Thank you.
A — At certain points? But at the point itself, here we have the height of strangeness — namely in the belief that He watches over us and gives us a “test,” and there is judgment and a Judge. Our strange belief: I have never seen such a bizarre and cruel test, where you have no contact either with the examiner or with those being tested who passed or didn’t pass. This is blind faith all the way, until death and beyond. I mean: it can never be clarified. We will not know whether our faith is correct except only after I die, and then — if there is no destruction and cessation and annihilation, but rather there is life after death — then I will know where the truth is. And if there is cessation, then too bad — even after my death I won’t know that I wasn’t right. And even according to the first possibility, where there is no cessation, you who remain here after my death — I won’t be able to let you know, because we have no communication either with Abraham our Patriarch or, to make a distinction, with Balaam, nor even with our Creator. So we are in a bizarre test, and forgive me, a cruel and unfair one, and outside the rules of the game. As he said to you in his language: why is God such an a— (I preferred not to finish the word).

And that is besides the other known problems and difficulties that join in, like you told him that you could add even more difficulties, especially since we do not exactly see the words of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) being fulfilled — all the physical punishments — which in the end make all our faith look like some bizarre conspiracy theory.

B — In your argument with Rogel, you conceded to him the scientific age of the world. Seemingly, why? After all, one could answer that the Creator created creation before the year 5785, only that when He created it, He created it at a certain age, and our sages already said, “He created them in their full form.”

C — If you admit that the creation of the world in six days is a myth, then maybe Mount Sinai is also a myth, and likewise Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Exodus from Egypt, and our chosenness as a select people. After all, both came to us in “tradition” as not myth — both the creation of the world literally and Mount Sinai. And the entire commandment of Sabbath is because of that, that one who publicly desecrates it is judged like a gentile because he testifies that God did not create in six days.
And if so, this supports those who say that this “tradition” was invented at the time the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) was invented.

Sorry, I remembered one more thing — do you see the entire Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) as a divine document, including Daniel and the controversy around it?
And also, to sharpen the previous question a bit: if indeed the time of the world’s creation is very ancient and the creation story is a myth, aside from what I asked above, then when did the other events happen — the ones you think are not myth?

A — Who says He is giving us tests? The world was not created in order to test us, but to achieve various goals. Among other things, we are also tested. One may think that without my view — meaning, if one assumes that He is involved in the world — this has some significance. Did anyone ever talk with Him? Did anyone receive a response? So this is simply recognition of reality.
And indeed, we will not know whether our faith is correct. This is decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. But it is definitely not blind faith. There are arguments, and there is logic to it.
In short, at most a broken clock (that is, one that seems broken to us).
The words of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) actually are fulfilled. One can argue about some points, but there are definitely impressive prophecies there, for one who does not insist otherwise. This has already been discussed here more than once.

B — You can explain away anything. That is my tendency, but anything can be. I’ve said more than once that I’m not interested in this question or in the answers to it, because there are several answers and we have no way to decide between them.

C — Maybe. In my opinion, no. If I decided that mythology is myth, then is the Holocaust also a myth? What does one have to do with the other? The creation narrative looks like and reads like myth. Nachmanides writes this long before any need arose for apologetics against science. Mount Sinai is transmitted to us by tradition (and not only from the book; see my last debate with Jeremy Fogel about this), and you need to decide whether you believe it or not. There is no dependence between the two.

I do not deal with the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), nor with Daniel. Those are really not important questions in my view.

Thank you.
C — But sorry, you missed my point in your answer. You answered me, “Mount Sinai is transmitted to us by tradition (and not only from the book),” and I had already asked: after all, the literal creation of the world also came down to us through tradition.

And another thing you didn’t answer: what about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Exodus from Egypt? (All the archaeologists are celebrating the fact that there are no findings about this — I’d be happy to hear your response here too.) Are they also myth? And if not, then how long ago were they, and when did they happen? And Mount Sinai too — when was it?

And another thing you didn’t answer me: how does it work that the creation of the world is myth when the whole commandment of Sabbath is because of that, that one who publicly desecrates it is judged like a gentile because he testifies that God did not create in six days?
Thank you

I didn’t miss anything. Who was present at the creation of the world and started that tradition? The book. At Mount Sinai, it is by the force of the people of Israel.
It’s because of questions like these that I don’t deal with those fields. Do you expect them to find Abraham’s little trinket or Rebecca’s camel bones? Regarding the Exodus from Egypt, there certainly is evidence, and the question is what to identify with what. But you need to ask someone who deals with this and is expert in it.
The commandment of Sabbath is to remember that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world. The myth is the seven days, and that is really not essential.

Okay, thank you.
A — We branched off from topic to topic, and regarding the title of the thread, I didn’t really understand the answer.
How can one love Him, when you know or understand with the intellect He gave you that something here is not right — that He could have done better, with less evil, not be an “a—” as Rogel Alpher put it? It’s like a child who grew up with parents and, once grown, understands that they did not behave toward him properly, and were even very far from what they could have been, and they don’t even bother explaining why, nor do they exactly keep in touch with him — how would he love them?

B — In connection with the discussion about the Torah, do you still think there is more cheese than holes?

No, He could not have done better. Search here on the site about evil in the world.

Okay, thanks, I’ll check.
Just one more question.
A — In what way do you (or I) not violate — not necessarily in this discussion — “whoever looks into four things…” and also “do not stray after your hearts,” thoughts that can remove the heart from faith, etc.?
B — And in general, is it fair that the Torah asks such a thing of you? That is basically breaking the rules of the game.
And perhaps it even testifies about the one asking — that is, about what he has to sell.
But in any case, as commandment-observant people, I feel some discomfort that I’m supposed to answer for myself.
C — You didn’t answer me on question B.

B answers A. It cannot be that there is a commandment about this. Search the Discussions site for “and do not stray”; there were quite a few.
It’s hard to define “more.” There is enough cheese for it to be a clock, even if sometimes it seems broken.

I saw yesterday the interview with Jeremy Fogel, strong as always. I just wanted to ask: the open democracy you proposed there — don’t you think that’s not in the spirit of the Torah? The Torah is not democratic at all, certainly not in the way you presented it. Not to mention execution by the Sanhedrin, and that they strike and punish not according to the formal law when they see a breach in the wall of the Torah, and the like.
B — Honestly, a question really meant to sharpen the level of your certainty that your views are according to the Torah: if there were a Sanhedrin today — or take any Sanhedrin that existed — wouldn’t it execute someone with views like yours? (Maybe me too, but that’s not the question.)

It has nothing to do with the spirit of the Torah. A democratic state does not operate according to the spirit of the Torah but according to moral principles. You can interpret the spirit of the Torah however you want. My claim is that a person committed to Jewish law can also be committed to moral values in parallel, and he does not derive those from the Torah but from his conscience.
In our current situation there is no place for coercion and punishment. When we are all commandment-observant and there is a democratic state, then perhaps there will be room to punish and coerce — and even then only where the sin stems from impulse and not from a different considered decision.
Honestly — I have no idea, and it doesn’t really interest me. I assume and hope that when a Sanhedrin is established, it will not be staffed by fools who would do that.

I mean that from the Torah it is clearly seen that it is against democracy, and not in favor of everyone speaking as he pleases — for example against the Torah, the commandments, the sages — and rather in favor of a king and Sanhedrin who will make sure to kill whoever speaks out of place.

It’s hard for me to cope with such penetrating insight. Apparently I was not blessed with it.

Meaning, you’re unsure whether Moses our Teacher (or any other Torah figure acceptable to you) would agree to democracy the way you proposed it, or even to democracy at all?

You still haven’t had time to answer the previous one. Meanwhile I listened to several of your debates and I have a few questions.

A — Assuming there is no World to Come, is there any logic in fulfilling the divine command? Truthfully this is a hypothetical question — it doesn’t seem to me that God would be so cruel as just to place on us the burden of incomprehensible commands and also not reward us — but from your words I understood that this could be, and I wanted to ask: why? Live comfortably, do good to others, don’t cause harm — but why should you obey someone, whoever he may be, who arbitrarily commands you?

B — How can one understand the belief that the Creator always existed whereas the world is newly created by His will at “some point,” when in fact there was not yet any concept of time? And in general, how can one who is above time and space form a connection with a world of time and space? Is that actually the difficulty the Creator has in communicating with us? But then there was the giving of the Torah?

C — Is His perfection important to Him at the expense of people’s suffering and pain? So is He an egoist?

D — And likewise, until the world was created, was He lacking something, and then He wanted to perfect Himself? So is there a change in His will?

E — And what if Yaron Yadan asked you: if the state enacted a law that circumcision is forbidden for a child who cannot object, based on research? (Because regarding slaughter you told him that if the state forbids it, then no big deal, there will be vegans like you.)

A — See my article on philosophical gratitude.
B — I didn’t understand a thing.
C — No. His will is the truth, not an interest.
D — I’ve answered this more than once. Briefly, it is possible that His original will was to perfect Himself, and that perfection is an ongoing process that includes creating a world and perfecting it. One looks at the process along the entire time axis as a whole, and not at each moment separately.
E — I answered that.
I’m ending here. If you want to ask a specific question, open a separate thread on it. Going in parallel on several different questions is not efficient.

Okay, so I’ll continue with only one question.
If one believes Aristotle that the world is eternal just as He is eternal, fine. But if the Creator always existed whereas the world is newly created by His will “at some point,” but then there still was no “some point” because there was no concept of time,

and also how can the Creator, who is above time and space, create a connection with a world of time and space? Is that actually the difficulty the Creator has in communicating with us? (But then there was the giving of the Torah?)

What is the question? Correct, there was no time. So what?

I didn’t understand the question. What problem does He have communicating with us? We operate within time and space, and everything we perceive is within that framework. When the Holy One, blessed be He, communicates with us, we perceive it within the framework of time and space. What is the problem with that?

If there was no time, then how can such a situation apply — that there is a time when there was no world, and afterward there is a time when He did create the world — if there was no time at all?

And how does someone outside time and space enter a system that is inside time and space and communicate with them?

Seemingly, all this proves that the Creator can do logical contradictions.
.
And seemingly this is also proven from creation ex nihilo itself, because “something” from “nothing” is a contradiction, like “the place of the Ark did not take up space,” for those who interpreted it literally?

I’ll copy again what I wrote to you earlier:
You need to moderate the number of questions you raise. We are not a study partnership.
And note well: I am not demanding that you not ask, but that you ask after you have thought about the question and after you have checked here on the site and searched for answers.