Chinese

Thank you.
1. It means nothing.
2. Qumran creates a strong and above-mentioned barrier to the hypothetical latest date when the Torah was composed. It is possible that this text is older, the traditions are convincing and in high probability it is probably significantly older. But with probability 1 (modulo mega conspiracy) it was written at most during the Judean Desert sect. This does not eliminate any other argument, it only creates a particularly solid and certain ground, which does not depend on any other argument that is only probabilistically true.
3. As mentioned, I do not insist that the Torah was not given at Sinai. I accept that the probability of, say, 70% that it was given at Sinai. There is something to work with here. But if I have a stronger argument that does not rely on this fact and is independent of it, that is a very nice addition.
4. I am trying to offer a subtle nuance here: what binds me is not the fact that they constitute the basis for a good life, as the text promises. What seems to compel me is, in a metaphor that may help, a very strong urge to “complete the puzzle”: The first part of the passage is, in my opinion, a concrete, canonical, and special prophecy that was fulfilled in an unusual way, contrary to all reasonable expectations. I have almost 1 certainty that it is canonical and special (for example, because it describes the course of my life), I have almost 1 certainty that its fulfillment is an unusual event (because it is certainly 1 at least two thousand years old, and the distance of time makes such a prediction very unusual), and I have 1 certainty that it did come true (from personal experience). I have an urge to put the missing piece in the ”puzzle”.

The collection of these strong certainties, which are all more certain to me than the giving of the Torah at Sinai, leads me to think that there is a divine hand here. My expectation of receiving a personal revelation strengthens the claim, because I do verify the fulfillment of the prophecy through personal experience. It is very easy for me to accept that this is indeed a “revelation” or “miracle” that I am exposed to every day, and therefore the sense of aesthetic awe is immense and unprecedented for me.

Is there anything more aesthetic than a visible divine miracle?

The problem is that this miracle, as dramatic as it is, is still incomplete. The text predicts that there will be a sequel. If the sequel also comes true, the miracle will be even more aesthetic.

My aspiration for beauty, and for aesthetics, creates a sense of commitment and a strong desire for this to happen, for the continuation of the prophecy to come true. It doesn't matter at all what the text contains. It doesn't matter that it promises me a good life in the future. If it promised me something else, then that's what I would want. Because what's important is to increase the beautiful miracle. To enhance the beauty of this magnificent phenomenon – a visible divine miracle.

This is not a moral obligation. There is no moral value that obliges me to enhance beauty. This is not a personal-utilitarian obligation, not always what is fun and what is pleasant is also beautiful, and vice versa.

What is here is amazement in the face of an aesthetic wonder, in the face of a magnificent mosaic – which despite everything is still missing. There are stones there that are not placed in place, metaphorically. By analogy, perhaps a kind of OCD – an obligation to complete the mosaic and fulfill the rest of the prophecy.

As the case may be, and what is written there is that what is supposed to happen is that I will fulfill the commandments. In my understanding, these commandments refer to the same Jewish tradition that, with a 70% probability, originated at Sinai. But even contrary to what is likely, Sinai did not exist and was not created – It may not matter, because this is the tradition that came to me and to her, as I understand it, from the prophetic reference.

Have you read “Xenocide”, one of the sequels to “Ender”? by Orson Scott Card. If so, that would give me an exaggerated but endearing analogy – “The Chosen of the Gods” who feel an obsession with performing various rituals.

Okay, now we've moved on to language that I don't understand at all. OCD belongs to the field of psychology, and I've already written my opinion on it and its relationship to commitment. This 'argument' explains why you have an urge to keep a commandment, not why you are committed. I could also say that I took an LSD pill and therefore I feel an urge to complete the experience by keeping a commandment.
We're repeating ourselves.

It was a metaphor. Respect for parents is also a psychological thing. It doesn't matter – it's just a metaphor. If it's not useful it doesn't matter.

Would it be possible to ask to set a time with you again to talk about these things verbally? It's obvious that I can't describe it in writing.

Maybe after I finish reading the liberal sciences, which are the “homework” from the previous conversation?

If that's a possibility

Respect for parents can be interpreted on two levels: 1. The tendency/impulse to respect parents. 2. The obligation to respect them. The first is psychological and therefore has no ethical or religious value. The second is philosophical.
Just as in morality there is an impulse or instinct to behave morally and there is a moral obligation. The first is psychological and therefore has no value and the second is philosophical.
What you describe is also a type of experience that arouses in you a psychological impulse to act. But this is not justification for a philosophical commitment.
I don't see anything beyond that here, but
Can we talk if you want. By phone or in person?
Coordinate with me on WhatsApp.

Good afternoon.

Thank you very much for the meeting at your home. It was very helpful, and beyond that, it was also a great honor to meet you in person.

I wanted to ask you a halachic question.

Can the commandment of honoring parents produce a “Beit Hillel” interpretation of the prohibitions related to homosexual relationships?

Let's say there is a parent whose only dream and aspiration is to see his son in a loving relationship. Could this in some way or variation legitimize the living together of two homosexual couples, or their relationship in one way or another?

Regardless of the explicit act that is forbidden. I am not talking about the sexual practice but about the relationship itself, which I understand is forbidden due to the “acts of the land of Egypt”.

In more harsh terms – If a parent is deeply saddened by the fact that their child will not experience love in a relationship, is there any reason to consider easing the issue, even if not allowing it?

I am not aware of a prohibition on cohabitation. There is a prohibition on marital life, and it is a prohibition from the Torah. We can talk about the prohibition of exclusiveness that exists in cohabitation. There is an article about this in Bazhar M (see quotes here on the ‘Kimuch’ site. Do you know?).
Everything beyond the law, the law has nothing to say. As for your question. If it is forbidden, then it should not be done for the parents either. And if there is no prohibition, then there is no halachic question. In terms of conduct, everyone will make their own decisions.