and the society you see as "the best" you will have to compare a humanist-liberal secular society.
I believe that you generalize all the seculars in one camp and this is a basic and serious error.
Regarding the picture, you have to register in some way, I forgot which one, and then every time you write your email in the response, the picture is automatically attached. I will check with the technical person in charge of the website.
my father
Dear Haredi
Please remember me well.
Even in me I have a strong desire to believe and precisely I have no desire not to believe. But May, all the time there is also a little voice in my ear that demands from me every morning and evening to check if the belief I have reached is the right one. My life is not easy. Such a cursed character. Maybe I need a psychiatrist. But I accept who I am, and I have also developed pride in myself.
I extrapolate from this to the world and believe that this is the fundamental difference between the "believers" and the "non-believers" (the quotation marks, because these definitions are not good). The "non-believers" are not necessarily faithless, even if they insist on it as passionately as our friend Amit. But for them (and I in general), in addition to faith, there is also a constant need to examine and doubt.
Shabbat Shalom
xianghua
Don't let the numbers scare you. Although the chance of the occurrence of events of the type we are talking about here is minimal, the time and space allotted for this occurrence is very large.
I, with a lot of sweat and not a little trial and error, managed to learn some of the tricks of the comment writing system here. I still haven't learned how to add my picture, but I have every faith that this too will come. In an orderly discussion it is customary to maintain consistency in the name of the commenter, and I already know how to do that.
Hello colleague
I tried to read all the comments but they are so many, and I stopped, refer to what I read.
Indeed, I think there is much in common in our views, but the language and prejudices and negative attitude make it difficult to connect, not that I think we are similar or that we will be similar, the opposite is true, but I think there is a possibility that we will enrich each other despite our differences.
Indeed, I have a need to believe, and it is possible to investigate what this need is, there is also a need not to believe, but there are also things in addition to the need, and that is the very thing from my point of view.
In any case, I ask myself the question, what do I believe?
And the answers I give myself are not encouraging at the moment.
What I know is:
A. There is no proof of the existence of God
B. Like everyone else, I went through a socialization process, the result of which for me is the Jewish faith
So why do I believe?
Because I have a desire for meaning, and faith gives me meaning, that is, the fact that I believe there is a God does not provide me with proven scientific answers about the universe, but provides me with meaning about the universe and about everything that exists, the need for meaning is like the need to know the truth.
What I agree is that the meaning of truth cannot be obtained from something false, and therefore as soon as it is proven unequivocally that there is no God [according to how I understand the definition of God], I will stop believing, [I will not leave the ultra-orthodox society because in my opinion it is the best]
What seemed to me to be a disagreement between us is the issue of the combination of faith and knowledge, in my opinion, even if a person is clear beyond all doubt that there is a God, still without faith it is nothing, the person has to want to accept the things on him in addition to the knowledge, knowledge itself is not sufficient . But this is marginal, mostly I agree with you that people take on the matter of God out of will-faith and not out of proven knowledge.
In my opinion, science will ultimately decide this question, whether God exists or not, and I believe that it will be in the direction of the fact that there is a God, maybe not in the way that everyone thinks it is God, but that there is something beyond.
what you wrote
"Religion may not be a disease, but wherever it exists there is discrimination, racism, apartheid, gangs,
Sectarianism, conflict, incitement, hatred, violence, coercion, separatism and more....”
I completely agree with you, the worst things in the world were done and are being done in the name of religion, and this reason is enough for its extinction from the world, and it is indeed disappearing, but in its place is not heresy but a new spirit that manifests itself in all the fashion of the new age and the teachings of the East and in Judaism this is manifested in Hasidism.
My question is: in places where there is no religion, are there not these things: discrimination, racism, apartheid, factionalism, sectarianism, conflict, incitement, hatred, violence, coercion, separatism and more.... in places like China and communist Russia or in the secular society. Don't have these things.
My opinion is that man is a terrible animal of prey, who uses religion to realize his dark creations, and where there is no religion he will find other things to depend on.
Regarding the replication system - this is indeed a critical problem. The simplest replication system that scientists have created consists of 200 nucleotides and is capable of replicating only 100. There is a double problem here: also because of the low probability of such a system forming (one in 200^4) and also because it is supposed to be even longer and encode something useful (the molecule itself does not encode anything except replication of herself).
Regarding the name in the title - sorry, but I have an empty window under the title "Name". Maybe a technical problem or something. I changed it anyway.
And to the one who annoys my father (and me too) who insists on not understanding the role of the name in the title of the response:
Nature is not just the earth. In the universe there are many and varied phenomena that have no counterpart on our planet.
R.H
Nicely written. so cheeky
But you also stop at the foot of the wall that science has not yet passed. The first replicating DNA molecule is also not a simple system and we need to find how it was created.
There is an experiment to show that within the "primordial soup", with the help of lightning and certain conditions, it is possible for DNA to form. The experiment always goes well except for one "small" problem: one of the essential ingredients for its success was not present in the primordial soup, and for that reason there is probably no escape from looking for the beginning of life outside the earth.
A few days ago the article was published here: Building blocks of DNA can be created in space by Dr. Moshe Nachmani August 23, 2011
https://www.hayadan.org.il/dna-building-blocks-can-be-made-in-space-2308111/
She didn't get many responses, which is a shame. It directs the searchers for the answer to this question to the outside of the earth.
In our solar system in its current incarnation, it is not possible to create heavy elements from helium, yet we find here stable elements whose atomic number is many times higher. We explain their existence here in previous incarnations of the solar system and in one or more supernovae. By analogy, it is possible that somewhere in the space of the universe there are environments that contain all the data to create DNA together with a significant number of enzymes necessary for its replication.
Indeed, this is how Paley's clock parable should be told. Those who want to believe that replicating organic watches are able to be created in a natural process, with fun.
This is indeed what the theory of evolution claims.
Paley's Clock Parable has yet to be disproved,
True, if he had seen what you described he would have assumed that aliens created the system. This is also true in Paley's parable, if you see one clock in a field you will assume it was created by someone, there is no debate. But Paley's parable does not accurately describe what we see.
If he walked in your field he would see billions of clocks or systems like you described replicating and multiplying and in the process constantly changing and all competing for limited resources. If he were to see free cogwheels replicating that from time to time come together to create somewhat more complex structures, and on the other hand if he were to see that clocks break themselves down into cogwheels and still continue to multiply, if he sees levels of clocks from the simple to the very complex. If he saw in the earth the materials of which the simple gears are composed, if he saw that clocks that do not reproduce efficiently are suppressed and become extinct,
So yes!, he would come to the conclusion that it is very possible that the first replicating cogwheel was created by chance and from then on everything started to flow.
This is how Paley's parable should have been told.
Moses
Thank you for the clarification. Still, here's something I found on Wikipedia about the "square root of 2":
Contemporary researchers believe that discoveries of irrational numbers did not shake the world of Pythagoras. They explain that the origin of this legend is that the Greeks at the time of Pythagoras, used the same word to describe irrational numbers and to describe an "irrational" phenomenon - a phenomenon that is "unbelievable". The existence of irrational numbers is first mentioned by Plato, more than a hundred years after the death of Pythagoras.
The entire article is here:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A9_%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%99_%D7%A9%D7%9C_2
The way of thinking of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav is beautiful. Judaism offers tikkun olam, and he says that for this purpose tikkun Judaism is first necessary
orthodox
I was glad to read your words. Thanks
Paley's watch, &c.
I asked you to stick to one nickname, so that they don't think there are a lot of creationists. What do you think of the nickname "stubborn creation"?
The place of the author's name should not contain a title.
What would happen in the following case: a scientist lands on a distant planet. And to his surprise he discovers a system of pipes, and liquid passing through them, and a pump whose job is to push the liquid through the pipes. And this complex structure is made of proteins and DNA and is also able to replicate. Will he claim that such a structure was created by aliens, or developed through a natural process lasting millions of years?
Father, indeed you are right about the numbers, but I look at the trend, and the trend is correct and in the right direction. The world was created evolutionary, and if the direction is right, evolution will win.
Regarding propaganda, it exists on both sides, and indeed it is difficult to check the truth in the world of public relations, I speak from the field, and I belong to the most extreme public that exists, more and more of my friends are very successful business owners, more and more of my friends study sciences and I am among them, which is happening at Ono College It's wonderful and it's amazing, there is a rash my father, it's sleeping and it's gaining momentum, I'm full of hope.
When I was a child, a soldier was something foreign and scary, today we walk around the streets and in every neighborhood in synagogues and on the streets we see soldiers.
Indeed, these blessed phenomena arouse the extremists, and they rise in droves, but they are marginal and they will not stop the revolution.
But, my father, I don't think we should fight each other, we should give everyone their place, and try to violate each other from where they are, and this happens, and it will happen again and again, and in my opinion the extremist organizations on both sides will always remain on the margins, society will not recognize and adopt them.
I'm not here on the website to discuss social problems, I'm here to learn about beliefs and opinions, and I think there's a lot in common about the difference, especially the different language. I don't think that I am so different from a colleague who is arguing in my opinion, the difference is mainly where things are taken and in what style. And it is subject to personal choice and desire.
Shalom Haredi - it's a shame that you buy the propaganda of your friends about going to the job market, Tshal studies science and art. These are tiny numbers, and for every rabbi who permits there are ten who exaggerate their opposition even to things that were previously permitted.
Hello Amit Yuval and everyone else
I came back to receive Michael Rothschild returning from the trip, welcome
Tell me what it was like
How many words are spilled here these days, and some of them are thought-provoking on a level that does not allow self-deception
I left with a colleague's response regarding faith, things that enriched me and sharpened my faith, and brought me to levels of recognition and knowledge that I did not have before
I will confess and I am also ashamed, the things that are said here hurt me, both in their content but mainly in their style, but this is the way of the Torah, the problem is that beyond the practicality of the words, hatred has been added here, I have never encountered such high levels of hatred in my life, it may be justified, in any case I do not know how to deal with such powerful and intense emotions, I don't come here for war or debate and persuasion, but simply to learn and test myself to sharpen and improve my beliefs and opinions, and if that's the style I'm not sure I'll get hired
I am an ultra-Orthodox observant of the Torah and mitzvot, who grew up in the Talmud-Torah in Mea Shearim, I know and live the ultra-Orthodox life on a daily basis with all that is implied for good and bad, there are many problems in ultra-Orthodox society, problems of different types and kinds, yes, also problems of beliefs and opinions, some of which have been brought up here and some of them are kept under the carpet, yet I love my place with all the shortcomings, I will hurt our pain and our freedom, and what is part of the evolutionary process that our wonderful public is going through to enlightenment and utilitarianism, I read a lot on the website Daat Emet, not a day or two, the style sickens me, what else is there Such superficiality and shallowness that only exists because of pure hatred, as far as I'm concerned, Daat Emet website represents nothing to me except a group of disgruntled people, and again there is no problem with the content, I have a problem with the hatred, and I hope that this place is more matter-of-fact and patient and tolerant
I want to tell you something personal, it is necessarily true, but I experience and feel it.
We are the best and special and superior company of all.
As part of my work, I meet a lot with the general public from all walks of life, I read almost every day the news and what is happening in Israel, the articles of all kinds of thinkers, and if all the shortcomings we have, and there are many of them, we are still the best from my point of view and my feelings, and there is no shadow of doubt or appeal To leave our society, even if I am 100% convinced that there is no God and everything is bullshit.
The crocodile tears for the beautiful girl who could have been a doctor and become religious made me laugh, I wish these would be the tragedies in the world, how many girls and boys miss their future and the realization of their potential because of other ills that are the lot of society, demagoguery on a dime driven only by the power of hatred.
And again, this has nothing to do with the correctness of the religion, etc., it is an eruption of subjective feelings.
Yes, we are the ultra-Orthodox, the best company, yes, countless of you.
And even what is missing, we catch up with it at a dizzying pace that scares you
The ultra-Orthodox public is created en masse for the job market and businesses in large numbers
The ultra-Orthodox public already serves in part today in the Tehel
The ultra-orthodox public participates in science studies
The ultra-orthodox public today is open to art
If I look fifty years ahead, we are a perfect team
jubilee,
Spenser is a successor of Hippasus. His book you are reading now is a correction of science through mathematics which is still written in the form of authority rather than interaction. Regarding faith and Judaism, Rabbi Nachman of Breslav wrote in his book Likoti Moharan that there must be a tikkun in Judaism because Jacob, who was one of the three fathers, took the firstborn by his fraudulent actions
Moses
R.H
It is clear that there is no evidence of the existence of an intelligent creator and that everything is in the minds of the believers. I sent a response that is awaiting approval and will probably wait a long time until someone in the system (whose name I mentioned there) releases it. I will try to quote one sentence from her now:
"On the road to extremism, I presented scientific belief and religious belief as equal, in order to show the religious that they are barking up the wrong tree."
Unfortunately, you are also probably right in your explanation of the factors of the mutual attack. When war breaks out, all fronts are broken. If it's hard to attack where it really hurts, then attack where it's easy to attack.
Regarding the reason for the mutual incitement, I already wrote to you above that it is a very practical and material matter. The religious see the secular as harming their quality of life by desecrating the things sacred to them, and as a result the future redemption expected away, while the secular see the religious as harming their quality of life by restrictions that do not seem logical to a non-believer. How can one even begin to bridge such a gap?
jubilee,
Obviously not everything is known, but as said there is a difference between not knowing the details of something known and not knowing if something exists. For example, there is a lot of evidence that dark matter exists, but it is not clear to the end whether it really exists and what its nature is. So, in the light of today's knowledge, it is probable that it exists, but the debate continues. On the other hand, is there any tiny evidence of the existence of a higher power that intervenes in things? Unfortunately there is none. Unfortunately, because the world would be much simpler if every once in a while a voice girl would come out and tell us what is right and what is wrong, but unfortunately she doesn't come out and probably never did.
Amit (and Camila is also mentioned)
I have not forgotten you. There is a response here that is awaiting approval.
You are righteous, my friend, because I will be your enemy, but I will speak to you in judgments!
You don't convince me by saying that you don't have me in your heart. You try to put me in a frame, and when I rebel, you run and put me in another frame and immediately throw responsibility for heavy disasters on me from it. Thank you very much, but Mochael Teves.
And when you say that I play into the hands of the religious (enemies), I can't help but feel that you are condemning me.
Although I'm trying to have a narrow discussion here on a very specific topic, I agreed to comment on your words that deviated from it because I also have an interest in them. But if you use that to bash me, then I'm out.
All in all, I'm trying to understand what drives secularists to attack the religious, not where it really hurts (coercion, parasitism, brainwashing, etc.) but in matters of faith; On the other hand, I try to understand what pushes the believers to attack the principles of faith of the "enlightened" instead of trying, for example, to explain what is good and true in their own faith. Both the "enlightened" and the "mumblers" (credit to Michael Rothschild) create a lot of commotion and achieve nothing.
I presented scientific belief and religious belief as equals on the road to extremism, in order to show the religious that they are barking up the wrong tree. R.H. and Kamila took care of the unsuccessful example I brought and made excuses for it and forced me to come up with another example. Kamila insinuates that I am showing ignorance and you say self-righteously that "you don't have me in your heart", and I, through my distorted glasses, see both of your words as incitement. And that's exactly what worries me about the public dialogue in general and what's happening here in particular.
The righteous Jew
What "spiritual Zionism" are you talking about? What, the future is over? Nowhere to move forward? Are the enemies of the Jewish people over? Are you missing earthquakes in the world? Do we lack climates that are too hot or too cold to live in all kinds of places in the world and even in our own country? Will there be no more giant waves in the world? Is the hunger over? You have more than enough of everything and like you for all Jews - and therefore should you be concerned with "spiritual Zionism"? There are no more people in the world to defend against, maybe they want you to help them, maybe they even want to help you? You say: "Zionism has not completed its role. She was content and stopped at the physical act, created a state, a people and a society in a successful and astonishing and even unprecedented way.... But all the physical power lacks the second part - the spirit." - and does not understand that 'spiritual Zionism' can only be said in retrospect, as long as the 'physical side' is not resolved it is better not to involve the 'spiritual side'. There are many problems in the world, and there are enough problems for people of Jewish nationality even in their own country. Inventing concepts such as spiritual Zionism and canceling between yeshivas to philosophize with others and eat the leftovers that the rabbis throw to those canceling - will not lead - at least us citizens of the country - to a solution to the upcoming earthquake that you will call, will not block the giant waves that will move from the direction of the Mediterranean Sea, will not build the The satellites that will protect us from missiles or help us navigate, and will not educate a generation of useful people but will raise a generation of parasites that will take care of a useful generation of them. I hope that you and your party members will succeed in creating enough electoral power that will succeed in causing the separation of religion from the state and the cessation of all the budgeting of the religious parties (Jewish and Arab). The separation is necessary for the religious to understand that it is not profitable for them to pay out of their own pockets for fictional books.
J. Chaikin: Sorry for including you in the enlightened camp. You are from the UN. Like the Dutch force that allowed the massacre in Srebrenica because it was afraid of incitement from the right (the Serbs) and the left (the Muslims) and therefore it turned blind and left the Muslims to their own devices. Maybe this is why you are abroad and from there you "judge" - like the nation. Maybe. I will not repeat the mistake again. Since I'm in Israel right at the front, I'm working. If possible. Indeed your ideas (not including the prison...) regarding freedom and education are in the platform of the Or party.
Regarding the war on parasites. You're right, it's not necessary to "exactly" tell them you're stupid. They are not told this directly either. See on this site how Michael R. In his answers without saying the word, only in his wonderful, witty answers full of knowledge and education, he basically tells them this without saying the word.
But Yuval's main struggle is against the secularists. They are the problem. The religious belong to the other camp, the washed and enslaved. The seculars are the problem. Zionism has not completed its role. She was content and stopped at the physical act, created a state, a people and a society in a successful and astounding and even unprecedented way....but all the physical power lacks the second part - the spirit. This is already from the doctrine of Ahad Ha'am: the spiritual creation of Zionism. There we failed and gave up religion. Instead of embracing the tradition and culture out of study, criticism, skepticism and re-creation, among other things, based on the heritage, we abandoned it and gave up. We got tired. That's why we lose. "We" refers to those who consider themselves Jewish in their nationality. Just like Ben-Gurion who was recorded when the CBS interviewers came to his house as citizen number 1 and answered the question in the religion-Jewish section, no religion, Jewish (by nationality...).
Regarding the comments of R.H. And Camila - completely supportive. This is the root of the problem, the comparison on one level between theology and science. You play into the hands of the religious and that is exactly what they do in all discussions with them. This comparison is fundamentally obscene.
I have no love for you in my heart, even though my words are firm, perhaps. I have developed over the years and after learning about myself and exploring my identity including an ultra-Orthodox seminar, studying Talmud in the BB KKK (really little...) trying to "spend" Shabbat in an ultra-Orthodox family, etc. I am a victim of the Zionist state education system in one of its respected institutions. Unfortunately, I experienced myself - like everyone else - the failure of spiritual Zionism that I talked about below.
Another apology to R.H. and Kamila
I am busy here with another matter altogether, and that is to understand the reason for the mutual incitement between the secular and the ultra-orthodox.
Harini is sorry for giving such an unsuccessful example. I would be happy if you bring more successful examples and participate in the discussion as well.
Hi Camila,
let's go together I am a science student at the University of Glasgow and enjoying every moment.
Please see my apology to RA as addressed to you as well.
R. H. Shalom
You are absolutely right. It is clear that we have extensive knowledge about the operation of many mechanisms in nature, but not everything is known yet. I could go back as far as the trite example of the Big Bang and say that the concept we have of what was before it is the same as the concept we have of the creation of God and the world. But it already sounds like a play on words, and that's not what I meant.
Maybe I chose a not so successful example when I dealt with mutations. I know how certain mutations occur as a result of injury from an external source, but I assume that DNA itself also contains a mechanism for creating mutations that is unknown (as of now) to science.
jubilee,
I agree with what R. H. answered you. And I will add what he did not say and in my opinion it should be said: that the comparison you made is unfortunate, it goes beyond a logical fallacy or ignorance (I simply do not believe that you are that ignorant). I don't understand why you made such a baseless claim. You used the relativistic argument in its extreme form. Apart from the intellectual amusement in it, this argument is completely true because we can never know for sure that something (except on the condition that...) has no meaning in our physical and mental existence. Try to live a day in your life when all the truth of every possibility is weighed. Did I write a day? You won't be able to do it even for five minutes, because even getting out of bed or going out the door (and not the window) is not guaranteed to be done correctly. Scientific theory and theological theory are incommensurable with each other, to say that there is no difference between them is a complete absurdity, and regarding the mutations... I recommend that you go one day to the university closest to your place of residence and visit the molecular laboratories of the life sciences, I hope that after that you will not feel the need to express yourself in this way again.
Amit the Jewish tzaddik,
I really appreciate that you want to associate me with your camp. However, I do not see myself as belonging to the enlightened camp or any other camp. At most, I am willing to belong to the blind camp. I'm afraid that the incitement from the right and the left will only collapse the ceiling on all of us.
The story about the beautiful girl is captivating. But beyond that, he points to a third problem that the ultra-orthodox pose to free society, after coercion and exploitation, which is perhaps even more difficult than the others - brainwashing.
I believe that religion is not the disease. Religion is only the symptom. The real disease is the tendency of humans to become enslaved. Many people give up their freedom and become addicted, some to drugs and some to religion. Despotic regimes resort to "re-education" for all types of addicts, but our country - at least until the next election - has not yet crossed the line.
Freedom is important not only for the individual but for the strength of the country as a whole, and much can be expanded on this. The problem with freedom is that it is difficult to enact laws that support it without limiting it themselves. A child born in an ultra-Orthodox family is not free. However, a law that would force his parents to send a signal to study the core subjects would harm their freedom. It is not easy.
If I were the legislator in this country, I would imprison the propagators of religion (Machbatim and other missionaries) like the drug dealers. But luckily for all of us, I'm at the end of the west. Instead of such a boycott war, the state can stop supporting religious institutions, or at least reduce it significantly. When their funding sources are blocked, their corrupting power will also decrease (the religious refugees may turn to drugs, but we will not jump off this bridge until we reach it). Just as the ultra-Orthodox are given the freedom to choose their own faith, the rest of the country's citizens should also be given the freedom to decide where the taxes they pay go. Since you are politically active, how about doing something practical and declaring, for example, a tax revolt? If today it is possible to get a million people out of their armchairs and take them to the streets, it is easy to organize such a rebellion as well.
And once again I return to my original question: is it necessary to say to the religious people of Israel and the Arabs that "you are stupid" in order to fight religious coercion, parasitic exploitation and brainwashing?
jubilee,
How do you compare our knowledge of the formation of mutations to our knowledge of how God was created?
For your information, it is quite clear how mutations are created, we know dozens of mechanisms for creating mutations on mullets and we have tools in the laboratory to actually create almost any desired mutation.
Compared to this, what exactly do we know about how God was created or how he created heaven and earth?
Yuval I forgot: if we are talking about political organization, I am one of the founders of the "Or" party. Right now we are small and few. It has to do with laxity, laxity and apathy of the secular.
By the way - religion may not be a disease, but wherever it exists there is discrimination, racism, apartheid, gangs,
Sectarianism, conflict, incitement, hatred, violence, coercion, separatism and more...
Yuval: It is clear to me that we are in the same camp, but you "suffer" from a blindness shared by most of the vast majority of those who belong to "our camp", we will call him "the enlightened"...
The problem is that the seculars who lead the camp and sell the state for sitting on the chair look like the people of the camp - they flinch and flinch in front of anyone with a religious appearance in general and ultra-Orthodox in particular. The secular camp vibrates with contempt against the religious camp in D-Y-V-K because of its immanent weakness. I don't think this is the stage, but on the "Deat-Emet" website, the topic is discussed at length and detailed in detail. The way is definitely to undermine their foundations - the foundation of faith in receiving the Torah from God Himself, that the words of the Sages are nothing but the words of God or, at the very least, were given under divine inspiration. Daat-Amat is doing holy work on the subject.
I'll tell you a short story that you might understand: as part of my activities, I contacted the mother of a 17-year-old girl. Secular, of course. One day the daughter met a friend from a religious family who removed the dome. The guy's mother - who understands interest - grabbed the girl and started "working" on her. Conversations, leaflets, books and later lectures, meetings with rabbis and here the friend put on a cap, "strengthened" in their language. Later she came home with long sleeves... I won't go into detail but what led her to contact us was the day she came and told her mother that she was marrying the guy "by December". Why ? Because that's how the rabbi ruled. Why did you decide that? Because she is going to enlist in January for the academic reserve for medical studies..!!!! Do you understand what kind of blow and what kind of deterioration was expected here? Instead, a doctor and a religious Danite who is "honored daughter of a king inside". disaster. In short, I asked the mother why you only now turned when the girl was already captive? "Because I thought she was smart and strong enough and at first I didn't see any danger in a little "religious studies" and I wasn't afraid that she would "repent". I understood, I answered. "You say "repent" and what's really wrong with "repentance" and "repentance" doesn't sound threatening at all. Tell me, I asked, if she came home one time drugged or drunk, would you act immediately? You must have answered me what it was to deteriorate into alcohol and drugs would have immediately woken me up. Well, I said it was all a matter of terminology, if we said "degradation to religion" and not "repentance" you would have woken up at first.
The summary of the girl's story (a girl as beautiful as her mother, by the way....) broke up with her boyfriend and joins the reserve in the original route.
By the way, it is difficult from A-D to appeal to the hearts of religious people who were captivated as babies by the brainwashing and terror-inducing education in the world of religion. However, despite the education, the brainwashing and the severe damage to their souls, many understand within themselves that something is not right. The ones we know after they shaved their beards, trimmed their sideburns and went free. Believe me, one must also act in attacking the belief itself. also. Not only. A series of steps and actions must be taken. Not just one thing will help, there isn't just one panacea. Only a sophisticated "cocktail" and even that does not always guarantee success.
To Dror Israel and other believers,
In principle, there is no difference between a scientific theory and a theological theory. There is no way for a common person to conduct a direct laboratory experiment that would last 4.5 billion years (or even 5771 years). The mechanism that creates mutations has not yet been sufficiently clarified for us, but at least to the same extent we do not have the slightest idea how God was created and in what way he created the heavens and the earth.
That's why I don't understand why the religious attack scientific beliefs instead of taking a beam from their eyes.
A fellow righteous Jew
You brought a long list of examples of religious coercion. You also mentioned the exploitation of the ultra-Orthodox in the State of Israel.
These are serious phenomena that we must rid the country of.
But it's still not clear to me how it will benefit our cause to tell people that their faith - perhaps the only reason for their lives - is vanity from beginning to end. After all, that's not how we'll succeed in bringing them to the groove we want. At most, we only condescend to them and insult them, and this leads to condescension on their part and digging into their positions.
Since their coercion and exploitation are a consequence of political agreements, isn't it more correct to directly attack the political system that allowed them? In a reformed country this is done through organized political organization and not through means reminiscent of incitement.
Lyoval: My name was only registered because the response was registered on another computer, I became "anonymous"... Anyway.
There is no interest in attacking faith per se. The problem is that it is not a matter of belief between a person and himself, but a belief that is part of an orderly and well-organized system that harms his surroundings.
Freedom of speech also does not violate the freedom to shout "fire" in a hall full of people so that a riot is created. The belief that it is your duty-not your right-to coerce other people requires a response not only to the symptom (coercion) but to its cause (belief). See the mysterious belief of former chronic drinker Bush who was "born again". This innocent tzaddik froze research on stem cells "out of a deep and authentic belief" that this constitutes a violation of the sanctities of his Christian faith. In doing so, he greatly harmed life-saving medical research and hindered the progress of medicine. It should be mentioned that in the name of "faith" a protected shelter was not built in Ashkelon because there were bones of pagans and foreigners under the ground?? And the struggles against archeology in general? And autopsies? And not donating organs? Leaving is not the stage to open the religious Pandora's box. You are up to date, you know on your own.
When you deal with a harmful phenomenon, you handle all aspects of the phenomenon. Faith and religion are a very complex phenomenon. very It meets many different needs. both on the personal level and on the group-social level. Naivety is thinking that if you come to attack only coercion you will succeed. After all, this is what we do here in Israel, isn't it? In the meantime, the vanity believers obtain budgets and open seminars to further degenerate into the ways of religion. And we protest. Today, most first grade children belong to the Arab and religious education sectors, most of which are non/anti-Zionist. And we protest against religious coercion. Know what some will protest "only" against the coercion and others will attack on the other fronts. What do you think ???
====================================================================== =================
Ladror Israel: Thanks for the recommendation. The ultra-Orthodox at least has a chance to come out of the darkness of religion into the light, from the depths of faith to the heights of reason, to be freed from the shackles of religion, from the tyranny of the rabbis, from the rule of Halacha, from eternal slavery to this God who exists between the two sides of the believer. To turn from a rabbinical Jew into a sovereign Jew.
You, as I imagine, will not be granted this and will continue to err and wonder about the darkness of religion. But let's be optimistic if you are here there is a tiny, tiny chance after all. Maybe.
And to your "scientific" review that you posted here with quotes from articles published here on the site. The Tzadik's comments:
1. The first section, in my opinion, suffers from your poor reading comprehension.
2. I will leave the scientific answers to experts and wise men greater than me. But I'll just say that I don't understand the purpose of your doubts and "comments". You did not understand or disagree with certain points presented in the article. Well??? What do you actually want to say or convey here?
In science there are constant disagreements even among the scientists themselves until a clear theory is formed. So what ?
Is there any connection or implication to your faith-religious view?? It is clear to me that it is and I already understand where your thoughts wander but I will give you the stage for the answers.
To the righteous Jewish colleague
I suggested you meet with this ultra-Orthodox
He is easy prey for a company of true evil
It seems to me that you will succeed with him in your missionary work to the desert world
I have collected some scientific excerpts from your website about the vast scientific knowledge that has been accumulated so far regarding the interesting and fascinating universe:
A. The article is as vast as the cosmos:
It is very difficult to imagine the vast distances in the cosmos, and it is even more difficult to measure them. In the far reaches of our galaxy, the Milky Way, and in other galaxies, distances cannot be directly measured, but only estimated based on indirect clues
Our universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate, indicating that it is saturated with dark and mysterious energy.
The final goal: to find out whether all supernovae, anywhere in the universe, understanding the explosion mechanism of supernovae may considerably improve our ability to measure distances in the entire cosmos,
Author's note
According to what was said above a. Scientists today do not know the size of the universe at all
B. There is some dark and mysterious energy, meaning that we don't even know what the amount of energy is in the universe
We will move to another article on this website: Who is the God of the scientist:
The understanding that we are so close to this moment does not come from faith, but from proven scientific experience. Today we know with almost complete certainty that indeed, this is the moment when it all began. How do we know this? Simple, because nothing is lost.
Author's note
The scientist in front of us proves that in terms of scientific experiments there is a law in nature that nothing is lost. The question being asked is. Not about the reality of such a strangulation in nature. Has this law always existed? If so, this law exists
Without the limit of time and therefore it does not depend on time or place so that it is actually above time and place and the question asked is how can it change something that time and place do not affect in nature.
Secondly, if it does not always exist, then how was this law created in nature and when
We will continue with another section of this chapter
When at the beginning of the XNUMXth century the astronomer Edwin Hubble noticed that all the galaxies were moving away from each other, it was not difficult to conclude that everything once started at a singular point. It was also very easy to reverse the direction of time and calculate when it all started.
Author's note
The immediate conclusion reached by scientists is that if we go back in time we will reach the starting point of the creation of the universe
But a. Whoever said that the universe is moving away is linear, after all, this is a test of a total that started about a hundred years ago
Just once try to calculate how many percent a hundred years are out of 13.7 billion years (as the article says: the measurements will last 13.7 billion years)
B. Who assures us that this movement of the universe and its receding did not begin within
Day after day it slowed down to its current motion (after all, there is a scientific theory that the universe will shrink, that is, it is in the process of slowing down according to this theory) and what's more, perhaps the universe itself beats like the heart beats and such a beat happens only once every thousand years,
And another writes in the article
The beginning of the universe at one point in time is an experimentally proven fact.
Author's note
According to what we asked before that the size of the universe is unknown, the amount of energy in the universe cannot be measured, the age of the universe is not bound,
But with the fact that the beginning of the universe at one point in time is indisputable,
The question is when and how did this point in time begin.
Let's assume that just as there is a universe... there is something that created the laws of nature in it as above... something that is above the limits of the universe. Above time and place, is it so difficult for him to create the universe in a week and in it everything that scientists find today
Moshe,
I confess my sins in this very moment. I have just heard the story of Hippasus for the first time, thanks to you, and I have not yet had the opportunity to think about its aspects. I don't know how the story affected his introduction (or at least his divorce from the school) to the language of mathematics.
Your opinion, that both current science and religion create in their language an artificial separation between man and the world/God, rings a bell to me. But in order for me to address her, I need a little expansion and/or detail.
Thanks.
To the one who forgot to write down his name (is he a colleague?)
It is our duty to fight religious coercion. even a sacred duty. But why attack the ultra-orthodox for their faith? How exactly does it help against coercion?
It is also worthwhile to demand from the government a comparison of conditions with those of yeshiva students. But, again, how is attacking their faith supposed to do any good?
It is true that in recent years I have not lived in Israel, but that is irrelevant. And yet, for your information: until nine years ago I lived in Jerusalem and I saw it being horrified to alarming proportions. I am in touch with friends and relatives and hear what is happening. All important Israeli newspapers are published online. I think I'm up to date.
Hello Amit - I'm glad you enjoyed the film about "mathematical discourse"
Jubilee - even if Pythagoras did not drown Hypsus, this is a legend
is in the culture and has an influence on the language of mathematics in any way
Have you ever thought about it?
In my opinion, both science and religion are current
create in their own language
Artificial separation between man and the world/God
Moses
Li. Haikin: I don't care at all what some unknown person believes and what he does in his life, in his time, at his own expense within his private space. Definately not. This is part of the liberal view. What else ? Faith in general and religion in particular have serious consequences and effects on social life. The environment of the religious person "pays" for his faith. That's the problem. I believe that religions are an excess and unnecessary distraction in the development of human culture. Richard Dawkins explained a lot about this in his books. However, there are many more unnecessary and even stupid things and I have no problem with them. Me and my shoulders. As mentioned, the problem begins when the faith leads people to disturb others and interfere in their lives.
From your previous comments I understood that you do not live in Israel and perhaps you have forgotten the reality in Israel where the MAD religion harms society, the country and certainly the religious themselves (but harming the religious is of last importance).
Indeed the reaction is emotional but it is also mental. You know when you get hit first it hurts and triggers an emotional response. After that comes the stage of the intellectual response: see section D in my detailed response (there are no numbers for the responses in the new version...:-(.) especially this sentence: "We live in Israel of the 21st century and I suppose there is no need to clarify and explain the damage and the bad impact of Religion in our lives in every facet and aspect: political, legal, social, economic, scientific, educational, values, etc." The fact that I deal only with the Jewish religion and not with all religions (despite the principled position that they are all nonsense and superstitions) is precisely because The fact that the Jewish religion really hurts me in a tangible way, the society in which I live, my people and my country.
Those who live and closely follow the media and the state of religion-state relations; Secular - religious knows how damaging and problematic religion and the religious in Israel are. this is the reason.
Moshe,
We can't really know what happened to Hippasus. These are stories passed down from word of mouth thousands of years ago and we are at the end of this long broken phone. Maybe he just went for a walk and had a heart attack while swimming in the river? Evil tongues are everywhere and at any time. My opinion is the opinion of the smart boy in the kindergarten, according to which Pythagoras appointed Hippasus to be a teacher in his place or at least his deputy and successor in the faculty
To all my teachers, thank you. educational.
However, I'm afraid I was misunderstood. The fault is mine, because I did not formulate correctly. Let me rephrase:
A) To a believer (a Jew, in the following example, but can be a member of any religion): I don't care how you came to faith. Maybe you were born to it and maybe you came to it by virtue of some kind of persuasion. But you not only believe in the intellect, but also put on a tefillin and pray and make all kinds of incomprehensible movements with your body, sit and stand, stand and sit and insist on reading the same certain books every morning, noon and evening, day in and year out. Don't you have something more interesting to do in your spare time? What makes you believe?
b) Without a believer: whether the kernel of faith is real or imaginary, that can be debated. But what do you care if so-and-so decided to believe his bullshit, sway like a lullaby and mutter regular verses? We live in a free country and that is his right. Why do you make it your business? Why are you attacking him with a barrage of foam?
I believe that these two behaviors stem not from reason but from emotion. please buy me
Yuval Chaikin: Here are other things worthy of the topic of religion and faith:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/231947486832719/doc/264083796952421/
Yuval Chaikin
A question for all the believers and all the deniers: why?
What do you believe?
Why are you lying?
I am not asking for smart and logical answers. I ask for answers from the heart.
Why do you, the believers, fiercely defend your faith?
And why do you, the deluders, go against the believers in a frenzy?
So please
I do not believe that there is a being like God. More than that: I know there isn't
As far as God is concerned: it is not a matter of the heart; Either there is or there isn't. The analysis of the founding texts, the criticism of the philosophical arguments and the like and the proven scientific knowledge have nothing to do with the heart.
I believe in certain contents of well-known human values, because they seem correct to me for correct, moral conduct of life, etc.
and permission questions:
Even if we assume that God exists, why should he be worshipped?
*The whole thing is about God who needs to be worshiped and do it through his representatives on earth. They have a very good reason for this
Even if it is clear that there is no doubt, why is it important for the deceivers to prove it to the believers?
*If people believed in the actual existence of the God who created the world - and that's it, the discussion about it would have one kind of value. The point is that belief in God - and referring to God in a monotheistic sense, as is customary in Judaism/Christianity/Islam - causes two things: the distillation of a problematic way of thinking in order to overcome endless refutations, contradictions and in general everyday problems, such as reward and punishment; The practice of this belief is a basis for exclusion and hatred at best, actual harm to others at worst.
The purpose of these questions is to test whether the belief or denial of it actually stems from wishful thinking more than anything else.
And thanks in advance to the respondents
Faith, in its essence, is a matter of the "heart". Therefore, the very fact that it is the mediator between man and God, this and not knowledge, says Darshani. And this is far beyond a dictionary matter.
Moshe what a beauty. Thank you very much and well done. It will serve me great in the discussions on the subject of religious education versus the enlightened secular. I don't know how common it is and I'm afraid that this is an exceptional example and the general rule is that the education system here is collapsing in every respect. The problem is that in discussions with religious people (for example on the Da'at Emet site) the idea of the distortions comes up to return to the method of the room and the yeshiva....!!!! My attempts to explain that the fact that the system is flawed and the system is rotten, failed and backward does not mean going back to an earlier system of the Middle Ages, despite its relative virtues that I know of, but to improve and advance the current system to another level. This is an excellent and heart-expanding example of the possibilities and promise inherent in advanced educational methods.
Thanks again and I promise to make proper use of the video.
Moshe what a beauty. Thank you very much and well done. It will serve me great in the discussions on the subject of religious education versus the enlightened secular. I don't know how common it is and I'm afraid that this is an exceptional example and the general rule is that the education system here is collapsing in every respect. The problem is that in discussions with religious people (for example on the Da'at Emet site) the idea of the distortions comes up to return to the method of the room and the yeshiva....!!!! My attempts to explain that the fact that the system is flawed and the system is rotten, failed and backward does not mean going back to an earlier system of the Middle Ages, despite its relative virtues that I know of, but to improve and advance the current system to another level. This is an excellent and heart-expanding example of the possibilities and promise inherent in advanced educational methods.
Thanks again and I promise to make proper use of the video.
Hello colleague,
The story that your son discovered God in the garden is very interesting
If you are curious to know what the kindergarten children think
On the question of how Pythagoras treated his student Hypsus
who discovered an error in his Torah
You are welcome to watch a short film on Gan Adam's website
You can find out what really happened online
Moses
jubilee,
What is this innocence?
From the point of view of the believers, those who do not observe the mitzvot seriously harm their way of life and their hope for redemption. From the point of view of the non-believers, those who impose the burden of mitzvot on them seriously harm their lifestyles and quality of life. That's why it's a bloody debate that won't end. I don't think there's much point in it either. In my estimation, a huge majority of people are born and educated to their belief/disbelief and the number of people who actually sit down and consider things and decide rationally is minimal. So there are some who repent and some who question the question again, but the majority argue passionately about the beliefs they were raised with.
In my opinion, there is a high chance that if Amit the Jewish tzaddik had been born into an ultra-Orthodox family or the ultra-orthodox would have been born into a secular or Christian family, mercifully, the opinions expressed would have been completely different.
Yoel, thank you for your answers.
To Yuval Chaikin: The question of God was revealed to me in my childhood. Since then it has occupied me to some extent, like everyone. My 5-year-old son "discovered" God in kindergarten, about a year ago when the kindergarten teacher spoke about God as an existing being. Since then the issue comes up with him sometimes. "Getting to know" God by my friends or adults who tried to introduce Him to me made me angry... I felt that everyone conceived God from the reflections of their hearts and adapted it to the needs of the conversation or the particular matter in which God came up. Even as a child it seemed to me to be such a convenient device that you pull it out for various needs. When I later discovered the huge, oiled and corrupt system of the various religions - I was really revolted. I guess because I am a "born atheist" I have no religious needs such as the need to believe in God, worship him, take part in worship and rituals, etc. The few visits to the Bichenas caused me a considerable amount of indolence and boredom, or in the language of "a wonderful country" I was really disgusted with them......I think all this "God's work" is stupid.
It seems to me that if there is a God, then in the reality of our world it is reasonable to assume - as in the belief of the Cathars in the Middle East in Europe - that this God is nothing but Satan, and that if there is a God, he does not "control" our world, but is actually hidden and disappears and abandons our world to Satan himself. Since I am far from such deviant thoughts that seem like vanity to me the only option is simple atheism.
Then I grew up and became more and more interested. My opinions have not changed, only anchored by various facts, some of which were hinted at here by "Yuel".
Going against the believers while trying to prove that the belief in his existence is stupid and dangerous stems from various practical reasons, here are some:
A. There is a sense of arrogance and superiority on the part of religious people as if they are "better" by being religious who perform mundane acts defined by them as "the work of God". It's especially infuriating when it's clear to you that their feeling is superficial, unfounded and comes from an arrogance that comes from education.
B. Belief in God does not stand by itself as a theoretical and superficial thing. It is often connected and anchored in religious behavior. Religious behavior is also practiced by those who appear to be completely secular. If it was only a theoretical question - so be it. A-B-L Most of the time belief in God is related to religion. And religion is a poison that accompanies human culture and harms human well-being.
third. Personally, I see myself as a liberal-humanist. In my opinion, religion is against the humanistic-liberal values, and therefore all its manifestations that harm humanistic values must be fought, and there are many of them.
d. Belief in God is the basis and infrastructure for religious behavior which has a lot of harm, as mentioned. Damage to the infrastructure and foundation will more easily damage the entire structure of the harmful religion. We live in Israel of the 21st century and I assume that there is no need to clarify and explain about the damage and harm of religion in our lives in every facet and aspect of them: political, legal, social, economic, scientific, educational, values, etc.
I concluded for life from all of the above that the war on faith is an inseparable part of the war on religion which is the creation of faith. In general, in my opinion, faith is the "virus" that causes various troubles that are manifested in various symptoms, and religion is one of its manifestations. Faith also has secular revelations that are no less shocking and the history of the 20th century teaches us about some severe symptoms created by the virus of faith in human culture.
Haredi Beyond the great answers given by Yoel, I will add to your arguments as follows:
A. I am very happy that you are here to find out and understand especially in light of your statement that you are a "fanatic ultra-Orthodox" on the one hand and on the other hand ignorant in many areas. From my acquaintance with ultra-Orthodox, the mere fact that you surf the Internet and on secular websites is enough to give hope. If after reading the article you want to understand more - I will be happy to clarify as much as possible.
B. In your second answer, you continue to confuse the concepts of "knowledge" and "belief". You write like this: "When I say faith, I mean a person's desire to accept something as an agreement regardless of the correctness of the thing." Here you understand my claims but insist on disagreeing…..faith is precisely the desire of a person to accept something regardless of its correctness, validity or truth. This is exactly the difference between it and the news. I will not add more on the subject because I wrote clearly and your need to believe makes it difficult, I guess. By the way, with verbal maneuvers I was aiming for exactly that - you disagree with me for no reason because it seems that we actually agree on the subject.
third. For the argument you made that most of the wise men of the world believed in God. This is a common and well-known argument, but it is wrong. The mistake is that most of the wise men of the world lived in the past. And in the past, the vast majority of the world believed in God - except for righteous people like Elisha Ben-Aboya, who understood the matter after one visit to Paradise... - therefore it is quite clear that even geniuses like Newton, who contributed so much, erred in the illusion of God and mysticism. The reason that his work in mystical and religious research is not famous compared to his scientific work speaks for itself. Today, in a time when secularism has gained status and has a place in human culture, it can be learned that most scientists are secular. The higher their level and rank, the more widespread atheism is among them. This is scientifically proven, for example, in a survey conducted among the National Academy of Sciences in the USA.
A question for all the believers and all the deniers: why?
What do you believe?
Why are you lying?
I am not asking for smart and logical answers. I ask for answers from the heart.
Why do you, the believers, fiercely defend your faith?
And why do you, the deluders, go against the believers in a frenzy?
and permission questions:
Even if we assume that God exists, why should he be worshipped?
Even if it is clear that there is no doubt, why is it important for the deceivers to prove it to the believers?
The purpose of these questions is to test whether the belief or denial of it actually stems from wishful thinking more than anything else.
And thanks in advance to the respondents.
The ultra-Orthodox wrote: "The whole discussion about God and creation is related to the category of metaphysics and philosophy, and is not related at all to the Tanakh and to the people of Israel. To say that the Bible is the only source of things shows complete ignorance."
According to the Tanach, God did, God said - and above all God revealed himself. The whole matter of metaphysics and philosophy is a very late matter on a scale (many hundreds of years, even beyond a thousand) that does not belong to the matter. The need to recruit them arose because the actual claims (revelation, activity within history, reward and punishment as written) ceased to function.
If God, the creator of the world and man, is the object of one or another philosophical view, then the law of this view is like that of all philosophical theories: if he wants, man will accept them, if he wants not. By the way: at the last count, 149 standards were registered with the registrar of theories. So why exactly this?
If this is so, it has nothing to do with the existence of God before man and apart from him. If this is so - and given factually proven theories that contradict a belief system that has no factual basis - the existence of God itself falls flat. The fact that scientific theories do not "need" God, certainly the one presented in your book, makes the existence of God a personal matter, which has no validity beyond the personal decision of the believer.
It means that there is one fact: people believe in God. This means that there is no single fact, and that is the existence of God.
That is, man is the creator of God. It is not really much, not worth the trouble and noise and certainly does not belong to what is said about that entity.
The ultra-Orthodox said: "When I say faith, I mean a person's desire to accept something as an agreement, regardless of the correctness of the thing."
That is, it is a personal decision of a person, based on his will and without relying on knowledge. That is, knowledge and criticism are not part of the equation. And by the way, a complete waste.
The whole discussion about God and creation is related to the category of metaphysics and philosophy, and is not related at all to the Tanach and to the people of Israel. To say that the Bible is the only source of things shows complete ignorance.
In my opinion, the Tanach is no source of anything, the Tanach is a religious book that the Jewish people adopted and gave it sacred status, it is not a book of science nor pseudo-science.
I agree with you that the text of the Tanakh is problematic, as the Sages said "The Torah spoke in the language of men" and the people at the time the Torah was written about three thousand years ago, were idolaters and perhaps even primitive and ignorant, so the text is not at all adapted to our generation, it is clear to me that if The Torah would have been written in our generation, it would have been written completely differently.
I'm waiting for Michael and only then he continued to participate, he gives a level with sources and knowledge, the rest is a rowdy mob
Amazing! The number of cards in the red heart series is the same as the number of the floor from which the piano was thrown.
But what is more amazing is that I myself live on the thirteenth floor (if we consider the ground floor to be floor number one) and therefore I am going to conduct an experiment that will test whether a piano thrown from this floor will fly into space or crash on the ground. I claim he will rise above. All I ask of the readers is that the preparations for the experiment remain a secret between us: the piano will be a shaped balloon filled with helium.
The discussion about God is disconnected from the source and what Paley has done is to create an argument that should deal with the collapse of the source as a knowledge base. The only source of knowledge about the existence of God is the Bible in which it is told about his revelation to humans. The only source of knowledge that the same revealed God created the world and the life in it is in the first two chapters of Genesis.
A. 1. For this matter, the source has two fundamental problems. One is internal, meaning the very existence of two different creation stories for the world and two different creation stories for man. Of course, you can ignore it, make excuses for reasons, but the contradictions are there and, as mentioned, they are essential.
A.2. In addition, the stories themselves are problematic in themselves, such as the fact that God did not create the water, did not create existence from nothing, but only arranged chaos and chaos, created light before the sun, etc. And in addition: the correspondence with earlier stories from Mesopotamia (such as the large crocodiles and as in the later laws of God continuing Hammurabi's laws) is also extremely problematic.
B. The second problem is external, and it began to develop in the West from the moment a different type of body of knowledge was created.
One way or another, against the background of this huge mask of contradictions, everything that is written in the Torah - as mentioned is unproven and full of fundamental contradictions - stands in complete contradiction to what is at the foundation of scientific knowledge today, in the fields of physics (cosmology) and biology (evolution).
third. Since this is so, the believer has two options: 1. Accept the possibility that there is no God based on a system of rational criticism based on text analysis and proven knowledge that contradicts the various creation stories. 2. To look for any way to neutralize this threat to his beliefs.
d. Why? Because science can give "technical" answers, and unlike faith, it cannot help people who need to believe in something greater than themselves. They believe in God, they do not know God.
After all, if there was a God, the creator of the universe and life, the greatest being of all, then his existence would be self-evident, at least like the force of gravity.
But he didn't. Fact. Don't believe? This very discussion is one proof that there is no such thing.
Thank you R.H. Rafai.M
I agree with every word, and cognitively and psychologically things are doubly difficult.
What's more, the vast majority of the world's wise men and renowned scientists have always accepted the convention that there is a God, from Aristotle and Plato to Newton and Penrose
orthodox
I read in the newspaper a few years ago about an interesting study. I don't remember all the details, but in general the research went like this: the researchers looked at how long it takes the brain to agree to something, and how long it takes to reject something.
The results of the study showed that a person takes more time (a second and a bit) to deny something, than to agree with it.
Now think how much easier it is to agree that God exists and act according to his commandments, than to deny his existence.
And also try to think how difficult it is not only to deny its existence, but to know why its existence is denied.
A little tip for life: success comes from hard work and not shortcuts.
post Scriptum
I hope I have time to find that research on the Internet, I don't promise that I will but if I do then I promise to post it here (if necessary).
Amit
In the second response, I didn't quite understand your words, you should know that I am fanatical ultra-Orthodox, and these concepts and things are foreign to me, you need to explain and detail more so that I understand.
I thank you for the link, I printed the article and will read it carefully, it looks like good material, I would be happy if you could direct me to more materials, that's what I'm here for, to learn.
Hello colleague
Indeed, as you said, I only intend to convince and find out for myself, and not for anyone else, each one will live in his own faith, likewise I also understand and accept that there are different opinions and they can live in one subordination, and even more than that they can also enrich each other. In all my words I did not intend at all to prove the truth of something, and certainly not for others, I am wrong in many things and in some things I am also confused, and in some I am ignorant and with the land. But I am here to learn and try to understand as much as I could, I heard your words and thought about them seriously, and what is true for me is not necessarily true for others, and my hope is for a fruitful discussion to continue.
I did not write about the proof of faith, I wrote about faith and its essence without trying to convince myself or others of the proven truth of the things. My reference to Dror was from a place that he is not correctly interpreting the Sages and their faith, but not from a place of proven truth
------
I will repeat my words once again on how I understand the Jewish religion, according to what I read in the words of the Sages and their interpretations, if you understood their words differently, I have no problem with that.
Belief and knowledge are two different and separate concepts, but they are not opposites. The concept of faith is the acceptance of a certain thing, absolute acceptance regardless of its readiness, and the motive for speaking is the person's desire to accept them. The concept of knowledge refers to understanding things and proving them to be true regardless of their acceptance and adoption, a person can understand something about his ignorance as true but not accept it. When a person also wants to accept that there is a God, and it is clearly proven to him that it is indeed so, then he both believes and knows.
I may be confusing concepts, you mean something else by the word faith, it is not a reference issue. And with you is forgiveness. When I say faith I mean the will of the person to accept something as an agreement regardless of the correctness of the thing.
The strange sentence for you, explain simply, there is a mitzvah in the Torah to believe that there is a god, that is to accept it as a convention regardless of proof. Another old mitzvah is to try to prove and know this convention as correct, i.e. as a proven truth. Even when a person has succeeded in proving that there is a God, he does not necessarily accept it upon himself, it depends on his will.
A person who believes without knowledge is called a faith below reason, a person who believes with knowledge is called a faith above reason.
Simple and clear, but of course no one has yet been able to prove a masterful proof that there is a God, I personally believe out of faith without knowledge and proof of the correctness of this, and I try to learn and am constantly interested in science, because I think it is close to proof. The moment I stop believing will be when I find a masterful non-probabilistic mathematical proof that there is no God, you are welcome to direct me to such a proof.
----
"The verbal juggling that is so characteristic of religious people and that sets them apart... they are nothing more than a long, exhausting and tiresome text designed to exhaust the disputant and confuse him". For some reason I had the same thought regarding the author of the article Roy, but I respected his investment, and I did not write it except because of the flaw you imposed
Haredi: If you had trouble understanding the article, try this, especially the part about "God and the Higgs particle":
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4112888,00.html
"Bayes' theorem gives us the relationship between the two probabilities. The probability that the butterfly is beautiful given God must be multiplied by the probability that God exists at all, because if there is no God there is no point in the whole probabilistic discussion. The probability that the existence of the universe points to the existence of God is equal to the probability that given God the universe exists, but only on the condition that God does exist." Provided there is a God... and this my friend is subject to pure faith, the essence of which I have already detailed.
Pay attention to the definition of God whose whole essence is closing gaps - he is the "God of gaps" who, as Dawkins thinks, was the first to reveal his essence. Indeed, there is nothing left but to choose between a personal God who covers emotional-mental gaps and a transcendent God (isn't he the Jehovah we know....)
Lahardi: I don't understand how you disagree with my claims regarding the essential and fundamental difference between "knowledge" and "belief". Your argument says this: "Belief is something that is accepted as agreed upon and true, either between a person himself or a group of people, belief originates in the will, and knowledge originates in the intellect." Well, you explained yourself, to yourself the difference between the two....read again my argument and your explanation and you will see that you are fundamentally wrong.
You are confusing a covenant with a faith, perhaps because of the difference in v. A treaty is a social agreement between people. like a contract Faith is a completely different thing and I explained what it basically is and its essence. Human will has nothing to do with the truth of reality or the things in reality. You are confusing terms, concepts and ideas. The fact that a religious Jew (not every Jew, of course) accepts belief in God has nothing to do with his existence. The only thing that can be said about the existence of God is that he exists - with certainty - between the two ears of the believer. Like Winnie the Pooh, for example.
In the sentence below: "There can be faith without knowledge, when a person wants by the strength of his will to accept different things, even though he does not refer at all to the correctness and provenance of the things." You make it clear that I was indeed right in the basic argument and that the difference between faith and knowledge is as crucial as the difference between going to the doctor with a broken arm and getting treatment and going to the rabbi to get a blessing…….
A very puzzling and completely strange sentence for me: "A Jew should also investigate and find out if this assumption accepted by him is true or not, and one of the commandments of the Torah is to close the gap and connect between faith and knowledge, between the will and the intellect, and then it turns out that faith comes from knowledge, that is, the desire to receive The fact that there is a God also comes from the intellect"
As an educated Jew, my conclusion is completely opposite (by 180 degrees...). Examining the gap between faith and knowledge, between the words of the Torah, the prophets and the scriptures, the conditions, the Amorites and other sages clearly shows that faith has no solid basis in reality. Sometimes the words of the sages are beautiful, powerful and true, and many times it is proven that they are embarrassing mistakes, ignorance, and even just plain stupidity and obvious immorality. From all of this it appears that if we rely on religion (any religion but in our case Judaism) it is clear and obvious that there is no God and he has no independent existence beyond what I have defined below - between the ears of the believer.
Again, you are using the word "faith" incorrectly, in my opinion. There is no faith that is built on the mind...it is fundamentally unfounded. In this case there is a clear and rigid dichotomy of either or. If you know, you no longer believe. There is no need for that. You either know or you believe. And when you don't know, you can believe, that is, invent, imagine, delude yourself. The verbal manipulations that are so characteristic of religious people and that even distinguish them do not, of course, make any contribution to the truth of the claims. They are nothing but a long, exhausting and tiresome text designed to exhaust and confuse the debater.
Well, not this time, Molly. You are wrong from the beginning of your response to the end. Read the argument again and try to understand in depth instead of using a run-of-the-mill speech whose purpose is nothing but self-convincing.
good week
Hello fellow righteous Jew, [what a warm, soulful name]
Unlike you, I don't see any beauty in the article, it is loaded with words and parables, I tried to read it several times and I couldn't, neither to finish nor to understand, I only understood that he wanted to disprove the proof that God exists from the fact that there is order in the world. I have many words to say on the subject, but since I did not understand his words, I cannot comment.
There is no contradiction between faith and knowledge, what is faith? Faith is something that is accepted as agreed upon and true, either between a person to himself or a group of people, faith originates from desire, and knowledge originates from reason. "Social art" and there are many different types of art in the world. This thing that is in the treaty, it can be true and proven, and it can only be agreed upon.
According to Judaism, it is agreed in the faith-in-covenant that there is a God, and even if one does not know that it is indeed the case that there is a God, the Jew takes this assumption to heart as true out of complete and absolute acceptance, out of his desire to accept things upon himself. At the same time, the Jew must also investigate and find out whether this assumption accepted by him is true or not, and one of the commandments of the Torah is to close the gap and connect between faith and knowledge, between the will and the mind, and then it turns out that faith comes from knowledge, that is, the desire to accept that there is a God also comes from the mind .
There can be faith without knowledge, when a person wants from the strength of his will to accept different things, even though he does not consider the correctness and provenance of the things at all. And there can be knowledge without belief, when a person knows about something that is true, but he does not want to accept it, [for example, I know that I must do a diet and exercise, but I do not believe in it, that is, I do not take it seriously and accept it on Self as a way of life.]
Faith can be below reason, when one accepts the convention that there is a God by the power of the will without reason, and if a person later succeeds in proving with reason and knowledge that there is a God, and also in his desire to accept this knowledge as a covenant and embrace in his heart, then faith is above reason, that is, faith of being built on reason and not on will alone.
The comparison to the debate between me and Dror, to a debate between scientists, is out of place, because Dror simply did not study and does not understand the philosophy of the Jewish religion, and it is similar to a debate between a scientist and a person from the crowd who is not versed in the ins and outs of science. The sentence, "faith is higher than reason", is a quote that is not unfounded, but Sparrow failed to understand it and brought it in the wrong context.
Nice article and congratulations to Cezana. As usual, the discussion that develops after is interesting in itself and takes on a volume and an independent life……. I will respond in my favorite field - religion. First, to the Israel sparrow: the definitions of faith and opinion are wrong.
"Faith" in its essence is against "knowledge". Those who know do not need to believe, and those who do not know are open to beliefs. The problems begin with belief, when one does not know, and are in situations of distress, threat, helplessness, etc. This is the mental substrate that guarantees the beginning of faith, that is, to invent things that will satisfy the demand to know, and fill the void that the lack of knowledge leaves in the human soul. After all, what is faith if not a hypothetical, imaginary, delusional invention of man in relation to reality? 'Faith' is an attempt to interpret, explain and excuse a reality in which man finds himself, a type of internal, immanent and most basic mechanism that develops naturally in the human soul. Synonyms for faith are = imagination, in the discussion invention, mirage, illusion.
The sentence: Belief above reason is meaningless (unless you believe…..). Faith-by definition-cannot be above reason. The fact that you and "Orthodox", both of you believers, argue about the principles of the faith proves my point. You will not find scientists debating, for example, scientific facts such as: the structure of the human body, blood circulation, the pulsation of bacteria and the effect of antibiotics on the Earth, etc. It's because they know and don't just believe.
And to your claim about thinking about something that doesn't exist: let's try a creature named "dragon". What do you think, is there such a creature in reality? And here, even though there is no such thing at all, man conceived, created and created it - poof - out of nowhere. Moreover, stories were told, legends were whispered about the dragons and even - pictures were drawn - of a completely imaginary creature - just like God which we know for sure only exists: between the two ears of the one who believes in him. And nothing more.. and not only in Europe, the dragon was also created in distant China. Just like this invention, no "God". "In the beginning man created his God in his own image and in his likeness he created them..." This is exactly how God was created in every culture in the image and likeness of the humans who created him.
Michael,
What is happening in the streets today
Happens in math too 🙂
You know Russell's paradox in set theory
You must have heard of dilemmas
Regarding the solution of Hilbert's first problem - the continuum hypothesis
Think of a richer group
which is called a collection
And it can contain organs
repeating themselves
for example
[1,2,1,3,2,2,6]
I would love to meet you when you return from vacation
Moses
Amadeus
Already after your first comment, commenter 'Chen' identified you as - in my words - an idiot.
Michal Rothschild has proven to you (and all of us) many, many times how much of an idiot you are.
Thank you very much.
Amadeus:
Just before I was going to turn off the computer I discovered your comments.
Thanks for the good wishes.
The words you mentioned are not exceptions to the exception I described and if you think they are - you are welcome to explain the mechanism by which we come to an agreement on their meaning.
I know you won't succeed but I'm also pretty sure it won't affect your mind.
I can clearly explain this using the mechanism I described but I really don't have time right now.
Michael, enjoy the trip.
Sea of Galilee:
I still had time to see your comment after I wrote my previous comment and I happily confirm the fact that the background you have on these subjects is indeed less than that of the other writers.
That's why your words came out so hollow.
FYI (and this is a fact!) I am God and I created the whole world before you wrote that comment.
On that occasion (for entertainment) I also created you.
Of course - so that no one would recognize the bluff - I created them all with the memory of what supposedly happened before (it didn't happen, but I made sure that the world looked like it happened. That's why I created a coordination between the memories that I planted in the minds of different people and I also planted dinosaur bones in the ground – all to confuse).
You need to understand me.
My hobby is creating people and confusing them (well, I also enjoy killing them but that's another story).
Ok Michael, what about words like "justice" "happiness" "beauty" "evil" "simplicity", and many other abstract concepts that indicate values? These are not meaningless words, yet they do not denote anything concrete that can be experienced with the senses. Let's say when I call some act "right" or I call a painting "beautiful", I am not indicating a visible quality, or any other sense, but I am indicating the fact that the act or the painting corresponds or does not correspond to some abstract concept which, of course, cannot be felt either. How do you explain the meaning of such words?
Even if we assume that beauty or justice do not exist in the world, and these are human fictions, these words still have meaning.
And there are other abstract nouns like "freedom" "law" "success" "victory" "hope". All these words are problematic, because on the one hand they indicate all kinds of concrete states of affairs, but it is not about some concrete property of the states that can be felt with the senses. Suppose you cannot translate the words "success" and "victory" into definitions that will not include synonyms, but only experimental terms.
And I forgot to mention earlier, what about the mathematical concept of infinity? No one has ever experienced anything infinite, nor can they, so how does this concept have meaning?
I will use the lull (or maybe the end?) of the debate to wish you all a pleasant holiday (from me).
Tomorrow - at 04:30 in the morning, a taxi will pick me up for Netvuz and on Saturday - if everything goes as planned - I will already ride with my wife and one of my sons on a bicycle along the Danube.
According to the plan, I will return to Israel only next Saturday evening and to activity in the field only after I have finished eliminating the mail that I will surely have accumulated by then.
Bye
Excuse me - even as someone who probably has less scientific and Jewish background than the other writers here, it seems to me that what is behind the article, and the discussion that led to it, is hollow!
"God"/"external being" could have created the world in any way he chose - even in such a way that it would appear to be accidental or intentional or in any other way. Using this as proof that there is no God is nonsense.
And quite wise.
Shabbat Shalom!
Obviously!!! The Big Bang was created and born from the womb of God
I must say that I am really amazed by the debate that is going on here about something so elementary.
We use words.
We understand these words for one of two reasons:
1. Or we experienced their meaning in a combination between our senses and the experience (which we also experienced with our senses) that the things we experienced people usually call by these and other names.
2. Or they defined them for us.
If you defined them for us - use the words.
These words are also understandable to us for the same two reasons.
This can be expanded a bit, since we can also invent words ourselves and therefore we can decide to give a name to a certain sensory experience ourselves or define our own definition. But it doesn't change anything in terms of the following consideration:
Since each definition takes a certain amount of time and since we only live from the day we are born, the recursion of definitions has an end and all definitions are ultimately based on things that we understand in the first way.
This.
This is true for every word - including the words we use in mathematics.
What is not clear here?!!!
Amadeus:
I'm tired of trying to explain to you.
Just to get you off me, I allow you to think that a child who doesn't even know what a definition is - really doesn't know what a group is and in fact doesn't know anything about what it is - if it wasn't defined for him and therefore he doesn't know anything and will never learn.
Nor did I speak of the word experience in the sense you are trying to attribute to it.
In the interpretation, I was talking about what we experience through our senses and I assume that you are not claiming that I think we learn our senses from experience (although there is an element of adjustment in them that is indeed acquired from experience, but this discussion is probably too complex for you even without this minute).
How can you see a group? Let's say a number of objects lying next to each other do you think this is a sensory impression of a group?
But physical proximity and belonging to a group are two different things. Ten individual pencils together look exactly the same as a group of pencils that has ten items in it, because they are actually physically the same. But they can be perceived in different ways - sometimes as units, and sometimes as a group. And this perception is something that does not depend on experience, something that already exists with us even before we have even experienced anything.
But there is an even more principled argument - it is impossible to learn about mathematical concepts from experience, because experimenting with mathematical concepts is impossible without knowing these mathematical concepts in advance. If you were not born with cognitive connections that allow you to perceive the world with the help of concepts of number, size, shape, space, etc., you will never learn them, because without them experience is a collection of senseless gibberish, simply photons bouncing on the retina. How can concepts be acquired from a chaotic experience? You must have at least some concepts from which you can generalize to new concepts.
We see the world as individual objects that are in space and have size and shape, because we were born with a brain that already has these concepts embedded in it beforehand. Therefore, in principle, a hypothetical person whose senses are completely disconnected from the world, would be able to acquire mathematical knowledge if he only knew the minimal language necessary to formulate mathematical claims (at least such a person can be imagined).
And by the way, regarding the concepts of the root and the integral - I see that you did not read what I wrote at all.
I was talking about the terms at the end of the recursion.
That's what I say all the time!
Obviously, by means of the basic terms - the ones we perceive with our senses, we can define more complex definitions.
I even wrote an article dealing with exactly that - My article is about language.
The point is only that from our point of view there is meaning only for things that at the basis of all their definitions are essences that we perceive with our senses and understand without definition.
By the way, Amadeus:
I forgot to refer to the "not at all mathematical concepts" joke.
When we come to define the first mathematical definitions - we have no way to do it using mathematical concepts.
It goes without saying.
I was just trying to answer the question you asked about the concepts used by us in defining the mathematical terms and I assumed that you are smart enough to understand that these concepts do not have to be mathematical in themselves.
By the way, some of the terms I defined get a renewed "visit" as part of the math studies - and then even though we have a natural sense of what it is about - we break them down into definitions based on even more basic terms.
This is true, for example, about space, about continuity and about direction (and by the way - also about number!).
If there was something I was afraid of misunderstanding when I formulated the list of terms - it was precisely because of an opposite comment along the lines of "What the hell! Continuity is actually a completely mathematical and non-intuitive term!"
I did not imagine such a lack of understanding that would drop you exactly to the place where you fell.
Amadeus:
Not true.
I will not elaborate because the exhaustion is already excessive.
All the concepts I mentioned are completely intuitive and they are so because of experience.
Nothing in my words is specifically based on the sense of sight, and I don't know where you came up with the story about the blind man.
I am willing to say that a person with no senses at all would not be able to learn mathematics or anything else.
We see groups and we understand the concept without anyone defining it for us.
It is true that the brain does this.
Everything in our consciousness is a product of the mind.
Both the feeling of pain and the feeling of color.
All this does not belong.
Michael, except for group and number, all the rest eight are not mathematical concepts at all. And we can think about numbers, for example, not because things in the world come in numbers, but because the concept of number is inherent in our cognition, and we can perceive the sensory impressions as discrete objects.
By your definition, blind people cannot learn or understand mathematics, because they do not have the sensory impressions necessary to understand mathematical concepts. But of course this is nonsense.
Let's say we take a concept like "group". We don't really have sensory experience of groups. At most we notice individual objects, and the "group" itself is something our brain constructs from a scattered collection of impressions.
Besides, how exactly are concepts like root or integral derived from experience?
Amadeus:
Enough!
Such as group, quantity, size, continuity, number, direction, space and much more.
Hello sparrow
You went to the BiHMD, you came back with quotes, and indeed the conversation between us should be conducted there
Since you brought the Rambam's words, and in my opinion in a wrong way, (I hope it's not from Yaron's website), I must comment, and this is the last time, because in my opinion, whoever has not read and changed, he should not express his opinion on matters that are higher than him and in particular not in the plural. Walk in the way your masters taught you to love and to see God out of faith, and don't call yourself a "philosopher and thinker", it is enough to worship God.
And now for the answer
I can only comment on what you brought from Rambam because it is agreed upon by both of us, Chabad Hassidism and its library. I do not know them and do not belong to them, so there is no basis for discussion between us here, not that I have a certain opinion about Chabad, I am a simple Jew and do not know Chabad, neither for nor against.
Regarding the creation of the world, I wrote that there is no necessity, that is, according to Jewish belief there is no connection between the reality of God and the fact that the world was created, a person can think that the world was created by itself or that it always existed and was not created at all, and still believe in God and the Torah, and is called a believer and not an unbeliever. Things need to be separated.
On the contrary, in your quote from Rambam this is proven, Rambam does not talk about creation and creator at all, he talks about found and inventor and found, you will not find a single word in the whole chapter that Rambam mentions creation and creator. Maimonides speaks in the chapter about the relationship between God's presence and the world's presence and everything in it, and we are commanded to understand this relationship and give it meaning. The foundation of everything, according to Maimonides, is to know that there is a being, and not that there is a creator.
Faith according to Rambam is one, to know, [yes to know], that there is a common. and understand the relationship between him and us.
Rashi's words that you brought, in my opinion, fail you, Rashi, who interprets the simplicity of the Torah, understood that what is written in Genesis, God created, is not the simplicity! The words Genesis created do not mean that the world had a beginning and it was created, the Torah did not come but to explain the meaning of the world for what it is worth its existence.
Regarding the sources, indeed the basic laws of the Torah is a good place to start from, just the first chapter is enough, if you understand it correctly, your whole attitude will change, good luck.
Regarding the second message, you say a lot of things vaguely, and I'm sorry I didn't understand a single word.
What infuriates me is that you bring the Sages, and since you have no basic understanding of them, you mislead them, and bring out their bad slander, Rambam's language is like this, word for word: the foundation of the foundations and the pillar of wisdom, for the knowledge that there is a name found first. He did not write to believe and did not write creation.
And if you are religious or ultra-Orthodox, you certainly have a mitzvah and want to sanctify Shem Shemim, but you should know that you are desecrating Shem Shemim, and since I am a Torah observant and a pantheist mitzvah, I would not want to cross the law of a blind person.
Michael, like for example what concepts?
Amadeus:
The mathematical language uses concepts that are derived from experience.
Michael, I still don't understand how you think mathematics is possible, if the mathematical language uses concepts that are not derived from experience.
Dror Israel:
What you describe as what an ultra-orthodox should think is, in my opinion, what no person should think.
I said that many ultra-Orthodox people think this way because it is unfortunately a fact, but in my opinion - what an "Orthodox" thinks is similar to what every person "should think" much more than you think.
Amadeus:
It is clear that God can be defined without contradictions.
I have previously presented several definitions without contradictions.
For example - you can define it as a corn box.
If you define him that way, I will be the first to claim that he does exist, and I will not accuse him of being responsible for the holocaust either.
I don't confuse anything with nothing.
I'm just pointing out that you can only say good things about things that are both significant and consistent.
Not in every context I was talking about empirical verification.
I was only talking about the fact that meaningful things are understood by virtue of being defined (at the end of the recursion) on the basis of words that represent things that we do not define because we encounter them in reality and experience them with our senses.
The issue of experience - if I even mentioned it somewhere, is relevant only to claims about reality.
for ultra-Orthodox
More detail
As a Jew you do understand that there is a difference between the word faith and the word thought
After all, knowledge is connection and attachment to the thing that is known as it is written: "And Adam knew Eve"
And faith is above reason and I believe with complete faith that all of Israel are believers, only that for some of them this faith is hidden.
That is why Rambam did not start his halachahs with the halachah of the foundation of the foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to believe that there is a common name,
For faith is above reason and knowledge, and it is an inheritance from our ancestors that which is not knowledge.
Science and he knows. But all this is still in the domain of a world called the world of nobility and not above it,
for ultra-Orthodox
How can I not jump?
After all, you pray three prayers every day like that... at least that's what you claim,
I would appreciate it if you would explain yourself when you write that the world was not created by God.
Perhaps you mean what Rashi writes already at the beginning of Genesis,
that the Torah should actually have started from the first commandment given to the people of Israel "This month is for you"
Actually, regarding the people of Israel there is no need to prove that the world was created by the Creator.
After all, this is clear to anyone with an understanding, (I'm starting from a point of assumption that maybe you mean this)
But according to your words, it is understood that there was a descent between God and creation. If that is the case, then you are really skeptical about the verse "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Although I would love to know your sources, but in short, don't send me to complete books, but to show more precise places,
And since I allowed myself to ask you to send me to many places, I will send you to one place for now
Sefer Hatnia, the Gate of Uniqueness and Faith (pp. 152 to 179) and in particular what is written in chapter XNUMX
And in private details on page 165 and in your reading I will quote to you the words of the founder of Chabad Hasidicism "And from this it must be understood that you were mistaken by some sages in their eyes, God will atone for them who erred and erred in their interpretation of the writings of the Arizal and understood the matter of the Tzitzum mentioned there as simply that God removed himself and his essence from a twisted "XNUMX Only he who watches from above with private supervision over all creatures, all that are in the heavens above and on the earth below"
.
Michael, God can be defined without ambiguity. For example, if you assume that God is subject to the laws of logic, and you don't ask him to do things that are logically impossible (like lifting a stone that cannot be lifted).
And you are confusing two unrelated things, between meaning and consistency, and empirical verification. The ability to empirically verify a claim is not a condition for the claim to be meaningful or logical. There are countless meaningful claims that have no empirical expression (like the examples I gave in the previous example). Even existence is not a condition for meaning. For example, having fictional literary characters does not make literature a collection of meaningless gibberish that cannot be logically understood.
So if God cannot be defined in such a way that it is empirically testable, that is not God's problem, but the problem of the illusory theory of meaning that you invented (in fact, they invented it before you, and it is called logical positivism, a view that has failed because it cannot even be formulated consistently without her contradicting herself).
To Michael
Thank you
Indeed, this is how an ultra-Orthodox Jew should think
And as Maimonides writes at the beginning of his book The Strong Hand:
The basis of the foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a common name, that is, that there is a creator, this is the basis of all the passions, including that of science. And it is difficult to say about Maimonides that he was not a great philosopher (see the account of a confused teacher) or a man of science according to the value of his time,
And it is known that she is an excellent doctor in her profession.
Likewise, the Rambam concludes his story The Strong Hand.
that in the future Yahweh will come, "the whole world will be concerned with knowing the Lord,"
Perhaps these recent articles mark the beginning of dealing with this
By the way, the duty of the hearts also writes extensively about the importance of deepening and knowing God
Well Michael, it's like saying that science is represented by the seculars...
In general, an ultra-Orthodox is a person who observes mitzvot in a certain way, this does not make him a thinker and philosopher...
orthodox:"
But, unfortunately, Dror represents well the majority of the ultra-Orthodox we encounter here.
You, to me, are really unusual in this regard.
I know there are some other exceptions.
For example, Professor Haim Sompolinsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page
But the vast majority of the ultra-Orthodox - or at least the majority of those who express themselves here or represent the community in politics - are more similar to Dror Israel than they are to you.
Michael, of course, I referred to my father's words, regarding the need for God and the meaning of God.
So here is the order of things:
The first thing is the definition, the definition of God is: committed true reality.
Secondly, we would like to prove if there is such a thing,
Only later, if it seems that there is such a thing, will we think about whether it has any need, benefit or meaning.
[By the way, there are more features to define, but by way of negation]
The truth is I didn't think to bring the things up, but Dror pulled me in with my tongue, I'm ashamed of him and he's really infuriating
orthodox:
"Before that there is the issue of whether it even exists"
It seems to me that you have slightly reversed the order of things here.
Before finding out if something exists, you need to find out what is the definition of that "something" whose existence you want to check.
Otherwise - how will you know that you saw that something exists? After all, without a definition, as the proverb says, you won't be able to recognize him even if he bites you.
Father, I want to tell you something, which originates from Rambam the Great, who ruled the Halacha throughout the generations, I hope Dror doesn't jump.
The Torah of Israel and belief in God is not creation.
According to Judaism, there is no necessity to say that the world was created by God, and God still has a place for the Torah and the worship of God, and this was said even before they even did the science with reference to the claim of the world's origins.
What's the problem with different opinions, I really enjoy and look forward to the writers here on the site and especially from Michael, who seems to me to be completely opposite in our philosophical views, my problem is with Dror that he doesn't respect opinions different from his own, but I would get along with that as well, his real problem is that he doesn't read and change, and brings heaps of nonsense Arguments, which have no authoritative source.
One of the commandments of the Torah is what is written about faith, "And know the day and return it to your heart", according to the Torah it is forbidden to bring things close to the heart, that is, to believe in things, if they are not based on knowledge, and knowledge of that day and time, and therefore it is our duty first and foremost to find out the knowledge and only then to believe and bring it closer to the heart
What Dror says are things that are not clear to me personally, and are not within the scope of "what you know today" for me, so I must not believe them
hello my father
If there is a need for a god or alternatively what is the meaning of a god, it is an issue in itself, before that there is the issue of whether he exists at all, and according to Judaism a god exists, that is, there is a committed true reality, and this is regardless even if there is no need for him and he has no meaning .
You have one definition, Dror Israel has another. This is the problem.
Ladror, thanks for the advice, but I don't need to climb any virtual gods. By the way, no two Jews agree on his identity, as can be seen even in this discussion. For 400 years there is no need to explain many things and as science progresses the gaps are narrowing and there is no room for God, who once took care of the opening of every chrysanthemum and the flight of every bee.
The definition of God, according to Judaism, is this: a committed true reality.
The problem is that there is nothing that is proven true, committed and eternal.
Precisely the modern science in the philosophy of mathematics approaches this
If science proves that there is something real and eternal, it will be the victory of Judaism over the cultures of the world
It's on one foot
orthodox
Don't forget that there are those who call themselves Daat Emet
I would love to meet you face-to-face to see a person who casts spooks on what he learned in the room
And another calls himself Haredi.
I understand that simple faith in the Torah is a bit difficult for you,
The Creator is the real reality and there is none other than Him
The universe was literally created in seven days and 24 hours according to the clock we know today, this is a simplification of the Torah
The Mount Sinai class took place exactly as you were taught in the room with all its details.
The Torah preceded the world two thousand years period.
The Enlam has existed for only 5771 years period.
When you are not ashamed and stand firm on these things, then the person says that he is indeed ultra-Orthodox.
(In addition, I would send you to the instructive talks of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. As well as to all the books found in Hasidic Torah. The light in the Torah or then you will not be ashamed to write your name in the commentary and your opinion will change.)
Regarding your opinion on my location and where I should be. After all, as a scholar, you know that the opinions I write are also found in the Torah of Israel and in Shofi. And I thought that someone should say them with genius as a lucky article in a place where there is no one
And it's a shame that you didn't come to teach me, because it is written from all my teachers that I was educated.
Dror Israel:
You remind me of a joke.
One man talks nonsense and a friend who hears him asks him: "Tell me: do you even think before you speak?"
"How can I know what I think before I hear what I say?" The man answers.
It's a joke but it has a hint of something really happening: we can talk about things we can't think about (I mean, of course, meaningful and logical thoughts).
Just because people talk about something doesn't mean they can think meaningful and logical thoughts about it.
More than that: I mentioned the ability to base a definition on understandable words as a necessary condition for thinking but not as a sufficient condition.
Meaningless things can be defined using understandable words (such as "the man who is all red and all green" or like something defined in the debate here "someone who is both omnipotent and not omnipotent") and about these things it is impossible to say meaningful things (because they themselves pointless in the first place).
The fact that they wrote something many years ago does not constitute evidence of its correctness. In fact, the opposite is true because knowledge is advancing and an argument that was practiced many years ago did not take the new knowledge into account.
There were many people - already many years ago - who said that the Jews murdered Jesus and that they are murdering Christian children to put their blood in the matzoh.
Michael, have a good trip and lots of fun
Hello Michael,
The world has become very interesting
since our last conversation :)
I hope I created for you
At least curiosity to read
George Spencer Brown's book
Laws of Form
First published in 1969
Bertrand Russell wrote about him
"Since Euclid's book of fundamentals
No such book has been published"
Moses
To my dear editor father
Greetings
The Holy One is a very, very tall tree and even more than that.
Climbing such a tree will only bring you back to repentance in the end.
I really don't care if you climb that tree. On the contrary, happily
But I thought you might care
Hello sparrow
I understand your concern, that I am a fake name, because the things I write seem foreign to you.
So first of all, yes I am ultra-Orthodox, strictly Torah and Mitzvot observant.
Secondly, faith is not a lecture or what you were taught in kindergarten, faith requires in-depth study, and I have not written a single thing here that does not appear in the first words of the nation's greats.
I will refer you to the Sages' literature. Look there for a bit and then come back, and don't bring out our bad words in the open air.
First of all, go back to Rambam that you are bringing, and learn the "eight chapters of Rambam" the basic laws of the Torah with the strong hand, the teacher will be embarrassed in the meantime you will not understand.
You will learn the duties of the hearts
Take a look at our life
You can also take a look at the Binding of Isaac book
There is also the main book
Take a look at the writings of the RSG
more and more
Sorry, I don't think to argue with you nor teach you, I think you don't belong here
Forgive me
orthodox (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-303217):
The articles on "Why is there anything at all" talk about something broader than what I said.
I just said that mathematics has always been (that is - at least at any time that we can infer anything at all). I did not go as far as one of the two articles you mentioned does - by basing the very existence of physics on mathematics.
This is a bold and interesting hypothesis and also, in my opinion, ……one that we will never be able to prove or disprove.
Regarding the quotes - I will contact my rabbi (Yeron Yadan) and ask him about it (he is currently abroad and from today I will also be abroad - on a bicycle trip - so it will take some time).
I did not claim that Sages were burned out in relation to their time. They were angry with regard to our time, but in the discussion with you it is not important because unlike some ultra-Orthodox who claim that everything science discovers has long been written in the Torah - you recognize the superiority of science over the Torah in clarifying the facts.
The deliberate ignorance - indeed it is directed by the religious leaders nowadays and not in the past - but it is not unique to Judaism.
A similar story happened in Christianity under whose patronage even universities were established.
Religion's opposition to science began to burn more or less in the days of Galileo because until these days there was no contradiction between the revelations of science and the claims of religion.
This opposition has intensified sevenfold since Darwin.
Therefore - even though this is a relatively new phenomenon - I believe that it has been "written in the gardens of religion" since time immemorial and broke out immediately when science began to make discoveries that contradict the Holy Scriptures.
orthodox (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-303221):
In my opinion, this is not about the interest of a secular party, but the fact that the ultra-orthodox parties have been the balance sheet in the Knesset for many years, and since apart from the desire to create a halachic state here and receive budgets for themselves, they have no agenda - they can join any government and indeed join whoever pays them more.
Amadeus (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-303227):
Your arrogance sickens me and I will not pay attention to your words.
I will only summarize my opinion about them: you are talking nonsense.
Moses (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-303229):
With all due respect to George Spencer Brown - his words have not yet become accepted in the scientific community.
In fact, we have not yet found a serious and well-known scientist or mathematician who signed them.
That's why I think there is no place to build conclusions.
There are many smart people in the scientific community and I don't think you can come to the conclusion that Spencer Brown is right any more easily than all the mathematicians and physicists.
Personally, unfortunately, I didn't get to read his words, so I couldn't form my own opinion.
to Michael Rothschild
Greetings
Here you yourself admit and wrote "we are only able to think about things that are defined in this way" so where did we invent something that does not exist at all. Do you know another such invention of humans,
This means that if a person is able to think of such a thing then it probably exists.
And simply, the very fact that the Creator has no definition, I did not invent it, they wrote it before modern science appeared,
And with all the attempts of some scientists (not including Einstein and also at the time of the Haron, the author of the end of the history of time) to scientifically prove the non-existence of God to this day, science has failed. On the contrary, as science advances, and especially physical science, man discovers his nothingness in understanding creation and the greatness of the Creator. The business is probably a little more complex than all the minds of all human beings combined since the creation of the world, because have you ever looked at the size of the earth in relation to the universe, it does not even take the place of A grain of mustard, according to this ratio our knowledge of creation exists. Only when we recognize our true nothingness 120 years of life. At best with limited knowledge and limited senses and on and on. Only then will we understand the end of this great concept called creation, and only then will we understand that surely the Creator himself who is always everything in every moment, why we are simply not able to achieve
And this is one of the reasons that we do not have any definition regarding it and of course according to the internals of the Torah the reasons are deeper but this is not the place and the time to go deeper than what has been written so far
Dror Israel, you cannot tell others how to think. And if you believe that a book with lots of embarrassing mistakes was given by some divine agency, it shows the narrow-mindedness of that god.
In science, compared to your version of religion, there is no room for faith, there are facts and as time goes by, the facts are getting further and further away from what is written in the Torah, certainly from the petty literal interpretation that your friends give them. The Tanakh is an interesting book, an important document, mainly anthropological (and a little - towards the end - also historical). You don't have to give him qualities he doesn't have.
for ultra-Orthodox
Greetings
A Jew is a man of truth and is not afraid of the truth
That's why you are presenting yourself with a general and not a private identity
It's suspicious, and with you, I'm sorry, maybe you're trying to hide who you really are?
XNUMX. The Torah is never enslaved to anyone, and certainly not to science, since the Holy One, blessed be He, is the Torah and all of Israel is single, and because the Torah was given from heaven, as you surely learned by Moshe Rabinon, the messenger of God, and as the Rambam writes in the XNUMXth of the Greatest of Faith, (faith rather than reason)
that the Torah gave from heaven. And it is the only absolute truth. Decher that science cannot afford because of the many theories in it that prove it is not an absolute truth
All in all an accumulation of data in the limited brain of humans and therefore
We will probably forget from you that the Torah predates the world by thousands of years,
So the question being asked here, my ultra-Orthodox friend, is do you believe, and I repeat without any shame, do you believe?
According to Sages, or do you believe in the words of the scientists on p
The past that was before the creation of the world.
If you believe the 6 scientists and prefer their sayings about the creation of the world and not according to the simplicity written in the Torah, then when giving it, at least don't use the word ultra-Orthodox. Look for another word, perhaps a Jewish skeptic.
An ultra-orthodox person is anxious about the word of God, precisely about the word of God,
B, and regarding the status of Mount Sinai.
The fact that the people of Israel turned after the great and terrible class to the calf does not prove that the class did not exist.
On the contrary, our Torah, which is a true Torah, reveals to us that even after such an exalted status, the people turned to worship the calf
Which shows the weakness of the people of Israel. And all the more he saw the situation of a part of our people after a close one
For 2000 years of exile, even you yourself question how Mount Sinai stood and you still shamelessly call yourself ultra-Orthodox
And again I suggested that you should change your definition since you are misleading others and you may even be doing it on purpose.
This means that the primary distinction in the world
For example, a 3-year-old child
It is neither in numbers nor in triangles
but by pointing to something
as different from its surroundings
Spencer Brown's Mathematical Revolution
who is still alive by the way,
is that with such an idea you can simply create
Mathematics is richer than the existing one
I'm glad it excites you
And I also definitely understand why
After all, this is what we are all looking for
religious or secular
What does it matter when you are one with God 🙂
To reduce all mathematics to one simple operation, which is distinguishing a single object in the world
What it means? I wish that's what I think
This is going to fix my metaphysics and belief in God
Sorry for getting excited
You suddenly became my travel companions
Abi, I completely agree with you, but not from the secular point of view but from the ultra-orthodox point of view, the same phenomenon is a serious problem for both the ultra-orthodox and the secular, and in my opinion the ultra-Orthodox suffers from it more both quantitatively and qualitatively
Moshe, I am intrigued by your words, very, very much, I am jumping out of my skin to read more about the subject. Amazing.
Somewhere in this place is the feeling that the seculars are suckers and will not rise up. Only in this way can it be explained why Huldai was elected a third time even though he gives public spaces only - but only - to ultra-Orthodox bodies, and that he does not expel the members of the idolatrous sect Chabad (the Messianic stream - although it can be said that the claim that there is a more moderate stream still needs proof) . Besides, he doesn't listen to ordinary people either, but only to contractors. It is possible to build a tower that will reach 500 floors from the buildings he approved at the expense of public spaces and gardens only in Ramat Aviv III.
And of course this is just an example I know.
Michael can tell you what is happening in Ramat HaShevim, which is in Brussels, and that even there the municipality does not lift a finger in favor of preserving the free color.
I understand that you agree with me that the repentance movement is a disaster, but even more disastrous is the incomprehensible disdain for ignorant people and peoples of lands who have declared themselves as rabbis and public leaders. Every holiday you see how ministers, prime ministers and presidents meet with Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and other ultra-Orthodox leaders.
I became aware of this back in 2004: https://www.hayadan.org.il/dibuk100404/
Thank you Avi,
So I will try to explain it in Hebrew
The revolutionary idea of George Spencer Brown
is to reduce all mathematics to one simple operation
which is a distinction essentially alone in the world
Anyone who understands this concept
Can understand the challenge of the article
And all the questions about God and science
Really getting an answer
This is what Albert Einstein was looking for!
Best regards
Moses
Michael-
I think you just fail to understand the nature of the problem. Maybe you have trouble understanding the terms I use (contingency and necessity), and if so, then tell me and I'll explain them.
I repeat and emphasize - I do not seek to explain life or consciousness as such. What we seek to explain is how it is possible for a certain contingent universe to exist, when it could not be one, or be another universe. The only way to explain the existence of something contingent is to assume that there is something necessary on which all other things depend. When you try to give a naturalistic explanation of the universe you simply take the problem one step further back, and explain a contingent universe with the help of something equally contingent. You completely ignore the fundamental metaphysical problem. Therefore all the "possibilities" you offer are not only really not simpler than God, but they simply do not solve the problem, because you do not understand that you need to show that a naturalistic explanation is possible that would also be metaphysically necessary. Or show how it is possible for there to be a contingent reality without sufficient reason for its existence, something you have not done so far (eg give up the principle of sufficient reason).
And you mess things up. It is legitimate to explain reality with the help of consciousness. I don't understand how, from the fact that the universe has consciousness, it follows that the universe itself cannot be explained with the help of consciousness. This is a completely unfounded argument. It is clear that at least some of the things in the universe are explained with the help of consciousness (like planes, robots, or cement), so there is no reason why the universe itself should not be explained with the help of consciousness. It is not enough to show that it is possible that the universe was created without consciousness, you have to show that in fact it was not created with the help of consciousness, which until now you have not done.
The comparison with gravity is unfounded. Obviously, you can come up with as many debunked explanations as you want. But I brought an argument that shows why God, and precisely God who is defined in a certain way, can explain reality. God is not needed to explain gravity, but God is needed to explain the existence of the universe.
"Something that can be shown that if (in our case) God did not exist - it can be shown that he would have behaved differently."
Well, it's really simple. If there was no God, there would be no universe, and we would not be sitting here now. Because there is a universe, then there must necessarily be a God. This is because if there was no God, then there would not have been a necessary and sufficient reason for the creation of the universe, and because things do not just come into being by themselves without a necessary and sufficient reason, then from the very fact that a universe exists I conclude that there is a necessary and sufficient reason for its existence, and this reason must be essentially different from the universe, That is, not contingent, not accidental, not limited, infinite, absolute, and having maximum perfection, and independent of anything other than itself. The only thing that can meet this criterion is unlimited intelligence, and that is God.
"This is exactly the thing about definitions - in the end they all boil down to things we don't define because we feel them with our own senses.
Only about things that are defined in this way are we able to think logically, and anything beyond that is the nonsense of people who want to control others by inventing entities"
We do not feel the Cipher Pi with our own senses and therefore we cannot think about it logically, and it is the nonsense of people who want to control others. We also do not feel Julius Caesar in our senses, therefore he is a senseless rant of people who want to rule others. We also do not feel with our senses and cannot define the idea that for something to make sense it needs to be felt with the senses, therefore the idea that for something to make sense it needs to be felt with the senses is simply nonsense of people who want to control others. You don't believe this nonsense yourself, do you?
Moshe, an ultra-Orthodox, wrote in a previous response that he does not know English.
Hello Haredi,
I invite you to read about mathematics and logic on the following website:
http://www.lawsofform.org
Best regards
Moses
Michael, we need to separate Judaism and the Torah of Israel and the ultra-Orthodox community, they are two things that are not related to each other, even though the ultra-Orthodox community has taken over and rapes itself over Judaism and the Torah.
The ultra-Orthodox community is made up of a wide variety of people, with different opinions, and like any society it also has its ills, the problem you mention is mainly with ultra-Orthodox Judaism in the Land of Israel, and it mainly refers to the political part of it, which is caused by the political parties and Teshuvah organizations, which is very harmful for Judaism but very profitable for the pockets of the leaders.
The more mandates there are, the more money there is, and the response organizations bring the mandates, there is a systemic problem here in which the government also takes part, and in my opinion the whole issue of religion and state should be reformed, and the funding of the kollels and the guarantee of income to the abrach should be completely stopped.
This is for the benefit of the ultra-Orthodox citizen who believes in the Torah of Israel and for the good of the religion and the Torah of Israel, but it is not pleasant for the pockets of the administrators and businessmen and the intrigues between the factions
Apparently somewhere the secular leadership has an interest in preserving the situation, there should be something threatening about the secular culture as soon as the ultra-Orthodox become a dominant part of society here in Israel, and this thing is becoming bigger and bigger both in the army and in social involvement
I am very interested in what you write about logic and mathematics, I also read the articles on the website "Why is there anything at all", and this whole topic intrigued me, because it means that there is an objective truth that is bound by reality, my question is, as you write, is it just belief or which is a proven thing.
Where else can I read about it?
-
The Gemara in Holin, completely taken out of context.
In the Mishnayat Avot there is no Mishna XNUMX in chapter XNUMX, and there is no such text at all
But it doesn't matter because I agree with the principle that there is no scientific truth in the sage's words.
I do not agree with you with the ignorance you attribute to the Sages in relation to the period in which they lived, they were the most enlightened, the ignorance stems from the missionary answer organizations and the ignorant people who live with us today.
Haredi (August 23, 2011 at 21:34)
Belief in God, i.e. in some supernatural essence that can fill any misunderstanding and ignorance no matter how great (in terms of why? God!) is destructive from the point of view that it is an easy, simple and always available solution to avoid dealing with the difficult (but also the most interesting) questions that reality puts before us. It is destructive from the point of view that it leads to a lack of productivity and worse, it forces those who hold it to maintain a system that is disconnected from reality and that requires the use of lies to justify that system (if religious belief really remained in the spiritual dimension only, whatever the meaning of that may be, then yes, but I I don't know a religious person whose faith does not affect him substantially on a physical/practical level on a daily basis). It is clear that the existence of a person without religious faith does not guarantee his morality, but those who do hold a religious faith that is actually manifested in his life, are forced by necessity to be immoral (for example, to reconcile the contradictions with reality, or to accept Torah laws that are clearly immoral In the eyes of any sane Western person). A religious person must give up a humanitarian component when he believes that keeping Shabbat is more important than human life, or when homosexual intercourse justifies (and even requires) murder. And there are more and more examples, whether it is in relation to women, whether it is in relation to Gentiles, whether it is in relation to foreigners in general, and in reality this also penetrates and is expressed even in the ultra-Orthodox currents among themselves.
When I see people who are clearly intelligent and who have read quite a bit in their lives, some of them have really brilliant brains, and they still stick to this essence as an explanation for all kinds of phenomena that occur in reality even when things stand in complete contradiction to the simple reality that is laid before us, and they use all their intelligence just to preserve, to defend and even add something to the well-oiled and well-oiled mechanism of strings of excuses that "explain" all these obvious contradictions, I am shocked at the loss of all human beings from the same creative power and the same intelligence that is wasted on the despicable practice of what is mostly similar to the worst kind of jurisprudence, such that the truth Far, very far from being her goal. If we add to that the religious establishment that is mainly engaged in stealing ideas and money for the benefit of that painful mechanism, and if we acknowledge that the resources (human and financial) are limited, then I not only feel sorry for all those babies who have fallen prey to religion, but I am also very disturbed by all those resources that are not directed to things The really important ones, the things that have the greatest potential to benefit humanity.
orthodox:
Einstein did not believe in any god.
Certainly not what you call "world".
Einstein simply admired the beauty of nature to the point of excitement and therefore described his feeling towards it as something close to religiosity.
He did not think that this "God" had a will and did not impose eternity on him.
I guess he believed - like me - that there are things that are truly eternal (like logic and mathematics).
I know that at one point he also believed in the eternity of the universe (while he thought the universe was static) but didn't insist on it when it turned out that there was apparently a big bang.
By the way - even the existence of the big bang does not firmly establish that there was nothing before it, but only that we have no way of knowing what preceded it.
I am interested to know which of my quotes are inaccurate, in your opinion, because I did not make them up and if there is any misquotation I would not want to use it again.
I agree with you about the words of sages that are scientifically wrong, but in the case of at least some of your quotes they are inaccurate, which is a shame
Hello Michael, thank you very much for your comment
Indeed, I agree with you, that the words of the Torah and the Sages simply, at least in part, seem like "grandmother's stories", and it is clear to me that the Sages did not see the correct reality as we see it today thanks to scientific research.
And yet I do not treat the Torah as "grandmother's stories", and interpret and explain in a way that fits reality, and the question that is asked is, is this not an evasion in order to preserve the sanctity of the Torah, for all kinds of irrelevant reasons.
My answer, dealing with the Bible in the various ways, is for me the connection to God, only, not science, morality, or anything else, the Bible for me is not a means of help or an author or the like for a standard and useful life in its various types and aspects. In my opinion, the one who takes the Bible as a means to a normal life is only corrupting.
The Bible has no holiness that is from its own side but from the subjective place that I placed it as connecting me to God. [And this is also the place Judaism gives to the Bible], Sages are the ones who arranged the Bible and they determined what to include and what to omit. Indeed, somewhere there might be a possibility to do this by Shakespeare and Nietzsche and more.
What remains to be asked is, what is God and why should we call upon him and why precisely by the Bible. [However, there are more questions here, and it is important for me to know them]
Regarding what you wrote about the ultra-orthodox community, this is an issue in itself and not necessarily a theological one, I don't accept that it is because of the Torah but because of the way this society shaped itself in general and the people in it in particular, to blame the Torah for this is to take responsibility away from the people and this is unacceptable to me, what There are also roses there despite everything.
---
Tell me, Michael, you brought Einstein earlier, who believed in God as the world, and he is based on the opinion of Spinoza, if I'm not mistaken, and I would be happy if you could explain their words to me, because it doesn't work out for me to believe in such a God, because the world and the entire universe, with all its wonders, will have its day and it will be abolished , and if so he is like the man himself who eventually dies and no trace of him remains.
Whoops, leaving the site for a bit and coming back to a thousand new comments.
Amadeus (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-302870):
I am completely consistent.
The laws of nature that we base ourselves on are not unknown and basically - the search for them has improved our lives beyond recognition.
There are still laws we don't know but I don't rely on them for anything. I'm just pointing out the fact that until today - the laws of nature helped us understand the world and the concept of God only got in the way.
I present the various options that they thought about, all of which are simpler than "God".
I also say that the claim that life is explained by previous lives is idiotic to say the least. It doesn't explain anything - and I explained it.
and - Amadeus (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-302877) - It may not be clear to you, but life and consciousness are part of reality and people often wonder about their origin.
orthodox (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-302907):
Books are not assigned to a certain genre just like that.
They are assigned to a genus according to what is written in them and perhaps according to other things told by the author.
The Torah tells us grandmother's stories but claims that this is the truth.
Therefore, in my opinion, it is associated with the genre of practical stories.
All association with other types is an act of evasion by those who understood that these were grandmother's stories but still want to sanctify the Torah.
Amadeus (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-302916):
"That you can say good things about her" is - see it's a miracle - "that you can say good things about her".
Words of reason are not a repetition of the definition itself or parts of it in different ways, but something that will explain (and I explained what an explanation is) some phenomenon in the world - something that can be shown that if (in our case) God did not exist - it can be shown that he would have behaved differently.
To illustrate - if I said that gravity is a "transcendent immaterial spiritual being, omnipotent and omniscient, which created the universe of its own free will, and designed it so that intelligent life would develop within it. God necessarily exists, and the existence of all other things depends on him, but his existence does not depend on matter. He is permanent, eternal and perfect, and he cannot cease to exist, or he could not cease to exist." He wouldn't help us understand anything because he wouldn't say anything.
By the way - I enjoyed reading about someone omnipotent who cannot stop existing (ie - about someone omnipotent who is not omnipotent).
Dror Israel (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-302965):
This is exactly the thing about definitions - in the end they all boil down to things that we don't define because we feel them with our own senses.
We are only able to think logically about things that are defined in this way, and anything beyond that is the nonsense of people who want to control others by inventing entities that attribute to them (even in the holy books) qualities such as wisdom, kindness, the ability to create worlds, the actual execution of world creation, intervention In the course of nature, at the same time as revenge, fear of human wisdom and the like and at the same time it is said that nothing can be said about them because they are not defined.
It's actually just a way to silence criticism.
And by the way - how do you think the status of Mount Sinai existed?
I remind you that in the days of Josiah no one knew anything about the laws of the Torah and they were only discovered following the work of some repairman in the temple.
In my opinion Josiah even wrote the book and planted it there.
orthodox (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-302971):
Sages also state that mice are created from mold and lice from human sweat.
They also said that the cow's trachea divides into three parts, one of which reaches the liver.
They also talked about evolution. Admittedly a strange and far-fetched evolution, but evolution nonetheless:
Erod can be created as a result of pairing a snake with a turtle: "Rabbi Huna Bar Torta said: Once I went to a council and saw a snake wrapped around the turtle, later an Erod [a type of snake] came out of them", Chulin Kakhz p.a.
is funny?
That's not all, of course:
In tractate Avot, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX, it is written: "The tiger is bold-faced because he is a bastard like the mule [!] which [the tiger] is the son of the wild boar and the son of the lioness. Because during the heat of the lions, the female puts her head in the thickets of the forest and growls and demands the male, and the pig hears her voice and chases her, etc. And since he is a bastard, he has a fierce face."
And how about that?
http://www.daatemet.org.il/issues.cfm?ISSUE_ID=759
And in order not to detract from the Jerusalem Talmud, I will also quote from his words:
In the Jerusalem Talmud it is known to say that: once every seven years God changes his world, the louse after seven years turns into a scorpion, a male hyena turns into a female and a mountain mouse turns into a wild boar (Shabbat chapter XNUMX page XNUMX column XNUMX / XNUMX)
In short - Sages said a lot of nonsense, but in my opinion the most horrifying of them all Moral laws which they determined.
orthodox (https://www.hayadan.org.il/god-and-the-fine-tuning-of-nater-2208116/#comment-303026):
It's a pleasure to read your comments but I'm afraid you don't represent the community you come from.
This community - for the most part - prefers the opinion of the Torah and the opinion of the Sages over the revelations of science and unfortunately this is only the small problem.
The big problem is of course the avoidance of work and military service and the general feeling that she is allowed to impose the lifestyles of the Messiah's donkey.
Even if there are roses like you here and there in the field of houmi - these roses do not reach the leadership of the community and in the leadership sit people who want to impose a state of Halacha andto preserve the ignorance By preferring the "lei ba" studies over the core studies.
Hello Camila
You sharpen the question, why and for what to believe and worship God
If once the explanation was reward, giving reward and preventing punishment, protection and giving security from the unknown, today science does it much better, yes, it is more powerful than God, when God cannot be trusted neither for his justice.
I agree with you, that in our time, it is not worth worshiping God, but why do you see it as something so critical from an existential point of view, even the most religious people who do not believe in science, follow science with blind eyes, I am from there and I tell you that you can be calm.
my father
You are 100% right about the science studies
Ultra-Orthodox Judaism in Israel is in a very difficult situation, not only from the point of view of getting by in life, but also from the ultra-Orthodox point of view, a superficial and parasitic generation is growing up here, whose destructive results in all respects we as a community are beginning to experience in a terrible way, and instead of thinking outside the box we are converging more and more inside the box, but It will not help.
The problem is systemic, and the responsibility is also on the government and the general society in Israel.
In my opinion, we must reform the relationship between the religion and the state, the benefit of the common citizen ultra-Orthodox, is the separation between the religion and the state, the motive for connecting the religion and the state is one and only: money.
As soon as the distribution of the various budgets changes, everything will change.
orthodox,
What that video shows in a nutshell (and with a bit of my addition): Science has proven itself to be an amazing way of thinking that increases our understanding of the variety of phenomena around us and the technology that can be developed through this understanding. Religion, on the other hand, as a way of thinking, does not provide this knowledge and understanding (and in fact does the exact opposite). Although science is far from perfect, it is the best that exists today and is also the only one that has proven itself and continues to do so even today. Since science is the only tool that we have a good and tested reason (truly tested, not "tested" in the religious sense) to believe that it will continue to help us understand what we do not know and understand today, it is recommended for anyone whose soul desires knowledge (and I will expand and said also life) to put their trust in science and devote less resources to directions whose usefulness is questionable to the point of being downright harmful. If you grew up in the ultra-Orthodox education system and therefore do not know English, a situation that is common among yeshiva priests and religious women, this is an excellent example of how you too were a victim of the religion that in this case prevented you from gaining the tremendous knowledge that exists out there. You have no reason to be ashamed, certainly not if you were one of those babies who were born.
And to summarize even more simply: science - 1, religion - 0
And to be fair: science - billions, religion - 0.
All a person can say is that he follows the path of religion because it gives him something external to science. I personally don't know what external to science means. There are many things we do not know yet and experience shows that over time our understanding of the same subject increases over time. If it is something that in principle we cannot understand or grasp, I do not understand what is the use of relying on it in any matter. For me, this knowledge of the success of science (and in my case also the very pursuit of science) is enough to soothe the disturbing itch of the feeling of not knowing, which others soothe through astrology, card reading, superstitions or faith in God. They tried to bring some unsuccessful definitions for God here before, so I will give one of my own here: God is synonymous with "I don't know". It is indeed shorter by a few letters, but in light of all the disadvantages that this term entails I really see no point in using it. He does not explain anything and he does not teach anything except the level of ignorance. The more a person clings to it, the greater his ignorance and lack of understanding of the phenomena of this world and this is not surprising because continuing to say I don't know will never teach you anything new. Happily, it seems that in the world there is a positive trend towards science at the expense of religious belief, it is still too little but the trend is clear. To my dismay, the general trend in the world does not reflect what is happening here in Israel and there are too many people who have not yet realized that the processes that are taking place today have a lot of weight in what will happen here in this country in a few decades. Using the tools of scientific analysis and relying on simple facts such as demographic balance and the distribution of the burden of employment and security, it shows that we are in the midst of an alarming deterioration in the state of the country. Religious belief is not just a baseless foolish belief in the context of the reality in which we live, but it is a real danger to souls. I hope that we will not reach the day when I and others like me will be told: "And we told you so."
Now you understand why we insist on studying math and English - that your rabbis think this is a violation not only of the religious laws but also a criminal offense to the extent that they talk about preventing the core studies as a victory.
You need basic knowledge of math and English to get by in life.
In any case, the film explains what the achievements of science are compared to the 'achievements' of religion and refutes the claim of religious people of all kinds that science is constantly changing and therefore cannot be trusted.
To the ultra-Orthodox, you say a little strange things.
First of all, what is the concept of a "mitzvah"? The word itself already assumes that there is a mitzvah. How can there be a mitzvah without someone with intentions commanding it?
Can inanimate matter enact laws? When you have a mitzvah such as keeping Shabbat or kosher, or praying at a certain time, then you must assume that their source is intelligent and has an intention. How is a physical law that commands Jews to keep kosher possible? The only way that there is any logic in the existence of the Jewish religion is that a human-like source decided that this is how the Jews should behave.
It is also impossible to interpret the Torah without assuming a personal God. Otherwise how could God have spoken to Abraham or Moses? How, for example, could something without intentions and servitude guarantee Abraham many descendants?
Precisely if God is not omnipotent, then he becomes Superman. Superman is just a very, very strong man, but limited. God, on the other hand, must have unlimited power and ability, otherwise he becomes just another Superman. More than that, it turns out that he is a contingent, limited entity whose existence is conditional, and another god that is more powerful than the Jewish God (for example Zeus or Wotan) can exist. An impersonal god is simply an object, what is the point of worshiping an object? (And I thought that worshiping objects in Judaism was heresy...)
my father
I was ashamed and disgusted
Except Yiddish and Hebrew and a little Aramaic, I don't know
Too bad
Hello sparrow
There are things from what you said that are close in my opinion, although they are not accurate enough for my opinion, and there are things that I strongly disagree with.
1. The Torah is enslaved to science, proven science precedes the Torah, period. I don't know what proven science is, but what is proven is prior to the Torah and we will have to change the simple interpretation in the Torah and explain it according to science, for example: today it is clear that there is no God in heaven who has a strong and bent arm, so it can be written a thousand times in the Bible, we do not accept the It's as simple as that.
2. The Mount Sinai stand, even if it was in all its details and grammar as we were taught in the room, is no proof of anything, even the people of Israel themselves after participating in the stand itself and experiencing all the "miracles" and revelations, turned to the calf and Baal Peor and changed the mouth of God , so it means nothing.
Where is Michael? Your words are interesting and wise
Dror and Haredi - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRLR9jhP_DM
The Jewish faith does not believe in a personal God, and this is one of the fundamentals of Judaism
Even more than that, a parsonal God is downright heresy, and the whole essence of the Torah is against this type of divinity
God has no intentions and desires and He is not omnipotent, and all the vain and empty things you said earlier in your definition of God, God is not Superman!
In the Torah it is also written that God created the world in six days, and it is possible that the world was ancient. Sages are the ones who determine the Torah and not the Torah determines them, this is the Jewish belief, the dream follows its solution.
I speak from a Jewish point of view, but I also respect other opinions and religions
In Christianity, as I understood it, there is a big place for the persona, but I don't connect with it at all
I am an ultra-Orthodox Jew who observes Torah and mitzvot, behaves and looks like 400 years ago in a typical European town, and believes that God is impersonal, worships God out of personal choice and meaning. Indeed, as you mentioned, there is no point in observing the Torah and mitzvot, but rather the person as a subject decides and wants to give it meaning
History has already judged the various religions, the religions that presented the observance of mitzvot as an objective duty, and condemned them to disgrace and eternal damnation, and in particular the religion of "love and mercy", and no matter how much they try to beautify it in Christian and Jewish missionary organizations, this disgrace will never be erased
By the way, for those who claim that there is no logic in the second religion, answers:
A. It is true that religion is above reason and that is why in receiving the Torah Israel said "We will do and obey." Reverse order than usual.
B. Religion is certainly higher than normal human reasoning, but those who study it and in particular the Torah taps discover a new, superior reasoning that is not close to the limited reasoning of limited creatures. Including the scientists, of course I didn't come to devalue them,
But they are also human beings, made of flesh and blood, and their time is limited like all humans on earth,
Maybe we'll try to give a scientific point of view to prove that there is or isn't a god,
Scientists try to investigate all the natural phenomena that are visible to man and find a logical solution for them by combining data that have been accumulated and collected in all kinds of different databases. And today, when the connection in the world is accessible to almost every database, it is possible to obtain data in almost inexhaustible amounts. So surely science will be more accurate than before.
But the more we examine, a person has no ability to produce in his mind a thing or a combination of things that were not foreseen by his senses, even rays of light above a person's senses need to undergo appropriate processing so that a person can relate to them. (And there are many other examples) Simply put, a person has no ability to invent something that does not have any definition whatsoever, therefore the definition of God according to the religion of Israel is written in the Holy Zohar with the words "lit thought, perception, perception at all" which means that the thought of a person does not have any achievement or perception Ba-Lekim. So the whole debate to prove its existence is moot. What can be achieved is that something will change
What drives the system is something that has embedded laws in nature, for surely science does not try to pretend and say that it knows how the basic laws of nature were created. And according to those who want to say that these laws have always existed, it is similar, and only similar to the religious claim that God is victorious above time and place.
And now regarding the fact that man cannot create in his mind something that does not exist, he certainly does not have the ability to invent such a God that the Torah of Israel speaks of.
The only reason that clearly indicates that there is such a God is the status of Mount Sinai that was established after the exodus from Egypt with signs and wonders, had it not been for this revelation even the Israelites would have remained skeptical of the words of our Lord Moses as explained in our Holy Torah,
And soon don't forget the month of Elul Rosh Tzivat I to my uncle and my uncle to me
All the best to everyone
point,
I will answer you once, and stop responding here. I don't tend to get into arguments on the site. They are useless.
1. I can write about a topic even without agreeing with it. And I may even change my mind if the evidence supports it. If you were to discard the articles of every opinion holder, there wouldn't be a single article left that could be taken seriously.
2. Read the previous chapter in the series for an answer.
3. A die can fall on the number six even without the involvement of God.
4. You claim I said so. I have never made such a ridiculous claim. If this is what you understood from the article, the mistake is entirely yours.
good week,
Roy.
Oh and Michael - and what exactly is the definition of "shaffer to say good things about"..? Is there a criterion?
There is no logic in religion without belief that God is a Person. If God is not a personal being with intentional thoughts and desires, then there is really no point in following his commandments, or worshiping him in any sense. Besides, the Torah personifies God, so I don't see how a religious Jew can reject a personal God.
Amadeus
personification.
I said maybe, it depends on the different methods in Judaism, but I choose not to talk about it.
I try to learn and not teach
Regarding the definition of the Torah
Every book I hold in my hand is associated with a certain field, fiction, laws, poetry, philosophy, science, science fiction, and much more. We will also have to associate the Bible with a certain category
What is clear to me is that the Bible does not belong, not to history, not to science, not to laws, not to poetry, not to literature, nor to philosophy. What is possible is that it contains a little of all things, but certainly they are not brought there according to scientific or literary or philosophical rules, because that is not the essence of the Bible and its purpose.
What is the matter and definition of the Bible? The answer is: Torah
And this is where the problem begins, what is Torah, what is its purpose, meaning and purpose?
I agree with you that my relationship to the Torah, I and only I define it and if it exists for me it does not, and there is no external authority such as God or rabbis and the like, who can define or require a certain relationship for me.
Regarding your shock at receiving the Torah, it is understandable for me and I do not want to expand on it here, but if I understood you correctly, that you mean to say that there is something in the Torah that causes negative things, I am satisfied with that, because in my opinion only man is responsible for his actions and their consequences
Amadeus You contradict yourself.
The fact of the existence of a large and complex universe can be explained by the existence of a simpler object. And according to your definition of God, he is wise, omniscient, intelligent, planning, meaning he is much more complex than the universe.
So stop babbling nonsense and think you're saying something sensible.
Oh and one more thing. You are really misleading when you say that God is needed to explain things like life and consciousness. That's not what I claimed. We need God to explain reality - the fact of the existence of a large and complex universe with organization and legality. And an intelligent and omnipotent being is a sufficient explanation from this point of view.
Michael, you are inconsistent. While you claim that God is not an explanation, you also claim that some unknown law of nature can. What did you do when you explained the universe with something else that is just as contingent as the universe itself you are trying to explain?
And the rabbi universe is really not a "simple" explanation, because it is a disordered ontological extravagance. To explain one contingent universe, you suggest that countless other contingent universes exist. Not only did you not explain anything, but you increased the problem by several orders of magnitude.
God is definitely an explanation because he meets all the criteria that must be a necessary cause - he is not contingent, does not contain contingent parts and properties, and every attribute of his is a necessary and maximal attribute and derived from his very existence and special metaphysical status. No law of nature or other naturalistic property can have this kind of metaphysical status.
Questions about the explanations to Roy:
1) You brought Stanger's calculations as proof of something. If his calculations showed that the values of the physical constants had to be exactly as they are to create life, would you believe in God? Because if not, then who are you working for, his calculations do not constitute any philosophical scientific evidence for you.
2) To say infinite worlds, or to define a universe as those infinite worlds is just a game of language. The fact is that in all these universes you are talking about physical forces. And the question remains about the mechanism that creates those physical forces in the first place. Why would there be physical forces at all. And why didn't you ask this obvious question? concealment?
3) If shuffling the cards resulted in a win, surely that man will thank God. Not because he interfered in the mixing, but by virtue of the deterministic principle, he understands that the result of the mixing was determined at the beginning. It could not be otherwise.
4) How do you know if by necessity of reality and physical laws, in order for life to form on a small, poor planet, the rest of the world must be frozen.
It seems that in your world view, there are physical laws on the one hand, and on the other hand, there are the possibilities that your thoughts raise about whether life can be created on other planets as if it is not the physical forces alone that cause life to be created and there is no other possibility.
Haredi, what in my definition is opposed to Judaism?
Shlomi:
The theories are rather simpler.
In fact, a theory that claims that restorations are created all the time is simpler than a theory that says that the universe was created only once, because in the latter you have to explain what made that time unique and why it didn't happen again.
Surely they are simpler than God.
In each of them it is a simple law of nature that although its testing is restricted by us at the moment (and maybe never), but that is why no one claims about any of these theories that it is true.
The "God" explanation - on the other hand - is not an explanation at all!
For example - if in order to create life - life is necessary (and probably God is supposed to be alive) - then the question of how life was created remains unexplained.
If consciousness is necessary to create consciousness, then the question of how consciousness was created remains unexplained.
Amadeus:
The God you are talking about is not defined at a level where you can say anything meaningful about him.
Chatting about him - of course you can - but for me chatter is unnecessary.
orthodox:
What is "defining the Torah"?
The Torah is a book that anyone can read. It is not something that needs to be defined.
You can set your objection to this book and say, for example, that you do not accept what is written in it (or God forbid you do accept it).
After all, the same can be done with the book Harry Potter.
Do you think Harry Potter should be defined before talking about it?
Indeed, Amadeus' definition is a definition of something that he calls God, this is one definition of God and it is not necessarily a Jewish definition and perhaps even contrary to Judaism, and in my opinion it is impossible to prove such a God at all, and even more so perhaps it is also possible to prove that he does not exist.
I like Michael's words more, if God exists then he is defined like this: "the thing that cannot be defined", and this definition is also a derogatory definition, the question is whether it has any meaning.
Besides, what are the definition criteria that will satisfy you?
Almost every word in natural language is impossible to define precisely, so the definition would include all the things and only the things that the speakers of the language point to when they use the word. Think of words like "transportation" "game" "family", and even scientific concepts like biological sex.
Thank you very much, Michael
I'm glad you addressed my words
There is absolute agreement between us regarding the need to define the concept of God before we discuss whether it exists or not, what God is, what it means, and more.
But, the same thing we need to do regarding the Torah, before we discuss it, we need to define the concept of Torah, what it is and its meaning and purpose.
In my opinion, the Torah is not pseudo-science, and it is clear that God did not write or speak it, the Torah according to Jewish belief is a prophecy of people, and again we will have to define the concept of prophecy before we discuss it.
If I understood correctly, you wrote that in science there is never real proof but only probability, my question is if this is a general statement, or if there are things that do have absolute proof, like mathematics for example.
And again I want to strengthen the hands of the site administrators
This is the only place where the ultra-Orthodox can get educated
The site is especially helpful for ultra-Orthodox, who do not have access to materials and reviews of this type
Go ahead and succeed
Why not defined? Here I gave a definition, what else do you want?
The fact that there are people who disagree with each other about such and such characteristics of God, does not mean that he is "undefined" or that it is impossible to talk about him. Even scientists often disagree on definitions, but it does not follow that these phenomena do not exist (say dark matter).
Michael thanks.
Regarding those theories you mentioned. First of all, the question is whether they can be tested with scientific tools, I find it hard to believe that a theory about other universes that may have other laws, that it is possible that there is a distribution graph in the form of a triangle at all, that such theories can be confirmed or disproved with scientific tools. And if not, then all those theories are exactly equal to belief in God.
Secondly, you said that they are more likely than the existence of God. Maybe you are right, but surely they are no simpler than belief in God. When you take a simple person and start explaining to him about the existence of several universes at the same time, about a universe that stretches like a spring and then contracts, I'm sure he will leave you in the second sentence and run to the synagogue.
Third thing, I agree that for us God has done a bad job. I just wanted to say that this does not disprove the existence of God.
orthodox:
I would appreciate it if you could elaborate more. How did the site make you more ultra-Orthodox? And how does it fit with what you wrote above?
Thanks.
Amadeus:
Indeed - you found a multi-word way to "define" God who is not defined (and the fact is that even according to you - people with conflicting definitions of God can "agree" to it).
I have already addressed in my response what can be said about God who is not defined.
Everything that can be said about him appears in the following sentence:
""
Michael-
I have a definition for God.
God is a transcendent immaterial spiritual being, omnipotent and omniscient, who created the universe of his own free will, and designed it so that intelligent life would develop within it. God necessarily exists, and the existence of all other things depends on him, but his existence does not depend on matter. It is eternal and perfect, and it cannot cease to exist, or it could not cease to exist.
And if you are a theist then he also gave the Torah to the people of Israel, or sent Jesus to atone for the sins of mankind. Every deist and theist will agree with the first part of the definition, and every theist, depending on his religion, will add to the definition a number of additional characteristics like the ones I brought.
Here is my definition, what's the problem?
orthodox:
The problem with the word "God" is that people use it in many meanings and yet tend to adopt conclusions drawn from one meaning - also to other meanings.
For example - when Einstein said "God does not play with dice" he meant nature and not the God described in Judaism, but since then all his clarifications and denials have not helped - the Batamists continued and continue to claim that he believed in their God (something he personally said - and repeated - that it was a lie).
Regarding "God" which is not defined - there is no proof of anything because it is impossible to say anything worthwhile about an undefined word. For example - what would you say if I asked you if you think there is proof that there is or isn't a Spehrholtz - you won't be able to answer me until I explain to you what I mean by the word "Spferholtz".
Regarding God who created the world together with the laws of nature in such a way that it would appear as if the laws of nature existed since the big bang and since then withdrew and no longer intervened in what is happening in the world - there is no proof that he exists and no proof that he does not exist. There can also be no proof or disproof of such a God - just as there can be no disproof of the fact that He created the entire world in this second along with the science site and all the responses written in it and together with all the people in the world - including the science responders - when their memories are consistent with what is happening in reality.
On the other hand - regarding God described in the Torah - it is possible to say with certainty that he does not exist because it is not possible for a God to be both good and benevolent and also a liar and statements quoted from his mouth as if the hare raises a rumen or the cow and the Tigris come from a common source are by definition a lie.
In general - it is difficult to say anything positive about the truth of what is written in the Torah. Many of the stories in it do not agree with the scientific findings and the situation is no better with the sages' interpretations.
In general - in science - there is never any real proof. You can disprove a scientific theory but you can slowly prove it.
We are convinced of the correctness of a theory when it receives many confirmations in consistently explaining many phenomena that occur in reality - especially if it provides predictions that come true.
That's why - for example - if someone decides to use the word "God" to refer to the "laws of nature", then beyond admonishing him and saying that the word he chose confuses mankind - I will agree with his claim that such a "God" does exist.
Oh my god… these arguments never end…
: )
There is no proof whatsoever that there is a God
And anyone who claims to have proof, is not only a moron, but also the people of Ha'aretz and does not understand anything in Jewish thought.
All proofs of God are originally from the philosophers of Western culture, Judaism does not prove God, and it is clear and unambiguous that there is no proof.
There is nothing that destroys insight and insight like religion, and even more than that, no one has yet destroyed religion and faith like religion.
Today the religious and the ultra-Orthodox are an ignorant mob, who do not understand from right to left, neither in religion nor in anything, and as an ultra-Orthodox, I am ashamed of all the stupid and apostate organizations of all kinds
It is very important next to every scientific article concerning religion and religious people to present and make clear how ridiculous the proofs of God are, but the truth is that sometimes the words of Michael the wise are painful to me, but adding more knowledge will add more pain, and I am especially grateful to Michael Rothschild. I learned a lot from you.
I am strictly ultra-Orthodox, and precisely thanks to the site, my ultra-Orthodox has strengthened, since I checked with myself and distinguished between truth and lies, and there is a lot of lies in religion!!!
By the way, Michael, on this occasion I would like to ask you: I agree and it is clear to me that there is no proof of God, but my question is, is there proof that there is no God? I would love to hear your smart and neutral opinion
Hey,
If I understood correctly what you are asking, the answer is exactly after one cycle (for example - one year)
The reason is that in a perfect ellipse you return to the same point after the coffee (see the videos in the following link:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%A8).
In practice, the orbits are not completely elliptical (both due to relativistic effects and due to mutual effects between the planets) and therefore there is a phenomenon known as "blinking" of the perihelion - see drawing 7 in the attached link.
In any case, it is important to emphasize that these effects are weak and that the approximation of elliptical orbits is excellent
Amadeus:
I do not agree with your claims nor with the "logic" you use, but the fact that you repeat things in every discussion will not make me repeat the answers in every discussion.
I must, however, point out that the phrase "if God exists, then he necessarily exists" is very funny.
straw man
Let's start with the fact that nothing physical can be metaphysically necessary. The reason is that every block of matter and natural law always contain within them any contingent variables. Every block of material necessarily has a finite weight and volume, one form or another, and it takes up space at a certain point in space. Like the laws of nature - every law of nature is some kind of quantitative relationship that can be expressed mathematically. But when we talk about something that is necessary (logically or metaphysically), then it is either true and necessarily exists, or it is impossible and cannot exist. When you talk about a certain law of nature, let's say the gravitational constant, it is expressed with the help of some number that can be in principle different from what it actually is, so by its very definition it cannot be a metaphysically necessary thing. To demonstrate why it is absurd to talk about necessity in a materialistic sense, think of claims like "in any possible world Hitler invaded Poland" or "in any possible world Mozart died in 1791" or "in any possible world cottage is sold in 250 gram packages". These cannot be necessary facts for any reason, because one can easily think of an alternative history in which these facts do not exist. Also think about facts like the mass of the electron, or the weak nuclear force, or any physical law you want - they cannot be metaphysically necessary because it is always possible to imagine a universe where these laws would be wrong.
Now about logical and mathematical claims, such as the modus ponens rule or the Pythagorean theorem - these are necessary claims that cannot be wrong. It is impossible to imagine a universe where logically valid inferences would be wrong. There are also necessary metaphysical claims such as "if something is painted entirely on the outside in one color, it cannot be painted entirely in another color", this is not a claim that is logically necessary, but metaphysically, it does not need an explanation, and you immediately see why.
If we accept the principle of sufficient taste (and it is very difficult not to), then we come to the conclusion that if contingent things exist, then there must necessarily be something necessary that explains why the contingent things are the way they are.
Therefore, if God exists, then he necessarily exists - each of his characteristics is a characteristic that he necessarily and absolutely possesses (omnipotent and omniscient, for example), therefore it is impossible to characterize him quantitatively, and there is no need to explain his existence, just as there is no need to explain his existence of the Pythagorean theorem for example (like what caused the Pythagorean theorem to exist, or when did it begin to exist?).
For example, if God had the power to create our universe, then it follows that He must have the power to create every possible universe, and is therefore omnipotent. This is because if God had the ability to create only universe X and not Y, then it follows that he has some contingent property Z. And if so, then we can imagine another god with property Z1 that would allow him to create universe Y but not X, and such a god simply stops to be God, and loses its metaphysical necessity.
I do not commit to the existence of a religious God, but if you accept my argument, religious belief suddenly does not seem such an absurd idea.
Shlomi:
Your comment was blocked while I wrote my previous comment, so here is a reply to your words.
There are many theories regarding the answer to your questions and all of them are more plausible than the hypothesis of the existence of God.
Some of them are based on the existence of time before the big bang and according to them only the time after the big bang can be investigated by us - because of the singularity of the bang - but there was time before that as well.
According to some of these theories universes are created and destroyed continuously and according to another part there is a cycle of universes that are created in a big bang and destroyed in a big crash.
There are also theories that present the "time space" as a sphere that, although it is blocked in its entirety, has no beginning or end.
Regarding the question of whether God did a good work, it is useful to understand that we do not have an objective definition of what is good and what is bad.
We defined the concepts in a commentary built on our feelings as human beings and this is completely natural.
So it may be that God has his own goals and maybe the Holocaust serves these goals, but then - as far as we are concerned (and as mentioned - we have no other examination) - he did a very bad job.
Roy:
The anthropic principle in its accepted meaning does not mean that the universe was adjusted to allow us, but that the mere fact that we exist allows us to conclude all kinds of things about the universe.
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
You will also see there that what you called the "anthropic principle" is actually called the "strong anthropic principle".
From:
I suggest you watch what the (Orthodox) physicist and neuroscientist Professor Haim Sompolinsky says.
He, from a deep and extensive familiarity with the material - reaches the opposite conclusion to the one you described in your first response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page
And he is ultra-Orthodox!
Like him - I also find consciousness to be a product of the physical brain and the development of consciousness in an evolutionary way to be absolutely reasonable. Much more likely than the existence of some creator who also needs to be explained (and his consciousness) so that by adding him to the story we did nothing.
Mirom Golan:
The article discusses the anthropic principle.
The topic is interesting.
Science deals with it.
Religious people do try to use it to their advantage (while attempting to deceive because the religion does not speak of God who only created the universe and let it continue to develop on its own, but of God who created the world in six days, but they make sure that people do not understand that there is a difference between the two and that accepting the strong anthropic principle will cause for them to confuse religion) but this should not make the topic a taboo for a site that deals with science.
The fact that religious people attack such articles is not something special - they also attack any article that deals with evolution.
If the site had taken into account the collection of sensitivities of the religious, it would have found itself empty of content.
Hi:
Your questions do not belong to the topic of the article and in general are not defined either.
What does "return to the same point" mean? After all, the solar system also moves around the center of the galaxy and the galaxy moves in the universe. In addition to that - the universe itself is expanding.
Hello Roy.
First, you are a wonderful writer, you conveyed the message in a clear and enjoyable way. (Which is a bit hard to say about Michi's articles on Ynet).
I think there is nothing wrong with articles of this kind on one or another scientific website. Of course, as long as we maintain the culture of discussion, and there is no sense of confrontation. The truth is that sometimes there is such a feeling when entering the site.
And now to the subject I am responding to. I have a question that I would like an answer to.
If we say there is no God and the universe began 13.7 billion years ago. I mean, before that there was nothing. There were no forces, not even Rick. Gornish. My question is, how did something suddenly come into existence? What is it made of? And why exactly at that time the universe was created? It is true that before the universe was created there was no concept of "time", but nevertheless what caused the universe to be created precisely at that point?
Now you come and say okay, then God should also say the same thing about what he was made of, etc. So first of all I agree that even the biggest believer has no idea what exactly "God" is. And secondly, the universe began at a certain time, so I have to think about why it happened, and what caused it. On the other hand, it is common to perceive God as a being that has always been, has no beginning and no end, i.e. something circular. Therefore, it is not appropriate to make the same claims against him.
A small note to finish. I do not agree with your claim that there is no God, because if there is then he did a poor job. That is, you assume that if there is indeed a God, then you also know what his purpose is, and what he thought when he created the world. In my opinion you are telling God what to do with his dice. Perhaps there is a hidden purpose to why he created the world precisely in this way.
I would love to receive answers. from every one.
Amadeus, your response to the article is sorely lacking as well.
A universe governed and controlled by an intelligent being is also something that requires an explanation. We need some mechanism to explain how such an entity can be created, just as science needs to provide an explanation for the creation of the universe. And if this entity, as you claim, is transcendent and exists outside of time and space and therefore has always been, is always present, and always will be, then I will argue that the A mechanism that "creates universes" in the multiverse theory is transcendent and therefore does not need an explanation of its origin and eternity. Why would only people of faith appropriate the principle of transcendence to strengthen their claims? Two can play this game, only the difference between us is me
It is believed that this mechanism lacks awareness and intention, and you claim that this mechanism is God, for all the religious meanings folded into this concept. At the end of the day it all comes down to belief or disbelief, that's all.
Amados, did you miss the title? Or the article?
Your comment is unrelated to the topic...
Roy, your answer in the article is very lacking.
Even a universe that has nothing but hydrogen atoms moving around in empty space is something that requires an explanation. We need some mechanism to explain how a universe with physical regularity or order of some kind can be created. Attributing the existence of the universe to chance doesn't really explain anything. Is it your suggestion that there is a cosmic lottery machine that rips off universes? The universe could indeed have been created in the form of a "lottery", but the very mechanism that "grills" the universes requires an explanation, and therefore we have not gotten rid of the problem no matter how you spin it, we must assume that the existence of the universe has a transcendent and metaphysically necessary reason.
necessary, because its existence does not depend on the existence of other things, and transcendent because it is external to the universe and not physical in essence.
You are also missing the central metaphysical problem at hand. The question here is not whether theory X (quantum strings or whatever) can explain the existence of the universe, but how is it possible that something exists at all, that has these characteristics and not others, and has a certain physical lawfulness. Therefore, it is clear that any physical theory you propose will require an explanation for its existence, and so on, ad infinitum. The real problem here (the metaphysical one), is how we explain the existence of a contingent reality (like a certain universe) in a plausible manner. And indeed it is very plausible to assume that the reason for the existence of the universe is God, because in his essence he is not physical, he necessarily exists, he is omnipotent and omniscient, and he has desires and intentions. This is a much simpler and intellectually satisfying explanation than all kinds of nonsense about super universes and strings etc.
And where did the demand to measure and see God in the Hubble telescope suddenly come from, as a condition for his existence? Is it possible to measure and weigh the number Pi? can you measure my pain So does that mean they don't exist and there is no reason to believe in them?
This is a completely preposterous idea, since God is by definition immaterial, outside the universe, and therefore beyond the reach of any possible observation. But of course this neither adds nor detracts from the question of its existence.
MB
To your question:
I believe that the question of consciousness will remain unsolved for a long time to come, along with several other phenomena that still exist
Far from our full understanding (dark matter, etc.).
Part of the primitive survival mechanism inherent in our mind makes us arrange reality in patterns and becomes difficult
Put up with a casual existence, an existence without a purpose.
I admit that the idea of a super-intelligence that drives the universe (and, among other things, gives us consciousness) is very fascinating to me because the above-mentioned survival mechanism also exists in my mind.
in another matter:
For religious people this mechanism is more elaborate and it comes in the addition of the stories of Adam and Eve\ Muhammad the Prophet\ Mary
And Jesus and other vegetables in addition to the "ownership" of each religion over this super intelligence and the denial of other religions that associate it
to them
An excellent article, and it is clear that such an article is necessary, beyond the matter of disputing religion, the main thing it provides is thinking in a scientific and rational way, and self-reflection.
No one has blocked you, there are words that have been misused by trolls and these words cause you to be blocked.
Tal,
I would prefer that you repent out of knowledge, not out of ignorance. That is, from finding proof that God exists - and not from the weakness (whether it is real or only in your eyes) of arguments that contradict the existence of God.
I have to point out that the arguments are quite weak (I may still repent...)
Mirom Golan,
Regardless of my views on science and religion, it is important for me to note that this series is written as a response to the extensive publication on Ynet of Rabbi Dr. Michael Avraham's series 'Science Proves There Is God'. He presents there a distorted version of science (mainly evolution) and the philosophy of science, all to 'prove' that scientific thinking requires the existence of God.
In other words, the barrier between religion and science was breached not by me, but by Michael Avraham. I'm trying to put things right and separate the two factors again. I have no problem with people believing what they want. I have a problem when people believe lies and half-truths (even if these stem from a lack of understanding of the material).
good week,
Roy.
Hello, it is known that the earth moves in an elliptical shape around the sun and not round
My question is how many rounds like this does it take for him to return to the start
And the second question, how much is it in the other stars?
And one more thing, instead of going against the religion, maybe you could provide us with information
About the space because this is what the site should bring us...
I would love to finally get an answer to the 2 questions!
An excellent source of inspiration.
I believe some concepts were borrowed from M. Freeman's 'through the wormhole'. season 2. It is true contemporary science.
In time the 4 forces will be united, have no doubt.
Until then, it is small progress like this article that puts the human race on the right tracks.
Indeed, the antropy concept, your second law of thermodynamics is well embedded into the very fabric of this universe
And valuing your ignorance of what is to come is the most basic fundamental of your linear existence.
I always admired humans (my captain's) spirit. It may seem childish or even arrogant at times, but he always proved to be able to pull those 13 cards without ever doubting it - perhaps his greatest strength. It is a concept you perceive as faith. A concept foreign to us Vulcans…
Do not seek hatred and conflict with one another - it is your diversity that will ultimately unite you as the source of your greatest strength - accept that and continue to pursue your own endeavors with conviction - without feeling doubt due to different philosophies.
Live Long – And prosper.
It is certainly not an easy challenge to understand how God thinks. The theory of unity was not discovered in physics and probably will not be discovered with its help. On the other hand, the theory of union was found by the English mathematician George Spencer Brown and published in his book Laws of Form which is based on only one idea called distinctness.
...................
Absalom delete what I wrote above, for you I am an atheist, there is no God...
Explain how exactly I answered myself?
Is there a physical way to create a consciousness that is virtual??? There is no connection between them at all!
..in your opinion in the next decades when we finish building the simulation of the brain
One by one, as part of the Blue Brain Project for example, will the simulation have consciousness??? In your opinion yes!, or more precisely "There is no reason not to!"
My scientific intuition and that of many wise people like me on what to do says "Wow!" (Except for Idan Segev maybe, I don't know)
And my assumption is that I don't see a fundamental difference between a simulation/algorithm of the brain running on a supercomputer, and an algorithm of the brain running on a biological neural network (the human brain).
Fair enough
(:
Absalom
One should deal with what has a place in science, and not what has no place. That's all I asked.
Mirom Golan
You present it as a "contradiction".
To some extent I can understand why it looks that way from the side. But there is not much space
Religion in the world of science and this is the truth. Like religion, much of science is false and heretical
Or a tool for the "verification" of diverse religious practices.
But of course.. a person in his faith will live.
The problem with the scientist is that it has long since become a site for disputing religion, instead of serving as a site that reports on science. I'm not a religious person, but I find it insulting to you that (almost) all of your main articles are about bashing religion.
You complain (and rightly so) about the fact that the general public is mostly not interested in science. But at the same time you keep most of the public (who believe, there's nothing to be done) away from continuing to browse the site. What have we achieved? What's the wonder that this site remains with the same limited group of readers, among them me, who, despite being an atheist, already got all the holes out of me with articles of this kind (don't take it personally Roy, maybe your article is wonderful...but really badass).
Why not write articles about definite science and that's it? There is no action without shaving the wigs of ultra-Orthodox in the imagination?
You already answered yourself "metabolism and a network of chemical interactions in the brain"
Why this argument does not satisfy you is another matter
And this is my problem with accepting "consciousness" or "recognition" as a by-product of a perfect mind,
And for some reason the Torah of the Jews provides me with a very partial but satisfying answer at its root
I probably did not explain myself correctly.
Rene Descartes' philosophical statement "I think means I exist"... actually what is consciousness
Where did my self-awareness come from, what is the source of consciousness emerging from my physical body,
(A physical explanation of metabolism and a network of chemical interactions in the brain does not help me here)
From the formation of life according to pure physics and the continuation of evolution until today, I would expect a maximum that would look exactly as we do today, but in a way that would look exactly like artificial intelligence will look in 100 or 200 years, basically biological robots with a learning mechanism no less sophisticated than the human race, but "without consciousness"
Just like David from "Artificial Intelligence"
MB,
A non-metaphysical explanation for our consciousness: it developed, in an evolutionary way.
Problem solved.
Although in the end I remained a small Jew who believes in one God, I enjoyed reading the article!!! Thanks Roy.
By the way, I have no problem with the formation of the universe and life, as a statistical possibility,
I have a problem explaining our consciousness in a non-metaphysical way. By the way, in essence, this is the root of my faith.