The concept of "free love" is seen as Christian, but decades before Christ it was Herod who, in his time, prevented the Jews in Judea from engaging in Judaism that even hinted at mixing the separatist religion with political unrest. In doing so, he was a major factor in dictating a new tradition of "friendly" Judaism that cannot harm a fly on the path of negation
By: Gilad Zlibansky
There are few words in the dictionary that are loved by people, especially Jews and Christians in the new era, like the word "love". Words that are loved by almost the entire civilized world are accordingly privileged, until in fact the members of all nations treat them like the names of gods. Almost every human being on the globe believes that love is fundamentally good and pure and divine and perfect, and anything or anyone who opposes it is fundamentally vile and corrupt.
But still, the fact that using the word and obeying the dictation of the agreed word, as if there is truth or reality in some sounds or lines that pass through ears and eyes without criticism, does not mean that there is a difficulty in placing all the beautiful words in the natural light of historical truth.
For starters, the first question is when and how did we become free lovers?
If we assume that the Torah as it was written in ancient times reflects the moral nature of ancient Judaism and its value attitude to love, it is not clear if it will be possible to find even one story in it that can serve as an example of free love on Tisha B'av. Not only do the heroes of the Bible and God himself not pass on this supertemporal message to future generations, but it is evident that even if they wanted to teach their children what free love is, they could not, because all possible signs indicate that there was no idea To the authors of this book for their generations that such love can exist.
We must not forget that in historical terms the biblical texts were composed roughly between the days of the First Temple and the middle of the Second Temple. And that, inevitably, the ancient world of which the Bible is an inseparable part, always was and will be fundamentally opposed to the enlightened ideas of the eve of Nisha B'av of the year two thousand and ten according to the Christian reckoning. Similarly, the term "altruism" ("love of the other" in Latin) is only used from the 19th century, when in the Roman-Greek world not only was it not accepted, but the people of the time simply did not believe that a person could love someone else more than himself, or that his love The other is not just a half-truth or a form of self-love through the other. And there is no need to expand here on the fate of slaves, women, taxes, wars, and other norms that were then accepted on all the shores of the Mediterranean. It is true that Judaism differed from its neighbors and created laws that surpassed the ancient morals in certain areas. But still, she was clearly a descendant of the ancient world and a relative of the ancient peoples. There is no difficulty in distinguishing, for example, typical examples of the death penalty (or collective death penalty), the killing of captives, the killing of old men, women and children, revenge over generations on entire tribes and peoples, human trafficking, the sacrifice of a son or daughter to God and other examples that do not leave much room in that world for love free.
So when was free love born? It can be found in its rawest and most original form in early Christianity, where Jesus is described as the absolute free lover. But in the context of Judaism, Herod and the Romans and not the disciples of the Galilean cross were the ones who coaxed her into it with wonderful irony. During his time, Herod prevented the Jews in Judea from engaging in Judaism that even hinted at mixing the separatist religion with political unrest. In doing so, he was a major factor that indirectly (albeit unintentionally on his part and only as a side effect of the restrictions he cruelly imposed on the Jews) stimulated a new tradition of "friendly" Judaism that cannot harm a fly. Books on messianic or political subjects no longer appeared, and in their place the religious sages who were not put to death devoted themselves to a harmless abundance of plafals and practical commandments. Multiply the disputes for the sake of a sky that does not cross and does not burn, suffocate or cut. And in a concluding sentence - maintaining balanced strategic relations of peace and brotherhood between the Roman ruler and the Jews. Against this background were written the famous words of love of the elder Hillel and other people of the same name, which served as a kind of prelude to many generations of tzaddiks and exile leaders who later lived in the shadow of the cross or the crescent instead of the eagle of Rome.
It is true that in the past there were Jewish parties that preferred to please foreign rulers for political reasons, but in the days of Herod the renewal of the apolitical religious practice was added and thus he heralded the beginning of the exile of Judaism itself from the political plane of history. The Great Rebellion introduced a trend of backlash that failed. And in his wake, the continuation of history was taken over by the submissive and diplomatic trend whose representatives were allowed to continue leading the settlement and the centers of Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple. Hundreds and thousands of years later, it turned out that the exile mentality of the pursuit of peace and love was philosophically mated with similar ideas of Christianity and liberal Western philosophies. So that in practice we are under pressure to love free from two sources: on the one hand from the direction of the diasporic tradition, and on the other hand, from the direction of the great Western world which is essentially Christian, dyed and stained with the most horrifying atrocities that were and are still prevalent in all corners of the world with the same refined and righteous bullying.
The historical problem of our free love as descendants of the ancient Jews, is that we did not receive it from our Torah, as free and honest people, but actually from rape and as a result of prolonged abuse that leaves the victim no choice but to say that he still loves his friend and his enemy and God and the whole world . Such free love contradicts justice because it does not prejudge the person according to his moral value, but rather declares a kind of moral debt-abnegation, which is the same as bankruptcy of conscience.
Application of this idea is suitable for the weak who simply do not have enough physical or spiritual strength to judge human beings fairly. Or alternatively, it is a ruse in which the crook pretends not to judge others or hold a grudge against them, just so he can weaken them and soften the way they see him. The first form corresponds to a Jew in exile and the second form corresponds to a ruler or a representative of a ruling culture that adorns itself with moral superiority. It only remains to point out that free love is not accepted in any Western philosophy or historical society, despite its importance in all Christian churches. Free love is seen as a mitzvah, but it seems that in reality it is the result of a lack of choice or selfishness, or perhaps frugality. When rather a judgment that is open to love or hate is the true good measure based on freedom of choice which is the only source of moral possibilities in this world.
Gilad Zlibansky has a master's degree in philosophy from the University of Haifa and works as a philosophical consultant (after a training course for philosophical consultants at the Philharmonic Institute for Applied Philosophy)
65 תגובות
The whole discussion here in the comments is simply not realistic..
The simple reason is - if I know that God dictated the Torah - in any case it is above morality and the whole discussion whether it is moral or not - is essentially void. He determines this just as he determined the essence of morality in a person and just as he determines who will live and die.
And if I don't know that God dictated the Torah - in any case it is no more relevant than the Harry Potter book.
for the record
The writer is religious.
Now, how do I know that God dictated it?
The book living uo to the truth by Rabbi Gottlieb.
Good luck friends
Love you guys 😉
This is a philosophical and not a scientific article.
I don't think it has a place on a site that deals with science.
The commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" appears in the book of Leviticus and it is agreed in Judaism that the Torah does not exaggerate.
Hagai:
It is very interesting that you are looking for explanations for a phenomenon that does not exist.
This certainly explains the source of the leftism that has spread in Israeli society since the Yom Kippur War. On the one hand, a belief in peace and humane treatment for child killers, while risking the safety of the soldiers.
Whereas when the Western world feels threatened, it knows exactly how to protect its interests. And it has no problem sending women and children to the crematoria.
...and with you all the righteous will forever inherit the land...
...Kfa Parsha for the poor and her hands sent to misery...
From the Bible...
My criticism is about faith. As I told you, I have no criticism of captive babies (religious people) they do what they can according to their faith and their interests like anyone else. And by the way, as I said, I prefer to depend on a religious person than on a person who upholds the Holy Scriptures.
So we returned to the criticism of faith... In your last response, you actually admitted that there are often ignoble acts that the believer is obligated to do. (Even if we overcome the need to ask which kind of compassionate and nerdy god with a body or not with a body requires his believers to commit lewd acts?) - In any case, we both agree that goodness is human nature, and faith often requires committing lewd acts. This is my intention and if we agree on it, that's great.
After all, I won't convince you to give up your imaginary friend and you won't convince me that your friend is also my friend if only that, but that he is God....
lion:
The murderousness of the religion is determined by its commandments and not by what its believers actually did.
There are a lot of murderous mitzvots in religion and as I showed in one of the links - these mitzvots were implemented and implemented.
The truth is that we have even come across their applications nowadays, but fortunately (actually thanks to common sense that still keeps us in a situation closer to democracy than theocracy) today there is a sane enforcement system that prevents some of the humiliation (not all of it - sometimes it cooperates - but usually).
It is true that Judaism is less murderous than other religions and that is because it does not have the mitzvah of self-propagation among the nations of the world - propagation that in both Christianity and Islam has caused wars and acts of mass murder.
Despite this - when arguing with a believing Jew who certainly believes in what is written in the Torah - one must also confront him with the acts of genocide that the Torah says Judaism committed and see him twist and turn in an attempt to explain their morality.
Sorry for your difficulties in understanding what was said, it is not my fault, but it is difficult for me to convey a deep idea of faith to non-believers in a few lines and in a short time. A. The Blessed One is not a body, and those with a body will not correct him, so your description of a figure with a beard is clearly incorrect. Judaism in its writings, unlike the writings of other faiths, does not hide the failure of its heroes, on the contrary, it magnifies them. King David repented after the prophet rebuked him by saying I have always sinned against me. And this is his true greatness which earned (and won) him to be the fourth leg in the chariot. It is written in Genesis that God created the heavens, meaning He made peace between fire and water. That is, between two opposite substances exactly what you claim is not possible. In this way, man is also composed of two opposing elements, good and evil. When the evil is from the side of man's carnality which pulls him towards despair and pride. And the good is from the spirituality in a person that pulls him towards humility and humility (toward the Creator of the world). Our holy sages lived with the Creator of the world, not with one ruler or another, and measured and weighed their steps towards his constitutions, the laws of the Torah. There are many cases in which the Torah brings up issues whose whole purpose is only to be preached (Ben Sorer and Mora, City of the Rejected). In other words, the Torah and our Sages, according to their words, do not owe an account to this or that government and its constitutions, but only to the Holy One, blessed be He, and His constitutions, whether they are logical or not, and whether they are, in our humble opinion, moral or not. Only the Torah determines what is legitimate and what is not, and even being cruel is sometimes legitimate, it is well known that the savior of his tribe hates us. Even if we don't like it because we (believing Jews) are obligated to the Holy One, blessed be He, and His laws, whether it's killing Amalek or whether it's not blocking an ox And whether it is to bring firstborns to the temple when there has been no home for close to two thousand years. (Don't tell me why the religious are one way or the other, I'm talking about faith and commitment to faith)
1. To the fan.
The beauty of really justice and the like is that they are always right.
1+2 always equals 3 robbery is always bad and water will always have two atoms of hydrogen surrounding one atom of oxygen.
There is no other way, except with pure cruelty and terrible hatred, to describe the murder of the firstborn of Egypt because of the sins of their father, the murder of the people of Canaan, the murder of Zmari and Zabi (I think) by Phinehas, the "giving of the handmaids" to Jacob by Leah and Rachel, the murder of Job's family on No injustice in the palm of your hand and similar stories.
In our wonderful Bible there are stories of scumbags left and right.
(By the way, the betrayals of Zeus, the thefts of Loki, and the actions of Shiva are not exactly the followers of the nations of the world. But no one claims that either)
Also with regard to Sages, to describe the acts of villainy as pressure from the people or the ruler is exactly the defense of the Nazi criminals. It is true that the pressure may sometimes be unbearable, but I would prefer to see our sages on the side of the followers of the nations of the world. Saying that "I don't understand" and translating the claims as if they say the opposite of what is written is a complete fraud.
I don't need Daat Emet to know studies about the immorality in the Bible and our double standards. (For example, in a famous experiment, the descriptions of the murders that Joshua committed among the people of Canaan were replaced as if they had been committed by a Chinese emperor at the exact same time, and the students of Israel abhorred the act.) Regarding the Tanach, we also recognize our double standards...
King David betraying his wives. King Solomon is a bastard (Bat Sheva is forbidden to her husband and her husband, etc.) They are all cultural heroes in our country.
On the contrary, your message is full of twists and turns, it is difficult to understand the logical steps and there is no connection between sentences. From the little I understood, you think there is some old man with a white beard and he is responsible for love in the world... Well KBA is only in the IDF. The old man you are looking for is dead.
2. Omar - Tol Cora is out of your sight and look for the hypocrisy again.
And to the point - yes, it hurts me when Judaism behaves with arrogance that only adds to our haters.
When the diaspora mentality does not leave us even after 60 years of independence.
Focusing on the good without recognizing the bad is a very superficial job - especially when compared to most of the Western world (spare me the references to Tehran. We are not there yet... but the final push...) the bad parts with us far exceed the usual....
And regarding the ten commandments - you are misleading again!
Indeed the Ten Commandments exist but only for believing Jews!
Gentiles are allowed to lie. A secularist (heretic) does not get back lost (it's actually theft) and I've already shown how it's allowed to steal. We also know your neighbor's wife and adultery laws only if your neighbor is Jewish. If a Jew married a Gentile, it is permissible to kidnap her from him...
(A kidnapping that will probably also end in rape... but not bad. It's the nature of women that they enjoy being raped as Michael showed you.)
The truly terrible thing is that organizations like Yad Lachaim take women who married Arabs out of their homes, and kidnap them in the days of the 21st century!
And one last thing...
To link a state founded by heretical Mafiniks to the Jewish religion is simply a desecration of their name. And I say this as a capitalist and revisionist.
2.
BSD
I have a lot to say but I will try to be short and to the point due to the shortness of mind and time
You do a lot of injustice to the sages and prove your lack of understanding (sorry but that's how it is). By linking political reality to religion. In the book of Samuel, David's love for Jonathan is mentioned as a love that does not depend on anything, which means that the fact that I love you is only because the Holy One, blessed be He, fills the whole earth, His glory sent me a reason to love her (just as God sent me a reason to read the article and later also sent me a reason to comment on it) . And without the reason God sent me I wouldn't even look at you. Here is one proof that contradicts your thesis according to which the old Hillel said what he said only as a result of political pressure on the religious leaders, what is more, Hillel lived about 70 years before the Holocaust. And it's too short to bring examples. The Holy One, blessed be He, the giver of the Torah guides us to find it in our friend who is (the Almighty) this is the absolute good that exists in every human being (even in the Gentiles in the marketplace*) and therefore it is not free love but the love of the Holy One, blessed be He. In other words, the concept of love binds a person to the Holy One, blessed be He. What existed even before the evil Herod. Therefore your thesis is fundamentally disproved (or I misunderstood you.) King David said "It is good for me because I have been punished so that I may learn your laws" he meant that coming to love for the Holy One, blessed be He, is impossible unless through suffering which is not physical pain or something like that but pain of A material bone towards a higher (spiritual) bone than him. That is why such an object (man) must submit himself (for example Abraham our father in the Aqedah of Yitzchak) compared to God's will which is sometimes interpreted as good and sometimes interpreted as bad but in the end should bring us to the absolute good. which is a love that does not depend on anything. That is, absolute faith and the cancellation of selfhood towards the one who said and was the world.
And one more thing
There are a lot of distorted things in Judaism right now in terms of their actual application in Israel and abroad, but let's focus on the positive things right now
There are many movements and many people who take the bright, positive side of the sources for a very powerful way of life of a balanced combination of wisdom and morality.
It is also important to see where our heads are going, I very much hope according to the vision of the prophets
Open the Declaration of Independence and you will see the initial idea of the people who founded the country
They had a global social political vision that was amazing to me
According to the vision of the prophets of Israel to create a society of equal justice and morality
Who will be nourished by the words of Jesus "a tiger will lie down with a goat"
That several peoples be in Jerusalem and the swords be laid down, these are requests for peace and brotherhood
I don't want to talk about other religions or other movements, but the vision of the prophets of Israel is charming to me and very powerful
scion,
Correct me if I'm wrong. It bothers you that the Jews of the world boast of their religion as a moral religion and sometimes with the arrogance of a moral one, and you claim that this is absolutely not true and, on the contrary, even extremely cruel.
Listen... you and I have not studied the Hashish of Israel and we have not delved into the Tanakh and the oral Tanakh and its multitude of commentaries, I assume that your sources also come from people's letters and articles on the Daat Emet site and correct me if I am wrong
But when I look at today and history and the development of Judaism in history you can see something very special, a people with a very strong story with good times and less good times. I think the Bible and its stories come to show and say that no one is perfect, that humans make many mistakes, even the ancient ancestors of the people of Israel They also made many mistakes.
But to our eyes, as I look at this nation, for most of its life it was persecuted and, in my opinion, was a mirror to the world's hypocrisy, to whole nations that claimed that justice was done to them and that they were worthy nations.
Also take a thousand years back and try to see how many acts of brutal organized violence the people of Israel were and how many were persecuted, looted... and how many nations do you know that after such harsh soul journeys still continued on their own and did not let the horrible past get in the way.
They were exiled several times, they were looted, persecuted in the middle and then the Enlightenment period came when everyone had equal rights and the first liberals arrived and the German people with its multitude of doctors, professors and intellectuals came up with a monstrous idea with a wise and enlightened tone.
Today this nation has a state and it is faced with the same very difficult questions because now it also has an attached army and many questions of religion and state which by the way I claim do not go together.
Regarding free love, I don't know where this concept came from, but I think that Judaism is not aimed at this, but rather at the more heavy and suspicious because we are still not in utopia as you see.
But despite all that you open up in the first book, you see that everyone is in the image of God, you see the law of respecting the stranger, you see love for your neighbor as yourself, you see the prohibition against bad language, and you see ten commandments that, in my opinion, the world could be very nice with.
In any case, I think that we are ripe for spiritual development and I think that we should not pretend to be the best religion and the most such religion, but learn from all peoples and all people.
Arya - the quotes I gave are from sources that live on today (Shulchan Aruch, etc.) There are some modern murderers who believe that they fulfilled the mitzvot of Judaism.
Regardless - I am not afraid of the average Orthodox who murders heretics and prepares matzot for Passover if that is your question. As I said, I think most of the Orthodox, when they read the texts, simply carry out a mini-reform and ignore or choose not to observe them. I sincerely believe that even absolute orthodox people would be angry if they raped their daughters (even if under 3 years old doesn't count) and save me from death even on Shabbat.
I claim that they do this from reasons of "human nature" and not religion because their religion (as you see) does not allow them to do this!
(And this actually goes back to the topic of the article - in my opinion, free love - is a human trait and not a Jewish trait)
Isn't it true that all the stories in the Bible about killing enemies are just myths like all the other stories - then the basis is dropped from the assertion that Judaism is actually a murderous religion?
scion,
I agree with everything you wrote. The only thing I wanted to emphasize is that the Jewish religion grew in a certain atmosphere and as such it was not less moral but much more so than what was around it. In the meantime, the world has changed and religion has frozen a bit and I agree that the fact that we are trying to live according to 3000 year old laws is also problematic for me.
You feed on propaganda unfortunately.
It is true that the Jewish religion may not have been more cruel than other religions - in its time... After all, the insistence of the Orthodox not to change a single word in it (including, for example, trial in modern courts and the like) makes the religion terrible.
And by the way, don't misunderstand me, it's very possible that the Jewish morality was true for its time, but unlike other peoples who say - our ancestors were barbarians who executed people, burned witches, interrogated them with torture, sacrificed human beings and other vegetables and today we know that this is barbarism and go to the Inquisition Museum to see history and know that it is terrible - And we, the Jews of today!, today sanctify the name of the barbarians, call them sages (is that our sages?!?) and their insult hurts the public quite a bit!
For example, let's take the Anglican Church (the Church of England...) and compare it to Hebrew law?
As of today, I emphasize - who is more liberal? Is there a competition?
And again I emphasize - I have no interest in comparing to the Assyrian culture or even to Christianity in the Middle Ages.
I don't live in the middle ages. (I hope so.) I'm interested in comparing - contemporary atheist morality, contemporary Jewish morality, and if you want morality of a contemporary believer living in a liberal country. (Be it Catholic in Rome, Protestant in Dallas, Anglican in London or Muslim in Seoul.) Simply because this is the time in which we live.
And by the way, two things - the Sanhedrin had no authority to execute... (They lived under foreign rule.) When the Jews lived under independent rule, they executed quite a few.
Secondly, all the commandments you described are commandments that apply only to believers. It is permissible to take charity from heretics, but it is forbidden to give charity to them!
And regarding widows (and stages...) do you really think it's moral?
R.H.:
I also don't think that Judaism "wins" in the murderous competition, but the story with the "deadly Sanhedrin" is at least partly an act that the religious recognize without cover.
You are welcome to read the first link in response 45 that I wrote to Omar.
scion,
I also have a lot of criticism of the religion and its laws, but in my opinion, at least one thing cannot be blamed on Judaism, which is more murderous than other religions.
You judge religion in today's court. Look at the descriptions on the walls in Luxor in Egypt or on the tombstones of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings and the statue of Misha, how everyone brags about how much they destroyed, killed and burned. The Bible was written in such a period. Jewish mythology in the descriptions of Joshua's victory and the story of Esther was not distinguished from the environment.
On the other hand, the death penalty is common in all surrounding cultures, but in Judaism they called the Sanhedrin, which ruled on the death penalty, calling seventy years "fatal".
And besides, aren't the tithe laws for the poor, charity and the widow and orphan laws free love?
Well I copied... (By the way, everything from the link I sent you)
(Avodah Zerah XNUMX XNUMX): "The Minin and the traditions and the converts - were to be brought down [them into the pit to be killed by the hands - Rashi XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX] and not brought up [from the pit]." This is how the Rambam ruled in the Laws of Miriam, Chapter XNUMX, Halacha XNUMX: "Since it is known that he is a disbeliever in the oral Torah [they will lower him into the pit] and not from above, and he is like the rest of the hypocrites and those who say there is no Torah from heaven, and the moralists and the proselytes, all of these are not in Israel at all, and there is no need for witnesses And there was no warning and no judges, but everyone who killed one of them did a great mitzvah and removed the obstacle"
The Shulchan Aruch dictates a view of the sign of Kenah, section XNUMX: "The people of Israel, and those who work for the worship of stars or who commits offenses to anger, even eat filth or wear clothing to anger; And the heretics, and those who disbelieve in Torah and prophecy from Israel, used to riot in the Land of Israel. If he had the strength to fight with a sword, with a sword, they were killed. And if not, he would come in plots until he was killed. how? He saw one of them fall into the well and the ladder in the well, first and removed him and said: I was busy getting my son off the roof and I will bring him back to you, and the like in these words.
Rabbi Yisrael Meir Maradin, the author of the "Hafetz Chaim" (1838-1933) ruled in the Mishnah Berura, Siman Shekht XNUMX: "Israel has transgressions of appetite as long as there is no blasphemy in the Torah, it is seen that Shabbat is profaned on him in order to save him, but if he becomes angry, it is forbidden to save him even in sand and all Because it is permissible for him to desecrate Shabbat under the supervision of the wave or other medicine."
In short... there is a lot of free love here.
Omer,
I'm not a coincidence but there are sources for most.
I will remind you of some stories that I am sure you know and finally I will send you to a website where you can read and where there are mostly examples... (including verses by the way.. but I don't copy...)
I have no idea what the verses are in the stories I sent you but I'm sure if you want you'll find it.... you also learned them in school. (at least I learned them)
1. The story of Elijah who killed the prophets of Baal (Jihad secretary?)
2. The story of Elisha who killed children who laughed at him (they called him an ice leaf-bears ate them)
3. The story of the Jews who murdered 300000 Persians on Purim, including innocents from the Haman family who were hanged.
4. Joshua killed not only all the peoples of Canaan but also the animals....
5. Akkad Yitzchak is an excellent story showing a glorious family.
6. The story of Pinchas
7. Amalek male protest - free love...
8. Masada ….
And to conclude a site...
http://www.daatemet.co.il/articles/article.cfm?article_id=121
I don't want to start comparing which religion is the cruelest of all, and it is also very similar that some of the Orthodox carry out a small "reform" in their hearts when they read the verses. (I assume that the majority of the Orthodox do not boil 10-year-olds as in Michael's verses and do not murder or want to murder Shabbat-blasphemers in persuasion, but they do so contrary to the scriptures.
And in conclusion
I'm not looking here at all for extremists or not.
I still prefer my neighbors to be Jews because they understand the jokes of a great country and that is important... But in the question about the cruelty of the religion there is no doubt that the Jewish religion as a whole is cruel
Omer:
Some material to whet your appetite:
Some of the punishments in Judaism - some for nothing
A little more about morality in Judaism
scion,
I would love to receive a quote from the Bible regarding what you said, it seems a bit far-fetched to me
And it's quite absurd and even stupid to call a religion that brought with it very strong moral laws a religion of gratuitous hatred
And to your question, Islam has quite a few sayings of violent solutions regarding anyone who does not act according to Muhammad's prophecy
Wenzer, a little advice
Don't take the extremists as the majority opinion
Have a good day
Omar
Is there a religion that advocates gratuitous hatred more than Judaism?
What is the connection between Judaism and free love? If anything, talk about Judaism in the context of how we survive even though we have a crazy religion.
Do you know another religion that literally has a commandment to kill (!) the members of your religion (!) if they do not observe all the commandments of the religion (converts to anger, heretics, Shabbat breakers in persuasion)
Since this forum, by the way, is quite public and since all the torturers probably do it using a computer and electricity, then everyone here is desecrating Shabbat and commanding to kill everyone.
Sincerely Shabbat Shalom.
Eddie:
With the things you said in the current discussion - it's really better not to see me as another interlocutor in it.
To start the discussion about the things you don't agree with, you brought as an example something you agree with and also wrote it in a way that only Nostradamus' interpretation can interpret as if you agree?
the lie have no legs.
Michael:
L - 40:
You continue to distort the scriptures - after all, in my first response [12] it was specifically about a wide controversy, and just to start ["let's get started..."] I suggested discussing "love..."
I'm sorry, but the extent of the lie is precisely in your words, not mine.
Since you stick to your invalid debating method, I no longer see you as a legitimate interlocutor in this discussion.
Rabbi Nachman of Breslav summed it up nicely
"It is better to fail with free love than to fail with free hate"
It is certain that the other cheek is not a solution and a smart way to overthrow the hostile forces, but surely if the choice is free hate or free love then he will say free love.
And about loving your neighbor like yourself
There is a common mistake regarding the interpretation of the sentence
Pay attention to your neighbor
This means that as you want there to be love for you, so you will also love for the other, indicating constitutional and social equality. Justice and morality together
Not like they think you will love the other as you love yourself, such a claim is clearly not Israeli.
Eddie:
It seems to me that you are dragging the discussion to a place that no one wants, but it is difficult for me not to answer such a gross lie.
I do not take ownership of the thoughts of others and the only window I have into their thoughts are their words.
Your response 12 leaves no room for doubt and I am amazed that you delude yourself that anyone can buy your meanderings.
Repeat the whole comment?
Apparently there is no choice.
I will repeat it in a simple way and explain why I understood what I understood and then you can explain where I went wrong (even though I did not go wrong).
Quote your 12th response:
"
monument,
An interesting article, although I do not agree with your main factual assertions nor with your way of interpretation, and in any case not with the resulting conclusions.
Let's start with a basic question: what about the biblical commandment 'love your neighbor as yourself'?
"
I understand the response as simple: you claim that you do not agree with the factual statements in the article and the only statement you refer to is the statement that there is no commandment of free love in the Torah.
This is what Gilad wrote and there is no way to conclude that when you write that you do not agree with the things and then you ask Gilad a "basic question" (a phrase whose function is to emphasize Gilad's ignorance) about the biblical commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" - you actually mean to claim that what Gilad said Right.
On the other hand - what you said in your later comments is that what Gilad said regarding writing the Torah is indeed true.
Therefore - before you accuse me of taking ownership of your thoughts - I would suggest that you make up your own mind.
The truth is that I am really embarrassed that I have to answer such shameful things.
Michael:
L - 28:
You have a problem of biasing what is written and adjusting what is read according to your views and your ways of thinking. In this context, you are also investing unnecessary energy in an empty argument.
The emphasis in the question I asked was precisely on the accuracy from 'like you' - and the question was not 'rhetorical' in the way you decided on it.
Stop taking ownership of the thoughts and utterances of others, and in the way of crooked manipulations deny legitimacy to the utterances of others.
Remember, the disqualifier is disqualifying - and this claim can in many cases be directed specifically at you.
If you continue this way, there will be no point in seeing you as a legitimate interlocutor and regarding your responses, regardless of the quality of your messages. So get off it.
monument,
I agree about the fact that in rabbinical literature since the Midrashim and the Talmud (and in my opinion also in the Bible) there has been a moral theory and a mitzvah of the teacher and guide to the morality of reciprocating kindness, charity, doing justice, etc., as well as good manners in general.
But - all of these are well framed in a halachic normative framework that is oriented towards actions, with all its rules, details - and exceptions [which are often not few at all, sometimes overshadowing and suppressing the general]. The concept of 'love' is seen as a mental factor aimed at doing kindness in very specific ways, and not as a purely emotional state, and nothing comes 'for free'. The subject does what he does because he is obligated, and the beneficiary object is entitled to receive the fruit of the good deed if, and only if, he is indeed entitled to it. An act of good recompense enjoying an undeserving object can even be considered a prohibition - a sin, a misdemeanor or a crime. In short, there are no free meals at the Jewish moral table...
It is true that in this way Judaism created a high morality with stable practical success and at a high level on a historical scale. But it is important to understand the 'legality' point of Jewish love [which, in my opinion, is also the key to the success of Jewish morality on a historical scale, in contrast to Christianity and Islam, for example].
I would be happy to talk to you about it, if you have new insights and information.
Hugin?
In the first song, Bialik fantasizes about strong love, and in the second - when he is old, he does not like that young women say no to him and look for young men.
Avi Blizovsky,
The first song, in my opinion, shows very well what the guy wants love to be. He wants her to take care and protect him. A place to cuddle.
In the second song, does the girl want to marry a young man? that's it? The song is written in a cute way, but Bialik's intention eludes me.
I'm not a very bright person...
Due to the space and time limitations I have at the moment, I will answer at this stage briefly what I know, and at a later stage I will add more material...
To the anonymous 32:
Before I didn't understand what you meant about the believing Christians... but now I understand that the feature is pointing to mental/psychological/cultural limitations that arise from the beliefs in Jesus as the Messiah. If so, it is interesting to note that one of my favorite philosophers is Friedrich Nietzsche. And he devoted almost all of his philosophy to telling Christians what you are asking me to explain to them... I have not examined the issue sociologically, but I heard that Nietzsche had a great influence on secularization in the 20th century in Germany and other European countries. Likewise, one can find other philosophers and thinkers who acted against the Christian example or against the monotheistic religious belief. They begin to appear in the 18th century, when it is not a matter of certain death to spread critical ideas about religion. But as you hinted, the process of "persuasion" is very complex and requires a philosophical and cultural genius to bring about a significant change in public opinion, or even just to think differently in the earlier centuries (16-17).
For the 29th – Eddie:
It seems that beyond the sources we have different concepts of "free love" and hence most of our disagreement. It is important even before comparing sources to compare and define together the concepts or ideas that are used... and also to try to go towards the other side in order to start the dialogue with the same concepts and the same understandings and not with concepts that are different from the beginning and create inconsistencies in advance...
To the point of the things you brought up: 1. The Talmud is generally perceived as very rich in free love in the sense I meant it or at least in the same direction... The problem is that I am not an expert in the Talmud and today is almost Friday and I do not have access to the university's library. But one can also find a great deal of free love in the later generations of European Jewry. And this trend is very noticeable relative to what is accepted among Christians. In general, there is a huge sensitivity to the feelings of others and subtleties of everyday morality and learning mercy in general. And it is possible, in my opinion, to see the beginning of this path in the Talmud and also in the Mishnah.
As for concrete examples in the middle of the night... I remember the story from the Talmud about the Jew who does not agree to kill his friend even though it will kill them both. And also many very sensitive stories, almost in an excessive way relative to our time, about the delicate relationships and the sensitive and rich inner world of exemplary characters (this is more profound and touching than psychoanalysis). And I also remember that chapters of Avot is a good source to look for signs of free love or a tendency towards it... and there is also much later the morality movement and Hasidism. and the defamation laws of the Hafetz Chaim. But things that are not found in Christianity even with saints. In my opinion, free love has permeated Judaism since ancient times... but maybe we should even define what free love is?...
In my opinion, this is a certain bias in the direction of the love of humanity or the love of man as he is a man, also the love of Grimm, but not necessarily. The idea is that free love is expressed in a kind of submissive or "Ionic" politics, if you can call it politics in such an inferior position. In my view, free love is not necessarily extreme as in the theological Jesus, but rather it simply tends towards more appeasement and submission and acceptance with a certain political and spiritual situation, as opposed to a more aggressive and forceful and also fanatical approach that characterizes most ancient nations and in practice all strong and dominant nations. In my opinion, you defined free love in the extreme Christian sense, when I defined it in a more inclusive and moderate way. And in my definition, it seems to me that the old Hillel, in accordance with his policy under Herod and his love for the Garim, is at least a suspect for the beginning of this trend.
Regarding the Essenes, I admit that I did not study them in depth, but I understood that they had a kind of cooperative lifestyle and that at least among them they had social values that united them and reminded them a little, or that they might have been similar to the first Christian communities. The assumption is that it is a sociology or similar culture, but this may not be based on in-depth research.
Regarding the affiliation of Christianity to the Judaism of the Second Temple period. Maybe we agree here. Because I did not claim that early Christianity was identified with traditional Judaism like the Sadducees and the Pharisees. But she was part of the fringes that did get further away from her and the source as time went by. Simply, I assumed that both fringe sects such as Christianity and the Essene and perhaps other fringe sects are considered part of Judaism in the broadest sense, and certainly in the main origin and source of the tenets of the faith. But for the purpose of the matter, it can also be said that Christianity came out of Judaism and in general it was foreign to it and did not attract it more than the Samaritans or the Shebatites.
Regarding the time of writing the Bible, I was not sure of the count. But in any case, 1200 years is enough time in the ancient world for us to understand that there are historical gaps between the authors of the books included in the Bible, and that it is not a single book written by a single author.
For any concrete historical explanations, I will need an academic library to provide them. But in the meantime I found here the essay of Yosef Klausner, "History of the Second Temple". And there is a chapter that describes the impact of Herod's policies on the spiritual life in Judea. It is considered an old-fashioned university treatise, but it is doubtful whether new treatises shed more light or new facts on this material. This is found in volume 111, in the sixth lesson, on page XNUMX (Yosef Klausner, History of the Second Temple). But I assume that the same things can also be found in more recent research literature on the spiritual life in the context of Herod.
monument
I think exactly as you explained about 'measure against measure', I did not disagree with your opinion.
But again, it would be interesting if you try to explain this to believing Christians. I wonder how they will react if you tell them
to be mistaken (even if they agree with the principle you agree on - measure for measure). Do you think they will still agree with you that Jesus was wrong? Try to explain on this site to the religious that he was wrong in something, see how they react. Or even try to explain to them that the old Hillel said this and not otherwise.
What I like here is that you can enjoy learning and being educated not only by reading the articles,
But also, and not least, from the comments.
It is interesting to read your comments, everyone has a different and interesting opinion
And unlike most sites, most of you have statements with substantiation and content,
Just a pleasure.
to unite:
There is no such thing as a 'Neoplatonius'.
By the way, you can find the idea of free love in Plotinus (considered the founder of Neoplatonism) - the pagan of the third century AD, in the writings of his student Porphyrius, and it is possible that these ideas have their roots earlier, in Plotinus' teachers. Plotinus' ideas had a strong influence on early Christianity.
monument,
L - 23:
1.
Factual accuracy is certainly of the essence. Can you give examples of the principle of 'free love' from the Jewish sources?
2.
Where do you get that the Essenes advocated free love?
3.
Christianity is not and has never been a 'Jewish faction': the Sadducees yes, the Pharisees yes - but not Christianity. Christianity was also not a successful missionary development of a faction of 'Judaism'. Christianity was an unusual sect in Judaism, from its beginning. That's why it left Judaism in its very early stages, even before Paul, precisely because of the unusual principles it had - including the principle (which was not really one of the main ones at the time) of free love. Are you seriously claiming that she represents 'Judaism', in particular regarding the principle of 'free love'?
4.
By all accounts, the books of the Bible were not compiled over '2000' years, as you say. The maximum span is on the order of 1200 years. In any case, in your article you take a very specific section of historical Judaism - the period of the end of the Second Temple, the period after the destruction - the Tanatian and Amorite period in general, and build on it, as it were. But you bring no evidence for your speculations, neither from dogmatic formulations [from the Talmud, midrashim or external books], nor from concrete historical facts. It is indeed nice (and easy...) to place a general reliance on 'experts on the history of the people of Israel' (whose identity as far as we are concerned is quite unknown, at least at this stage) but what to do when their words also need evidence, especially when different 'experts' have all kinds of agendas and limitations.
In short, you will not be able to lift the burden of persuasion as long as you do not try to lift the burden of bringing evidence. If you are serious, start working on it.
Eddie:
The flip-flop I was talking about is the difference between what you are saying now and your rhetorical question in response 12:
"Let's start with a basic question: what about the biblical commandment 'love your neighbor as yourself'?"
In my opinion, it is very difficult not to understand this question as a defiance against the words of Gilead, who said that Judaism originally did not exalt the love of nothing over any miracle (a claim that you are also making now).
That's why I also wrote in my response 15 that it seems to me that Israel answered you.
This (alleged) change in your position (and I'm sure you will explain to us well why it is not a change and that the rhetorical question was not at all intended to show that the Torah preached free love and I already know that I will find it difficult to believe you) led me to the conclusion that it is not the historical facts that are important to you, but rather the defense of the religion against what you see as an attack against her
I must point out here - for the benefit of Gilad who addressed this point - that I did not intend to make light of the value of historical accuracy to which he is committed but to point out that in my opinion - the issue of historical accuracy is not behind your comment.
The attribution to Christianity or Neoplatonius is as questionable as the attribution to Judaism.
I agree with 23, there are always interpretations in every period and by every person.
Every tradition has different interpretations not only for Judaism, Western secularism, Christianity or neo-paganism.
As 16 said, the question is what is love, and what is true.
Curiosity, does game theory explain the relationship between kindness and justice? (in Jewish Christian and other commentaries).
PS 20 Maybe you could give a link that explains what "secularism in essence" is. Thanks.
monument
I think exactly as you explained about 'measure against measure', I did not disagree with your opinion.
But again, it would be interesting if you try to explain this to believing Christians. I wonder how they will react if you tell them
Jesus was wrong (even if they agree with the principle on which you agree - measure for measure). Do you think they will still agree with you that Jesus was wrong? Try to explain on this site to religious people that God got something wrong, see how they react. Or even try to explain to them that the old Hillel said this and not otherwise.
Mr. Gilad Zlibansky
Hillel, according to his method, encouraged self-thinking and taking personal responsibility.
And you did not give a free gift to a person who is not ready to initiate on his own and expects others to do it for him.
What's more, Hillel believed in giving credit to each person to start from where they are.
No matter what happens even in the lower rank if a person receives support and trust he can qualify to the top. As we know, there are two principle methods in the Talmud: on the one hand, the strict rationality method of an appraiser. By it a person is measured as to his worth and his reward.
And on the other hand, Hillel's rational tolerance method - giving credit to every person.
And sages determined that she walked according to the method of Hillel everywhere.
The two stories below demonstrate his approach in different ways:
Tractate Shabbat, page XNUMX
===================================
Meshach in one foreigner who came before me
Shamai told him how many Torahs you have, he told him two Torahs in writing and a Torah
That by word of mouth I believe you in writing and that by word of mouth I do not believe you. Girani
Am Shatlamdani Torah in writing reprimanded him and sent him away with a reprimand.
came before Hillel
Gairiya (Gyro) Yoma Kama (on the first day they taught) AB XNUMXD for tomorrow Afich (he changed the order of the letters). Yesterday and not yesterday
You told me the most (so) God did not trust me (and because yesterday you did not trust the origin of my mouth that I will teach you the truth) Del here Nemi trust me (therefore also trust the words of ShebaP):
-
Again an act by a foreigner
who was passing behind the Beit Midrash and heard a voice saying 1 These are the clothes
Those who make a breastplate and a vest said these to whom they said to be a high priest said him
A stranger himself, I will go and repent so that Shimoni as a great grace comes before Shamai
Leah Gierni said in order for Shimani a great priest to really push the building in his hand.
Come before Hillel Geiriah, peace be upon him
Kingdom go to learn the rites of the kingdom, he went and read because he had come (to write the Torah) and the foreigner was about to die, he said to him this scripture about whom is it said, God Afi' about David, the king of Israel, he carried it easily and seriously himself, and what about Israel were called sons to the place (of God) and out of love That their love called them the first-born children of Israel, it was written about them, and the foreigner who fought, died, lived, and the light that came
With his cane and knapsack all the more, he came before Shamay Al, nothing worthy of me
To be a high priest and not dictated by the Torah and the foreigner, the battle of death comes before Hallel God
Praise their humility "Blessings will rest on your head that you sacrificed me under the wings of the Shekinah
Later we mated, and they licked each other's ears, and the strictness of an appraiser asked for our annoyance
From the world the humility of Hillel our sacrifice under the wings of the Shekinah:
Eddy, Michael Rothschild, Gilad Zlibansky:
It is appropriate to bring here an instructive example of Hillel's method. that the person himself must take responsibility
to his actions and thoughts and feelings.
Using his personal example story below:
Tractate Shabbat page XNUMX EB
==============================
An act of two people who cheated on each other said anyone who would go and tease
Ah Hallel Yatul Rabbi Maut Zoz said another of them
I will tease him today, Shabbat evening, and Hallel Hafef
his head He went and passed the door of his house and said
Who's here Hallel Who's here Hallel?! Wrapped up and left
Towards him my son said to him what do you want? told him
I have a question to ask. He told him, my son asked.
Why are the heads of Babylonians oval? My son told him a big question you asked me
that there is no bread for unsupervised animals (childhoods). He went and waited for an hour and the stranger said who is here Hallel
Who's here Hallel?! He wrapped himself up and went out to meet him and said to him, "My son is dead, are you asking?" told him
I have a question to ask. He told him, my son asked. Why are the eyes of Thermodyne (desert tribe) twitching? My son said to him, "You asked a big question because you were in the sand." Gone
And he waited for one hour and came back and said who is here Hallel who is here Hallel?! Wrapped up and left
Towards him my son said to him what do you want? Told him I have a question to ask Told him ask my son
Ask. Why are Africans' legs wide? My son told him a big question you asked
Because it is between the feet of the water. Told him I have many questions to ask and I am afraid
Lest you get angry. Wrapped and sat in front of him told him any questions you have to ask ask. He said to him, "You are the praise that the president of Israel is giving you?" They told him. told him if you are he is not
There will be many like you in Israel. My son said to him because of what he said to him because I was lost by you D
Hundreds move. He said to him, be careful in your spirit! Worthy is the praise that you will lose four hundred zuz (and more) and four hundred zuz and space will not be careful:
==================================
First of all, I am satisfied that the article provokes a discussion about the issues it contains, because that was the goal. And I would rather have those who would not agree with some of the things I wrote. In the end, philosophy is not a modern science and it does not allow solving problems and reaching a collective agreement regarding matters related to morality and culture (and not even in the interpretation of historical sources).
And following the last comments I saw:
1. The fact that for me history is not an aspect that stands on its own, it does not mean that I do not have to be careful about the points I base on a historical basis. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, all the historical points I raised are accurate and I can back them up historically, with sources I checked in the library, even if I'm not an expert historian. The historical basis must not be underestimated, because in that case, it is like a physicist or an engineer would underestimate mathematics. In history, there is sometimes room for pluralism in interpretation, because the ancient historiography sometimes leaves enough room for several versions...
2. In my opinion, and also according to experts in the history of the people of Israel, "Judaism" is not one culture with fixed values, but rather it changes from period to period. And in fact it is historically more similar to a civilization (such as the Western culture from Greece to the present day) than to a single culture or nation. This is too long in terms of time, not to mention the historical transformations and changes in the position of the Jews in different periods. In short, the Bible, even though it is considered one book, is a collection of compositions by different authors spanning about 2000 years, I think (somewhere from the First Temple to the middle of the Second Temple?). Therefore it is required that even in the Roman period, there will be changes and there will be differences in the value system between the early biblical Judaism and the Judaism of the end of the Second Temple.
3. In the same context, Christianity, as we know, is merely a missionary and successful development of a Jewish sect. She was not the only one of her kind in the matter of "free love", and there were similar opinions for the Issei and many other sects from the time that were not published. So Eddie's claim, that free love is not Jewish, does not line up with logic, assuming that Christianity itself grew as a Jewish sect and there were other Jewish sects and groups that advocated the same ideas. Incidentally, Christianity had relatively few ideas that it did not copy or develop under the inspiration of ideas that already existed. And so they managed to attract believers to them.
4. To Israel - regarding the character of the old Hillel. I admit that it is difficult to interpret values that a person believed in without surviving historical sources that directly validate him. But in any case, it seems to me that if we collect all the Torah that characterizes him and try to attribute to him a consistent value position or a certain philosophy, it seems to me that he tends in the direction of the free love that is undoubtedly emphasized in the later Talmudic literature. Even if, incidentally, his free love seems to be mild relative to his image in the tradition, I still suppose it would be fair to say that he has become a symbol of free love, or at least that he is more prone to it than other characters. Even if not necessarily in an excessive way, as in the New Testament.
Michael Rothschild:
What conceptual flick are you talking about? what's your thing
'Free love' is a Christian concept, maybe also Neoplatonic, but absolutely not Jewish, not biblical ('like you') nor extra-biblical and not 'exile'. From a Jewish point of view, he is indeed an eyesore; And Gilad's article about this concept is wrong and speculative, both on the dogmatic side (and love 'like you' - signifies a proportionate practical obligation, not a subjective or absolute attitude) and on the historical factual side - and I am not sure that whoever says about the article that it is also 'eye catching' - will not be wrong .
As far as I am concerned, if the article falsely claims a link between Judaism and the principle of free love, and bases such a link on concrete historical processes or events - then this is definitely from the 'essence' of the article, and that is why I attacked the article.
Eddie:
It seems to me that (at least now, it seems to me that in the middle there was some conceptual flick-flack here) you agree with Gilad's conclusion regarding the glorified "free love" being eye catching and the whole reason why you are reacting is the mention of religion and this even though Gilad explained that what is important to him is The essence and the religious examples used only to illustrate the idea.
So maybe enough?
monument,
Since you did not address my question on the 12th, I will complete what I wanted to tell you:
Judaism does not advocate, in my opinion, 'love' per se. She talks about 'obligation' - the practical duty to take care of others, according to certain principles, within a general moral theory.
The foundation of Jewish moral theory is the principle of the 'image'. 'Lovely is a person who was created in Tselem', according to Rabbi Akiva's article, and this is where the essence and meaning of the biblical commandment to 'love your neighbor as yourself' comes from. As Ben Azai insists on the verse 'This is the book of human history', human beings maintain a basic equality between them, as the 'image' is inherent in them. The meaning is that a person has a moral duty to take care of the good of the other person, as he takes care of himself - because of the equal fundamental value of the person and the other person, by virtue of the fact that they are both embedded in the same 'image'.
Since this is about a practical obligation to care for the other person - then the principle of 'free love' does not follow from this, neither in the emotional sense ('love') nor in the 'free' sense: - the other person must definitely be worthy of concern: he has to be 'bad'. If the other person does not meet the criteria required by the image that was imprinted on him, that is, he desecrates it with negative actions, then his remaining virtue as owner of the image suffers devaluation and the person's duty to dawn his good - it is also reduced, and sometimes it is negated.
The origin of 'free love' is absolutely not in Judaism, but in Christianity, and its foundations can be traced back to early Christianity. From a Jewish point of view - which has a realistic moral approach, and a tendency towards practicality - the principle is absurd.
The place of such a principle can only be in romantic and/or hypocritical religions or thought methods - both of them seek to grasp the many, and end up not even grasping the few. It seems to me that Christianity exemplifies this beautifully, and the same goes for excessive modern humanistic methods of thought, which are essentially secular.
Gilad, any attempt to associate the principle with any Jewish method of thought, whether before the Roman period or after it, before the destruction of the Temple or after it, before the 'exile' or after it - has no factual or dogmatic basis whatsoever:
From a fundamentally 'dogmatic' point of view - I explained why.
From a historical factual point of view - your hypothesis as if the Jews renewed some kind of dogmatics in the late days of the Second Temple and after it - has no basis, because the ideological motives of the people of the period in question are ancient, and all their formulations have nothing between them and free love. Even the big and small historical events of that period are not characterized by the spirit of any kind of 'free love': the period was characterized by resentment and even intense hatred of the Jews, who were deprived of their freedom due to the Roman Collegium - towards their conquerors and enslavers. Three fierce rebellions, which claimed the lives of millions from all sides - took place at the hands of Jews in a period of less than seventy years from the beginning of the Great Revolt to the end of the Bar Kochba Revolt (in 117, in the middle of the period the 'Kitos polemic' took place) in and around the Land of Israel. If Rabbi Akiva (himself the spiritual leader of the Bar Kochba rebellion!) said what he said ('A man who was created in his image is beloved' - which apparently also includes the sons of 'this lowly nation', i.e. - the Romans) then it is not because of Herod or the Romans - but despite Herod and the Romans, and only because of the internal conceptual dynamics of Judaism for generations based on its biblical origins.
Lilit, as for the question of what love is, ask Bialik. He asks the question in the song "Hakinisini under your wing" and the answer in the song "Neither by day nor by night".
Rah:
Indeed, we are talking about the real world and what is presented in the world as free love is only a fraud mechanism as the article explains very well.
I think free love does exist but it is never like that when it is presented as such.
When our Sages said "He who saves his tribe hates us", there was something in their words - at least in the metaphorical sense.
I don't know which of the readers watched the TV series "House".
House is in my eyes the character of the honest person who loves the knowledge.
Outwardly, he shows rigidity and what appears to be insensitivity, but all his "victims" come out of the relationship with him.
His true love for free brings him to sacrifice his public image for the true benefit of the common good.
Gilad and Michael (11),
You are talking about a non-ideal world like ours where free love is a losing strategy for suckers. But an ideal has its place in an ideal world. That is, the aspiration, even if it is not feasible, should be the same ideal world. And so as such, even if it is not practical in our messed up world, free love should be an ideal and a candle to be lit by educators. That's why I'm bothered by the treatment of free love as a negative thing.
It turns out that there are people who make a living from this nonsense...
There are no free meals and no free love!
And if it's philosophy - then from the ground up:
what is love????????
It seems to me that Israel answered Eddie.
Mr. Zlibanski
If the quote is not clear:
From the Shabbat treatise, page XNUMXa
Mr. Zlibanski
Maybe you should check the sources before you quote from them.
Elder Hillel neither taught nor advocated free love.
He taught that a person is responsible for himself and cannot project his feelings and troubles onto others. According to his way, the declared "love of the other" is fake because it is an opening to cover up with the tzaddik and in fact to avoid taking responsibility for the egoistic feelings in a person.
His famous saying that represents this line does not appear on Shabbat:
---------
–> Go away, I will not work for your friend <– this is all
The entire Torah, on the other hand, means it is a complete waste:
---------
This he said to a Gentile who came to him to be converted.
means:
Do not treat others the way you do not want to be treated.
That is, take responsibility for your actions and thoughts and check them according to this principle.
It is enough for a person to deeply and truly understand this matter and from this he will be able to learn and understand the entire Torah.
monument,
An interesting article, although I do not agree with your main factual assertions nor with your way of interpretation, and in any case not with the resulting conclusions.
Let's start with a basic question: what about the biblical commandment 'love your neighbor as yourself'?
Friends:
The regular readers of the site surely know why I liked the article.
This is exactly the philosophy according to which I operate and I already had the whole idea of postmodernist licks many years ago.
It is interesting to mention in this regard an anecdote from the field of game theory thatI have already mentioned in similar contexts.
The basis of the anecdote is The prisoner's dilemma I hope everyone already knows her.
A man named Axelrod conducted an experiment that created a quasi-commercial equivalent of the prisoner's dilemma and let computer programs that implement certain strategies - some fair and some unfair - compete in accumulating points and placing more offspring (replicas) of themselves as they gained more points.
The winner (by and large) was a strategy called TIT for TAT (or loosely translated "measure for measure") whose operating principle was "never betray your initiative but if someone betrayed you - punish him - and after he is punished give him another chance".
In other words, the strategy said "be honest - but not a sucker".
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/tittat/story.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Rapoport
Response to number 8 - the anonymous (previously there was only a response to number 6) -
Basically, I claim, as in the article, that Jesus' attitude is wrong, if we assume that it is sincere and that he really meant it, and that he invented it himself and it was not just his disciples who wrote it in his name, etc. My main argument is that it is simply a violation of basic justice and fairness not to reward measure for measure. That is, to treat people and actions according to their moral and individual value. By the way, Nietzsche, in "Thus spoke Zarathustra" wrote (in the context of the other cheek) that such behavior is also of no practical use, because instead of teaching the wicked a lesson they understand, it will only confuse them and make morality a joke. In the end, it's also a matter of taste, and some people like this idea. But then, they actually deviate from the basic principle of selective moral evaluation.
Regarding the Christians, who supposedly believe in the "second life". So, the problem is that Christianity itself contradicts this principle in many places even in its theology. And there is nothing to talk about the history of the Christian nations and people in real life. It is important to remember that Christianity is full of horrific punishments that are not found in other religions, such as eternal torment in hell for anyone who has sinned or happens to not be a Christian, the destruction of the entire world and most of humanity, and more. It is interesting to mention that Jesus himself (described in the New Testament) does give the other cheek in this world, but in the next world, and also at the end of the world, he promises that his father will take revenge on all his sinners and haters with infinite interest. By the way, if you carefully read the New Testament, you can find a lot of violent wishes in it that do not fit well with the sweet messages of this fickle religion.
Response to number 8 - the article does use a historical background to illustrate and understand its subject, but the main aspect is actually philosophical - and it is a value criticism of the very idea or the moral value of free love. For me, what is important is not what happened in history because of history itself, but because history also teaches us many things about human nature whose meaning is much broader than their historical value. In this case, the importance of the history of free love is in presenting the characteristics or the "genetic load" of free love itself. Because a description of the history of a person or of a human phenomenon, beyond history for its own sake also reveals the character and the qualities that lie in them in principle. That is, regardless of what happened in the past, but from a general ethical or philosophical point of view.
monument
Actually, my response was intended for the one who pretends to be God (whose response was deleted).
But if you already answered my response, I want to ask you:
What about Jesus who said to turn the other cheek?
Are you saying Jesus was wrong when he said that? Try explaining that to a billion Christians.
Uncle,
Is this free love? host three people? One of his sons he threw to die in the desert, his second son he was ready to sacrifice, he sold his wife to Pharaoh and Abimelech because he spared his skin. But what about hospitality he was excellent. Oh, yes, he spared the wicked in Sodom and tried to prevent their punishment.
monument,
The article is interesting and original, but what is its quality? What does it matter the sources of free love?
I wish we would overcome the desire for revenge and transcend to true free love. If the ideal of free love did exist without rotten apples to destroy it, don't you think the world would become a better place? And if so, then what does it matter (beyond the historical matter which is important and interesting in itself) where did the ideal come from?
And what about the story about Avraham Abino and his hospitality at the beginning of Parashat Vira?
Isn't this free love?
Unfortunately this article is not a scientific analysis but a worldview and wishful thinking.
According to the article I wrote, it is not written that the whole person is bad (despite the nature of the human heart...), but I suggest another way to distinguish between good and bad. There is good and there is love, but not in the form of free love that is canceled and does not refer to the question of whether certain people and things deserve love or positive evaluation. In other words, according to the article, there is endless goodness and love for every person who deserves them. But not to everyone unconditionally or without difference. Because then love and goodness lose their meaning and pervert themselves (instead of a good measure they become a lie or a mistake, which are a form of evil).
Why do you think man is only evil? Only hatred and disgust? A person also has goodness and love and beauty, why don't you consider that?
good night god
A smart, brave and honest article.
And yet I love you and forgive everything...