sin
In the SD
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask, what is the idea of the concept of sin or transgression, let’s say a person has transgressed the word of God, so what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that God is angry with him (and rightly so). Or something more metaphysical like that, as if his soul has become dirty and has received a defect. Or is it that something in our spiritual intuition has been damaged?
I am still able to understand the concept of repentance, in the sense of returning to God. But why do sins need atonement? And why do the Sages say that sometimes sins are atoned for by other people, for example, the death of the righteous. Or torment atones.
What exactly is going on here? Who is against whom? This is a topic that is not very clear to me. If you ever wrote an article about it, I would love to read it.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don't know, that's my question, what the nature of the damage or defect is. But there are all kinds of sources from the Bible to the literature of thought today. You once wrote a lot about these things. But they are a little more advanced in relation to the question I ask. They talk more about the answer, etc. For example, in your beautiful article "On the Answer: Between Technique and Essence."
In my opinion, you contradicted yourself on the issue of free choice in relation to your teaching today:
A. Regarding the problem of weakness of will, today, as far as I remember, you hold the attitude that choosing not to choose is a solution. But there you called it: "What he calls 'instinct' is probably his true will."
B. You believed that values cannot be changed, but as far as I know, you today do support the idea that a person is "locked in." And perhaps there is a division between a value external to us, and an internal value such as whether to choose. But perhaps his clarity obscures his internal axioms.
And also a little bit about panentheism, you used expressions that I think you wouldn't write today:
C. “The only possibility to describe such a process is to give up the assumption that God and we are two distinctly separate entities”
The sources of intellectual literature are not really interesting to me. They can know about it about as much as I do. The Bible is also a problematic source. The prophets do know about it, but the interpretation of their words is so flexible and ambiguous that almost anything can be included in them. I don't think I've ever written about these things, if only because I can't think of what to write about them.
As for the rest, I'm really not sure what it has to do with the discussion. But if you asked, I'll answer:
A. You're confusing the problem with an excuse. With the problem, I'm showing that what a person calls "instinct" is their true nature. And the excuse is that it's not true. Sometimes a person chooses not to choose, and then they are dragged into doing things they don't want to do.
B. I didn't think values couldn't be changed. Again, you're confusing the problem with an excuse.
C. And therefore?
In short, for me this is a message in Chinese.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
