Several questions and requests for the rabbi
A. In the notebook on the status of Mount Sinai – seemingly you didn’t solve much. You presented the historical argument that it is always possible to assume that there was a transplant. In value seminars, you try to prove that it wasn’t. You didn’t reject it at all and left the possibility that it could have been transplanted. I would be happy to understand.
B. I once heard you say that a person who does not take sides is a secret atheist. In my opinion, this is not true. A person who believes to a certain degree may indeed be exposed to evidence against his belief and then, due to a more logical argument, change his position. This is legitimate. Although for the system that belief in God represents something real, exposing a person to arguments that may cause him to abandon the true faith would be an injustice.
C. Does the rabbi have written material of the lectures in the audio section? That is, the lectures are written down.
D. I have heard many people complain that the rabbi writes his books in a rather complex and complicated way. I know that because of this the rabbi will not change the next editions to easier Hebrew, but we would be happy that in the books that come next the things will be more understandable even to the general public who wants to read the rabbi's books and understand and delve deeper. The books of Yuval Steinitz, for example, are famous for their wonderful clarity that makes it easier for the reader.
I would love to hear from you, my friend.
A. The transplant is unlikely, but skeptical arguments can also be raised against the law of gravity.
B. I do indeed have such a side (although it is not absolute). Assuming that upon exposure to the totality of the arguments a person would make a decision to become an atheist, then even if he prevented himself from this exposure he is essentially an atheist living in error. The claim that a person is an atheist does not mean that there is no God, but that he himself does not believe in Him. This has nothing to do with the question of whether or not there really is a God, and whether the claim "there is a God" is true or false.
C. No.
D. I try to avoid difficulties and pitfalls, and therefore the text is more complex and difficult. Steinitz does not do this, and therefore he has quite a few difficulties and pitfalls (and actually mistakes).
Peace and blessings,
A. Transplantation can be very reasonable. A group of fairly primitive people who are given Torah and explained a few things to them, and from there on it becomes a tradition. I didn't understand how it could be stated that this is not reasonable? Especially since the Bible tells of even more unreasonable things. And I'm not talking about a rational approach against miracles now, but it seems more plausible to believe that Torah was given to the people in some way (we need to think of a more precise theory) than to think about miracles that occurred at such levels and in such forms and with such frequency to an entire people, etc.
B. If we define a person who believes as someone who takes the approach that God exists because he was educated to do so or because he found reasonable evidence for it, then any person who holds such a position is a believer. If he can change such a position due to new discoveries, then he is not an atheist, but rather a believer who became an atheist due to logical considerations. A person who loved someone and then began to hate them due to negative actions that the other person began to do – this is natural, and it does not mean that the other person potentially hated them from the start.
A. Very reasonable? Is His Majesty getting angry and taking a dig at our first sages?!
For example, you need to remember that the things narrated in the Torah are not miracles performed before individuals but before a people. And miracles that happened in a specific place and time (not miracles in heaven).
If you were to give that "foolish" people [as you define it, of course, these are empty words that you must substantiate in order to explain this] the Torah and claim that the miracle was performed in this place a year ago. Would they accept the claim that they left Egypt when no one left Egypt and heard neither of the calling of the Red Sea nor of the standing of Mount Sinai!?????? Of course not. These are empty words.
Hence, the only option is to give the Torah after a long time, claiming that the miracles happened in the past.
Oops, there is a small problem in the Torah. It is said that the people described are the same people written about in the Torah. And there is a small problem, this people has no knowledge that this is what happened to them. It is not logical to assimilate history - the Torah into a people that is already established!!
This is because the only option is to reach the people by claiming that your ancestors did indeed come from Egypt and that miracles occurred, etc., and everything has been forgotten [it is almost impossible to forget such a tradition! This is an argument about chicken bones] and I am the only one who remembers, so please accept it. Of course, this option is also very problematic. Moreover, it contradicts what is written in the Torah that the Torah will not be forgotten by their descendants, and there are many other arguments that contradict this option.
So let's take Doge, you are a primitive and stupid person and they claim that you once had ancestors who came out of Egypt and had miracles that all the nations heard about and everything was forgotten but someone remembers it, so start keeping the commandments...
These are vain and evil words.
That's it in a nutshell. Mr. Matam.
David, why the anger and the backbiting? A person makes factual claims and deserves factual answers. I also disagree with the firmness and certainty in your words, although in the end I do agree.
A. I see no way to systematically investigate the claim of transplantation when it is presented in such a general way. I wrote down what I had in the aforementioned notebook.
B. As I explained, a belief based on a mistake in my opinion is not a belief. Just as an agreement you make based on incorrect information is automatically null and void (I know that I haven't made up my mind). It cannot be compared to love, since love is an emotional state and not a worldview or claim. If I love someone, then I love them, even if this love developed because I was unaware of some things about them.
I will respond to the Rabbi only, with everyone's permission…
A. A group of people get together and decide to establish Judaism. They give the Torah to a people of people who are not that wise. These people accept the Torah and after a while they also write to them that it is forbidden to add to or change it, and that they have seen the status, etc.… They explain to them what the words mean and that it is not as it is, etc., etc.… It is easy to invent how a religion developed by giving the book to a group of people who received it under certain circumstances. The main point is that the evidence for the status of Mount Sinai and the historical argument are not strong at all, since there may be another alternative that saves me the need to accept great miracles and incomprehensible things told in the Bible.
B. A belief based on error is not a belief in what respect exactly? We define at least for the sake of discussion that belief is taking a certain position, either by evidence or because of the reality that took me to this place. From then on, I believe in a certain thing – let’s say – God. Now I believe in it wholeheartedly, can the reality of my belief in it be denied? No. What happens next will only change the situation – I will become an atheist who has stopped believing. My belief was correct in something that I thought was true and it turned out not to be. The fact that I actually believe that there is no God does not mean that there is no objective evidence, but that this is the position I am taking now. But of course I believed before…
thanks!
Sorry, Your Honor, I just don't like all these foolish postmodernists.
"The foundation of the Minut is darkness, and upon it all the temples of the Minut were built. That is, the Minuts who disbelieve in the Torah of Moses and say that Moses never did these deeds and that they all did not exist and were not created, and are only falsehoods, or the infidels who deny Moses as well and say that Moses never existed or that David and Solomon were not in the world, and similar heresies that the Minuts deny - all of them were built on the foundation of darkness. They make the whole world appear as if there were no visitor and researcher of antiquity who could reach out to visit and research the past from the beginning, and as if there were no such people in the world of chronicles in which there would be acts of antiquity. Therefore, it occurs to them that it could be possible in reality that a person would deceive his heart with such a few such names and names of people like David, Solomon, Moses, and Joshua, and do his work in darkness, and also to isolate the order of the chain of Kabbalah and the names of the generations and their heads and presidents and kings in the correct order, and the entire people would accept from him and believe in him, even though they are full of sages and scribes, they would still believe in him because of a short time. They will criticize things and recognize their evil because they do not know what was before them. This is the foundation of the mystery that darkness will cover the earth." (Mevtarsi Hadat, Article 1).
Her friends,
A. A group of people get together and decide to establish a field called mathematics. From there on, they sell us all the lies as if they were proving theorems and dealing with smart and important things. But no one understands what they are doing. So maybe it's all nonsense? Another group gets together and decides to sell us all the lies that a black president has been elected in the United States. They spread pictures and news and information, and that's how we are all convinced. Is there an explanation why this is not true? Conspiracy theories are not difficult. You can come up with tons of such theories about anything in the world. The bottom line is that it is a general impression that each of us has, and therefore it is difficult to argue with it.
B. You are wrong. Faith is not a state of mind but a claim of fact. When an atheist is hypnotized into believing in G-d, I will not include him in the minyan, even though mentally and experientially he now believes. Likewise, when I say there is a chair in front of me, this is not just a report of a state of mind (a feeling that there is a chair here) but a claim that there is a chair in front of me (which is based on the recognition within me, of course). Recognition of a chair without a claim that this recognition indicates that there really is a chair here is not recognition but simply an illusory state of mind. The claim 2+2=4 is not evidence or a report of a state of mind, but an objective claim about a truth that is outside of me.
I highly recommend that you read C.S. Lewis's (yes, the one from Narnia) pamphlet, The Annihilation of Man, published by Shalem, which explains this point beautifully from the very beginning.
Peace and blessings,
A. I have no reason to think about the things you claim9. On the other hand, the Jewish religion raises many questions and doubts, strange descriptions and things that need to be explained. It may be true, but a lot of work is needed to explain and explain… The things that Judaism claims raise questions and doubts that make it difficult to accept. Grandiose miracles are a classic example. Why should I accept this? It is hard for me to believe that there is such a thing and I have not seen such a thing… Now you claim that there was – prove it. And if you want to prove it, I will argue that it is not sufficiently proven because it is possible that there was a transplant and it is quite clear and understandable if I have to choose between this and believing stories that I have to explain so much and understand, etc.…
B. First, I will argue that as soon as a person clearly and clearly understands that there is a Creator – he believes. A person who claims that there is a God is like a person who claims that a mathematical equation produces a certain result. Does he believe in it? In both – yes. As soon as he is proven otherwise – in both situations he changes his position, although this does not mean that he did not believe in it.
In addition, according to you, no one believes that it is possible for anyone to be mistaken and change their mind if they are shown something different from what they know. And it is clear that there are wiser atheists than certain believers, and they will have no answer to give when you try to prove to them that the existence of God is not necessary or unnecessary…
1. "Know that all miracles and wonders that are beyond the realm of nature and far from human understanding have no power to strengthen faith only by one of these two means, namely: a) Either the entire people see the miracles and wonders with their own eyes. b) Or the miracles and wonders are held among the people by true acceptance from their ancestors and elders that the miracles and wonders that are recounted are true without any doubt. Then the more the miracles and wonders increase in quantity and quality, and the more they are further from human understanding, the greater their power to strengthen faith even more, for it is evident to all that they are the works of God and not the work of man, and all believe that they are the work of God and not the work of man.
But before the stories and miracles are held to be true and clear that it was so, and they are still sufficient in miracles and they are an obscure mystery to them, then not only do miracles not sustain faith in them, they only weaken faith, and the wonderful story that is a wonder of the mind is not at all useful in strengthening faith, and on the contrary, it causes the narrator to be held to be a liar and a forger, since the miracles have not yet been held to be true and clear to them.
And anyone who has a mind of his own to weigh a thing with a balance, and any wise man will understand and understand that all the stories of the Torah that amaze the hearts of their listeners, and the miracles and wonders and greatness that go beyond the bounds of nature and are above human knowledge, are not capable of being accepted as true by the human mind, except by the nation that saw all the miracles with their own eyes, and by their children and the generations after them who received them with true acceptance from their fathers who saw everything with their own eyes, because all the stories are true. And if Moses the fourth century had written his book and placed it in his treasury, or if someone else had invented it from his heart and brought it to Israel, as the desire that speaks from your throat, without expiration (tefune), Israel would not have accepted from him the Torah, whose volumes are great and terrible, and the like of which they have never heard, and even if they had no clear evidence with which to deny it, they would not have accepted from him such a Torah, whose volumes amaze the heart of those who know it, and everyone who hears it will save both his ears. And since we have been held to the Torah for several thousand years, and for which we have sacrificed thousands and tens of thousands of souls of our brothers, it is a sign to the world that the Torah was given in the days of Moses, and all the people saw with their own eyes all the miracles written in it, and they passed it on to their children after them" (Mevtser Hadat, Article 1, 34)
I would suggest you read the book. Of course! After! the rabbi's understanding of the fifth notebook (which is the beginning of Ma'amer A in Kozari). And it would be good if you also read the complete book of the Covenant, Ma'amer Emunah.
And know that man must believe in me.
And if he does not believe and his heart is bitter together with his stubborn inclination
He will return and gamble in a twisty manner.
Woe to him from the day of rebuke, woe to him from his maker.
Because he will not spare his miserable soul.
How can he doubt the things of life within him?
And nothing stands in the way of will
Because in the end it was good for him.
Speech of the Prophet Nostradamus
Dedicated to David
Hello Rabbi Michi, still waiting for an answer... thank you.
Hello friends.
A. I wrote what I had to write here and in the notebook. If you don't like it – to your health.
B. I didn't understand what this is about and what you are claiming.
As for the hidden atheist, I just now answered that in detail here on the site and I can't find it.
My argument is that there is no reason to prohibit an investigation, since the investigation only reveals the person's position, and even if he is not investigated - if when he was exposed to all the arguments he would reach heresy, then he is a (hidden) infidel anyway.
If a person investigated and reached a conclusion, then of course there is no guarantee that this is his final conclusion, but he did what he could. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no NEPM except that there is no point in prohibiting investigation.
Thank you very much.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer