Supervision, driving and sampling

How is it conspiratorial?

The reason we don't accept a conspiracy is that humans don't work this way, what reason is there to assume that complex leadership is something that is wonderful from God? .. Especially since the divine ”interest” for concealment is clear (-let there be room for experimentation).
If I don't see an exception to nature, why can't I assume that what is happening is the Creator's decree in the same matter that we exemplified? Of course, then we return to the fact that the Creator hides Himself every time we check in a cat and mouse game.. But the opinion of the method of luck in the Dharma is that simply the typical and usual narrative of life according to the laws of nature as they are is not random/coincidence (that God does not supervise there but left meaningless laws) but is obvious and known in advance what will happen to a person in any situation and this is itself part of the divine plan for that person.. In this situation, the choice is limited or “freed” Then a person has the option of departing from the narrative (in situations of free choice), but will still be within the framework of normal behavior and under the laws of nature.. This time of course it will be given to him.

As stated, neither this method nor its companion are mandatory, I just want to offer another option that cannot be avoided.

It is conspiratorial in the sense that it suggests things that no one sees that drive what is seen. I also suggested the theory of demons: is that a conspiracy in your opinion?
We see a nature that operates regularly and without exceptions (as far as we can see). You propose theories like this one about demons. The fact that the rabbi offers a name for it and builds a theory that has no basis other than the fact that he is trying to reconcile his thesis with reality does not change the situation.

I understand, thank you Rabbi.

There is another option.
Your definition of reward and punishment is distorted and does not correspond to reward and punishment in nature.

Hello Rabbi, continuing our conversation... I came back to you again after someone discussed with me the subject of the method of the Rabbi's Torah. I thought I would present the method, for I also did not know what to answer..

The above passage is from Ezekiel Chapter 18..

“Why do you interpret this parable in the land of Israel, saying, "The fathers shall eat the fat, and the two sons shall be ashamed? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, if you have any more parable of this parable in Israel.. The soul that sinneth, it shall die.. But if a man be righteous, and do judgment and righteousness, and eat not upon the mountains, and lift not up his eyes unto the idols of the house of Israel, and defile not himself with his neighbor's wife, and come not near unto a divorced woman.. He that walketh in my statutes, and keepeth my judgments, to do truth, he is righteous, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.. And begetteth a son that sheddeth blood, and maketh a brother of one of these.. And behold, he begetteth a son, and feareth all the sins of his father that he did, and feareth not, and shall not be a priest.. He shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.. And ye say, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." And the son of justice and righteousness, who has done all my statutes, keeps and does them, he shall live..”

It is clear as day from the verse that the Lord is foretelling the prophet about the saying that was common among the people that we see that there is no provision for reward and punishment in this world (at least in the matter of life and death), and the Lord says to them “What is this parable to you” and really condemns the saying and says that the wicked will die and the righteous will live in this world.
How can we argue otherwise from the verse, and what is more, its whole point is to really condemn the idea of “the leadership of the depraved” of leaving the Lord's world? And if you want to argue that it is about life and death from a spiritual perspective, then what should have been said at the end of the verse “For I have no pleasure in the death of the dead, says the Lord, and he shall return and live” And so is the verse, "He who desires the death of the wicked, the word of the Lord, does not he turn from his ways and live?" which clearly means that God desires that he repent and if he does not repent then his sentence will be death. So it is clear from this verse that the sinner will be killed and it is impossible to take things out of context, and if we want to take them out of context then we can take any verse out of context and then there is no value to any prophecy or verse. So what was the purpose of them being given and said? It would bring a summary of the commandments and enough. And why prophesy to different prophets in each generation?

Thank you very much
Happy Holidays
Light

N.B. :
And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with lamps; and I will punish the men that are sober in their watches, that say in their heart, The LORD will not do good, neither will he do evil. 13 And their cities shall be a desolation, and their houses a desolation; and they shall build houses, but not inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, but not drink the wine thereof. The great day of the LORD is near, near and hastening greatly; the voice of the day of the LORD is bitter, the mighty one cries out. 15 That day is past, that day is a day of trouble and distress, a day of gloom and desolation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness. 16 A day of trumpet and alarm upon the fortified cities, and upon the high places. 17 And my wrath is upon men, and they walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD; and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their war as dung. 18 Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD's wrath, and in the fire of his jealousy shall all the land be devoured: for he will make a full end, and a full end, all the inhabitants of the land.

The entire Bible is filled with the idea of strict supervision in this world during the period of the manifestations of the Divine Presence and you come to the details in Ezekiel? I saw on the news that Muhammad Abu Antazy was the director of the Egyptian branch for ship traffic in the Suez Canal and from this it must be concluded that there is a state called Egypt, otherwise what did the Egyptian organization say and even though it must be rejected at all costs, it is the simpleton

I didn't understand what the question was. And why doesn't Parashat Veha Im Shemoa say this? I explained it in dozens of places. I proposed a thesis of a change in G-d's policy. But this is just a proposal, of course. First and foremost, what brings me to this is observation of the world and common sense. The explanations for the readings come later.

I rely on this assumption precisely of common sense when I interpret the Scriptures. That is why it seems so difficult. The simple verse instructs has become completely against the concept of the idea you present.
Why would Hashem condemn them precisely for accepting the world as they saw it? After all, he condemns precisely this matter of what they saw (“The fathers ate unripe fruit..”) and that the divine view and its strictness have also changed? Or would you like to argue that not everything the prophet says is true? (Which is already a topic for another discussion that discusses the perception of the authority of the prophets).
I emphasize – He is not condemning them for transgressions, but for their very worldview that sees the world in such a way that the son of the rich will be rich and the son of the poor will be poor, not according to the reward and punishment of each individual.
What I am saying is that the change that you will be able to claim is not a change in policy but a change in divine ethics. Not how he actively oversees the world in his leadership, but what he notes to condemn or praise.
I hope my struggle is clear.

PS: In your opinion, then, is there no truth in the sage assumption that prophecy was given to the generations?

Because they didn't see it that way. In their time, the world was different.

Thank you Rabbi for the quick response.
Because of my misunderstanding, I will ask, in your opinion, in their time the world did not operate in a way that was not seen as providence (“They did not see it that way..in their time the world operated differently” – this is an active concept) but it was clear to everyone that there was a custom that provided and did good to the righteous and bad to the wicked, and yet they thought that there was no providence in the case’ “The fathers ate unripe fruit”?
How does this fit in with what is said in the Book of Job that all its affairs were bad for the righteous and good for the wicked?

So, the Book of Job seems to have no active providence... and in that case, what could they be surprised about??
Or we might want to claim that the Book of Job was written at a different time when there was no active providence, and then it is actually not clear why it was given the status of a book written under prophetic inspiration, since it was a cover-up and in any case there is no prophecy and the book is not holy in the sanctity of prophetic books.
Or we might claim that there are prophets like the writer of the Book of Job who are prophets of periods in which there is no active providence?
This situation puts us in a theory that, in my humble opinion, is more cumbersome than the Ramachal method I presented.

In the book of Job it doesn't look like that, but that's how they saw it and that's what the lawsuit was about. My assumption is that in biblical times the world was run in a way that the hand of God was clear, and anyone who didn't see it had a lawsuit against them.

Reward and punishment is the main thing, an axiom.
And from this it follows that if you see a righteous man and evil is done to him, then he is probably not righteous.
The various righteous men naturally preferred to spread that the axiom is not accurate and said reward in the next world. But this is basically heresy.

History shows that during the biblical period the world was still as it was, except for the people of Israel during the Exodus from Egypt. I have not seen any historical evidence that divine justice was evident in the ancient world.
Certainly not in the whole world, it is clear that nothing has changed... after all, they would write and things would appear in ancient writings in all cultures.
Secondly, if it is claimed that this was only the case among the people of Israel, then it is not clear what interest a person has in denying this, why commit a crime if I will be punished for it immediately. I also do not see evidence from ancient writings that marvel at the state of divine retribution and justice evident among the people of Israel in the ancient world, that should have been something prominent.

Thank you very much again for the quick response.
Or

I think about it the other way around: In our reality, there is no justification for coming to a person with claims if he does not see divine involvement, because God does not seem to have any. If people had come to them with claims then it would probably have been evident then. The fact that people chose to ignore it is precisely why they came to them with claims.
You claim that if people did not see it then it probably did not exist. But this is the desired assumption. I also assume the desired one, of course, but you make it difficult and I settle it.
There is an inclination to see reality without divine involvement, just as there is an inclination to worship idols even though we know it is not real. Today we do not have this inclination and therefore it seems strange to us, but this is an anachronistic view.
We must understand that evident divine involvement does not have to be through visible miracles. First of all, there were miracles performed by prophets, and this is certainly clear and evident divine involvement that existed then and does not exist today. Denying it is grounds for divine criticism and criticism of the prophets. But even "natural" events that were predicted in advance are a significant involvement, and such criticism can also be based on them.

Thanks for the great response.
I will think about things seriously, I need some incubation

Rabbi, I would like to ask you a question.
At the time, you published an article in Zohar, in which you claimed that today's secular people should not be considered as an accident but are almost exempt (I won't go into detail, please forgive me).
I don't understand, then, what the point of the argument is that "we don't see religious people getting sicker". Regardless of the validity of the argument (I don't know how), it seems to you that there is no room to divide too much between religious and secular people. It would be much more correct to argue that, in accordance with the belief in providence and its presence, it should be concluded that people who are "closer to God" (in the Maimonides' sense of the word) are the ones who are less sick, who are less damaged, as Maimonides states, etc.
This is a fact that I see no way to empirically verify, but there is no reason to deny it, and then we should supposedly try to understand from the prophecies of the Bible what can be concluded on the subject, right?

First, it has nothing to do with what I said in that article. You're asking how to figure out this statistical question. Test a society where everyone is atheist versus a strongly religious society and see if there's a significant difference.

“First” of the Daica rule second?
Besides, according to what I suggested there is no point in comparing a strong religious society to an atheist society, I have no reason to think that there are such societies, and at least I don't know of any. Because if I accept my demands regarding closeness to God, then the ”strong religious society” would have to be at least one whose members prophesy on a daily basis. And besides, there are “atheists” whose atheism is more a denial of idolatry than a denial of the God in whom I believe

At this point we have already reached the most wonderful denial of reality. I have nothing to say about that.

I assume that the words were directed towards my words about atheists.
But the main point of my words is their beginning.
I would like to argue that it may be true that we do not see religious people getting sick less, but can it be stated that we do not see that people who adhere to it get sick less? After all, a person will see with their eyes and will see with their heart, which makes this question unassailable by any empirical scientific tool

Yes. It can certainly be seen, completely empirically, exactly as I wrote. Among a group of atheists there is less adherence to it than in any religious group.