Should there be a desire to be Jewish? Why?
Hello and have a good week!
I have a question: If the rabbi were a Gentile, would he convert?
I would like to clarify that this is not a personal question about the character of the rabbi, but a question of content. That is, is there actually any point in converting (and not practically, would the rabbi himself convert)?
I will explain my question: I understand that philosophically it is most reasonable to conclude that there is a Creator of the world. Similarly, in light of good arguments, I also conclude that there was a giving of the Torah, and therefore, as a Jew, I am obligated to the 33 commandments, etc., etc.
But, how is all this supposed to lead the Gentile to keep the commandments? At most, if I were a Gentile, I would accept the giving of the Torah (which was for the Jews), and thus be obligated to the seven commandments of Noah. But why should I convert? I am not talking about a consideration of benefit, but where can one get the impression that the Creator Himself is interested in them joining the Jewish religion? And if He is indeed not interested, why is there a motivation for Gentiles to convert? Is it just considerations of profit that are not related to God’s will?
We can put it this way: Should there be an intellectual desire to be Jewish? Why?
I don’t know. You may or may not convert. Conversion does not necessarily reflect God’s will (I’m not sure He wants all Gentiles to convert), but rather the desire of that person to belong to the group of God’s worshipers.
The personal question about me is not defined. If I were a Gentile, I wouldn’t be me. It’s like asking what Maimonides would say about something if he were alive today. If he were alive today, he wouldn’t be Maimonides.
One can find a case in which the question is well defined, for example if it is discovered to a person that his mother did not convert legally (there was a blockage in the baptism).
I ask, if for some reason you find out that you are not Jewish - would you get up and convert? If so - why?
Personally, my mother thinks so. That's the world today and in my opinion, that's the right way to live.
“If he were alive today, he would not be Maimonides” – Is the rabbi referring to the opinion of Professor Yosef Klausner?
I don't know his opinion on the matter.
Rabbi, thank you for your response. I'm sorry if I'm bothering you, but the letter is, etc. Why does the Rabbi see Judaism as his world? And is there a reason for this that is "truth" or some emotional tendency that is devoid of truth?
* Torah is
Why is it my world? Because it is my world. Why is this world my world? Because I was born here. This has nothing to do with the truth, because every gentile has the right not to convert. But I identify with the role of Jews. It is something between psychology and values. It is a higher level of being a Jew, even though gentiles do not have to qualify for it and convert.
Blessed be the God of Israel who gave us this platform that does not censor probing, and therefore I will ask (assuming that this is the world of the rabbi even before the investigation and its conclusion regarding God and religion) that the rabbi sets the truth as the value and parameter for which we strive, and that is why the rabbi walks in the field of philosophical research without setting a pre-defined goal because then it is not truth. And I, the human, ask that since the rabbi is also human and bribery will blind the eyes of discerning people, to what extent the rabbi will try to cleanse himself of the personal touch, bribery exists. That human touch will not allow the field of philosophical research to be expanded beyond the world of the rabbi. There is an investigation, but I identify with the role of Jews. How can the human touch that is inherent in us as human beings and cannot be removed lead us to the truth? By the person shouting “But I mean the truth”? You have no greater touch than ”This is my world” and you have no person who is free from this touch on fateful issues like God and religion that are supposed to turn a person's world from one end to the other.
Have a nice evening!
It is impossible to ensure complete cleanliness in judgment, but one must do one's utmost to clean.
Furthermore, our initial tendencies are not necessarily impurities. These are our basic assumptions, and one cannot think without basic assumptions.
Finally, in philosophy too there are “theological” arguments (as I defined them in the fourth notebook). And again, these are not necessarily impurities.
Blessed is he who strives to reach the truth, but there is no law here for scheming. In practice, I am the weakling who is informed the night before about a fight with Chuck Norris. I will try to practice and tell everyone that I am going to defeat Chuck, and despite my limitations, I will try. I am sure that the rabbi would not have practiced that night and certainly would not have claimed to defeat Chuck. The rabbi calls for the touching of basic assumptions? So my question is how can a person claim to investigate and reach the truth if he cannot think without his basic assumptions that manipulate him. Unfortunately, I did not understand how the last line answers me.
Good night!
There is definitely a law of compromise here, because all I can do is try. And if I made a mistake, I'll stay with you. The last line only illustrates your mistake in the perception of basic assumptions. Basic assumptions are not assumptions but unreasoned insights (which are based on direct cognition). I've gone on for two cartloads with this and it's really not stable. “theological” arguments that philosophy is full of, put this on the table.
If I understood correctly what the basic assumptions are, then I'm not talking about them. And even if I didn't, I still don't think I'm talking about them. Let's be honest, Honorable Rabbi. A person is close to himself. The judgment is necessarily invalid. Because a person is close to himself. People like to justify themselves in arguments and prefer to push themselves as long as their opinion is the one that will be justified. Would the Rabbi have no choice but to institute a trial when the judge is biased? I would say that if the trial is repeated, then there will be no fair trial here and the matter will not be fair. A biased judge is the law of the one who is biased?
You gave an excellent example. Why do you appoint judges? They have their faults too. I would definitely appoint a biased judge (especially one who tries to get ahead) if I don't have another judge.
And if there is no other judge but only a mentally impaired person? And this is the case here, except that the mental impairment causes a brain impairment and is found to be mentally impaired, then it is clear that the Rabbi was mentally impaired to judge. The Rabbi will say that this is idle chatter, but as the Rabbi answers many times; it was for illustrative purposes only.
I really don't understand you. I have a fear that I'm infected, but I'm trying to overcome it. It is what it is. And if the alternative is that there is no judge and no discretion - that is certainly better.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
