tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post4768760556350098099..comments2024-01-30T12:26:03.019-05:00Comments on The Blog of Garnel Ironheart: Empahsizing the PositiveMighty Garnel Ironhearthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09571194550300367249noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-57063178053159222502009-07-14T02:43:46.569-04:002009-07-14T02:43:46.569-04:00>Some people think that being frum means having...>Some people think that being frum means having to be unhappy. The whole "I would love to eat treif but what can I do? The will of my Father in Heaven is upon me." Those guys have the kids who grow up and toss the whole thing away. Why voluntarily be unhappy?<<br /><br />Isn't that what Rashi tells us to do?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-89085262987998245682009-07-13T12:22:48.737-04:002009-07-13T12:22:48.737-04:00"David, we're going in circles. For you a..."David, we're going in circles. For you a lack of evidence is at thin basis for believing in something. For me, faith fills in the gaps easily."<br /><br />Garnel, you're missing the point. You frequently take people to task for being inadequately Jewish, or having insufficient belief. You get snippy at non-Orthodox denominations, and question their legitimacy. If you think it's so important for Jews to be ideologically pure, you need to articulate something a bit more persuasive than a magical faith that (for you, anyhow) "fills in the gaps."<br /><br />Moreover, your claim that I'm trying to tell you what you can or can't believe is ridiculous. You're the one with a litmus test for which branches of Judaism may be legitimate and what one must (or must not) believe. While I will cheerfully point out that many of your beliefs are unsubstantiated and/or silly, far be it from me to tell you what you can or can't believe. I leave that sort of thing to the frummies.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15752938979399977997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-3533273402271254592009-07-12T17:42:39.821-04:002009-07-12T17:42:39.821-04:00Not Brisk
I've heard that elsewhere too. Some...Not Brisk<br />I've heard that elsewhere too. Some people think that being frum means having to be unhappy. The whole "I would love to eat treif but what can I do? The will of my Father in Heaven is upon me." Those guys have the kids who grow up and toss the whole thing away. Why voluntarily be unhappy?<br /><br />David, we're going in circles. For you a lack of evidence is at thin basis for believing in something. For me, faith fills in the gaps easily.<br /><br />And as for the Philistines, the Torah itself says that the original Philistines were destroyed and the mephorshim note that it was due to Avraham having made a treaty with them that would have precluded Bnei Yisrael from conquering their land. hence an invading nation came and wiped them out and became the new Philistines.Garnel Ironheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-54804598547703255442009-07-10T15:04:43.254-04:002009-07-10T15:04:43.254-04:00Garnel
Brings to mind what R' Moshe said rega...Garnel<br /><br />Brings to mind what R' Moshe said regarding people who kept Shabbos under duress, but their children didn't. He said it was because they complained that it is hard to be a Jew, rather than emphasizing the positive.Not Briskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12813820881313898157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-73433351830043278462009-07-10T10:31:43.560-04:002009-07-10T10:31:43.560-04:00E-man,
You are correct; if God is omnipotent, He ...E-man,<br /><br />You are correct; if God is omnipotent, He could obviously do anything. For example, He could make monkeys fly out of your butt. Would it be logical to assume that He is about to do so? No. If you told me that He had, would I believe you? No. Same deal with the stuff in the Torah; I'm not claiming that it's a metaphysical impossibility beyond the reach of an omnipotent deity-- merely that it appears so unlikely and so contrary to the evidence that there is no good reason to believe it.<br /><br />Garnel,<br /><br />True, the absence of evidence is not irrefutable evidence of absence. But absence of evidence is also a pretty thin basis on which to maintain an assertion that something is present; and using the Torah as evidence to prove the Torah seems a bit circular.<br /><br />Moreover, there is ample evidence that the Torah is inaccurate. There is, for example, evidence that the Philistines were not in Israel in Abraham's time-- to resolve the contradiction by claiming "these were different Philistines" is to attempt an argument that you yourself would laugh off in any other context. There is ample evidence that the Jews as a people had origins that are inconsistent with the Torah's descriptions. Likewise, there is sufficient evidence on which to conclude that the story of Noah (and hence, the genealogy of Noah) is, at best, wildly inaccurate. There is evidence that the Torah itself is composed of various texts. So, in the end, you're not really relying on a possibility in the absence of evidence to the contrary-- you're relying on no evidence in the face of actual evidence.<br /><br />And I'd never tell you you "can't" trust the Torah. You can trust a colony of beavers if you like. I'm just telling you that your constant insistence that others should trust it, too, is, at best, unpersuasive.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15752938979399977997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-48032420849834483772009-07-09T21:24:13.650-04:002009-07-09T21:24:13.650-04:00David, first of all absence of proof is not proof ...David, first of all absence of proof is not proof of absence. The archeological record is far from complete. It's one thing to say "We haven't found David HaMelech's chequebook stubs" for example. Secular scholars then wrongly jump to the conclusion: Aha! He never had a chequebook. The example with Avraham Avinu is also a good one. For example, years ago it was accepted that camels were introduced to Israel much later than Avraham's time. Therefore Eliezer couldn't have used camels to go pick up Rivkah Imeinu in Aram. Then suddenly new archeological evidence revealed that camels were in use at that time. Oops.<br />The Philistines that Avraham met were not the Philistines of David's time either. The Torah itself discusses how the original Philistines were displaced by a sea-based invasion and replaced. So no, Avraham never met a later Philistine but a representative of an earlier nation in the area.<br />The second is that miracles, according to many authorities, happen outside the natural course of things. That's what makes them seem miraculous to us. So almost every example you mentioned as having never happened as all miracles. Of course you can't prove Bilaam's ass (the donkey kind) spoke. You have to trust the Torah when it says it did.<br />If you don't want to believe what the Torah says, fine. But it's chutzpah to tell me I can't.Garnel Ironheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-91869680561198459592009-07-09T18:16:07.865-04:002009-07-09T18:16:07.865-04:00David-
If there really is a G-D and he can do any...David-<br /><br />If there really is a G-D and he can do anything doesn't that mean that anything that is written in the Torah could have happened and our archeology is wrong?E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-1742377755712228682009-07-09T15:28:57.936-04:002009-07-09T15:28:57.936-04:00Garnel -
Excellent article. It's not often ...Garnel - <br /><br />Excellent article. It's not often that I agree with you, but this time I think you are absolutely right.chaimsmomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-19417235002390925962009-07-09T09:50:15.471-04:002009-07-09T09:50:15.471-04:00First, I tend to doubt that many people leave Orth...First, I tend to doubt that many people leave Orthodoxy because it's just too demanding. If someone honestly believed that it was true and reallly what God wanted, it wouldn't seem so demanding. If you don't find meaning in it, there's much less incentive to put up with all the "Thou shalt not" stuff.<br />Second, teaching children why the Torah is "true" is going to flop. The bottom line is that the Torah is, in many instances, not easily reconciled with history, science or reality in general.<br />Finally, your constant insistence that all of this is so obviously true is a bit silly. The fact remains that all the arguments are out there, and are readily available; most people-- including most Jews-- are unconvinced.<br />Maybe it's time for Orthodoxy to wake up and smell the coffee-- the Torah is not going to be proved true, because the stories in it are, in fact, false. There was no flood. If there was an Abraham, he never met a Philistine. Staffs don't turn into snakes. Three million people never wandered through the Sinai. Donkeys don't talk. Etc., etc.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15752938979399977997noreply@blogger.com