Jew is Beautiful

2010-12-21T20:00:00.000-08:00

2010-02-02T05:20:00.000-08:00

2008-01-16T15:53:00.000-08:00

Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah? Rehashed Debate between Jewish Sage and Jewish Convert
Category: Religion and Philosophy

For years, Christianity, a religion similar to Judaism in many of its tenets yet ultimately different, has been causing Jews to feel insecure about their own faith and what the Torah actually says. This has ultimately led to a steady stream of conversions from Judaism to Christianity of all forms (Protestant and Catholic) since it was established, although many Christians have also found spiritual solace in the religion of Judaism or in the Seven Laws of Noah as well, which is another topic.

Starting on Friday, July 20, 1263 and ending Saturday, August 4th 1263, a debate took place between Nachmanides, also known as "the Ramban," one of the foremost Jewish sages, still studied today, and a Jew named Pablo Christianity (who the Ramban refers to as "Fray Pul") who converted to the Dominican branch of Christianity (Catholicism). The debate occurred under the auspices of the Spanish King Jaime I of Aragonia in Barcelona. The Ramban's record of the debates can be found in a short book called "The Disputation at Barcelona," published in 1983, which was translated by Rabbi Dr. Charles B. Chavel (Ph.b., M.A., LL.B., D.H.L., D.D.) I have encapsulated here just two short excerpts from the book. Even now in the 21st century, this argument still causes unrest among many Jews, but the argument was laid to rest in the 11th century when the Ramban showed beyond a reasonable doubt that according to Daniel 9:22-27, Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah promised to the Jews.

If you are reading this and you are a Christian, know that the purpose is not to attack or undermine your faith, but rather to protect the Jewish People by preserving the essential pillars of the religion of Judaism. Further, there might be what to benefit from the alternate opinions expressed in the Ramban's dispute, which was forced upon him against his will.

Ramba"n - Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, or Nachmanides

King Jaime I of Aragonia in Spain

The proposed argument revolves around the more than two-thousand year-old prophecy received by Daniel, a young Jew most likely from the tribe of Judah who was taken to Babylon (located then in modern-day Iraq) in 442 before the Common Era. According to the Artscroll edition of the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible, the the first paragraph of introduction to the Book of Daniel goes as follows:

The ways of God are mysterious. When it seems that He is plowing under His treasures, He may be planting seeds that are undiscernable, until they take root and blossom, sometimes decades or even centuries later. So it was when King Nebuchadnezzar planned diabolically to enrich his own court while impoverishing Judah and assuring that it would have no rebirth. He picked the finest, most promising young men of Jerusalem, and carted them off to Babylon (442 B.C.E.), there to serve in his court and make him the beneficiary of their brilliance.

Enjoy.

Proposed Timeline of the Daniel 9:22 Prophecy

19 ...Fray Pul then reverted [to the original topic], arguing that they say in the Talmud that the Messiah had already come. He quoted the homily in the Midrash on Lamentations concerning a [Jewish] ploughman whose cow lowed while he was ploughing. A passing Arab called to him, "Israelite, Israelite, untie they cow, untie they plough, take apart thy ploughshare, for the Temple has been destroyed." So he untied the cow, untied the ploughshare and disassembled the ploughshare. The cow then lowed a second time. The Arab said to him, "Tie thy cow, tie thy plow, tie thy ploughshare, for your Messiah has been born."

20 I responded, "I am not receptive to this homily, but it is a proof to my words."

21 [Fray Pul] shouted, "See, he [himself] is renouncing their [sacred] books!"

22 I elaborated, "Truly I do not believe that Messiah was born on the day of the [Temple's] destruction. Either this homily is not true or it has another meaning, [which lies] among the secrets of the Sages. Yet, [even if] I would accept its literal meaning as you have expressed it, then it is a proof for my contention, for this [Midrash] relates that the Messiah was born on the day of the destruction, after that even. If so, the Nazarene could not be the Messiah as you have said, for he was born and killed before the destruction. According to the truth, his birth took place about two hundred years before the destruction, and according to your reckoning, [it occurred] seventy-three years [before the destruction]." The man was thereupon silenced.

56 ...[Fray Pul] reverted [to his questioning] and said, "Daniel stated, Seventy weeks of years are decreed upon they people and upon they holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make and end to sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy one. The seventy weeks [of years] refer to [490] years, which are the 420 years of the existence of the Second temple and the seventy years of the Babylonian exile. The most holy one is the Nazarene."

Diagram of Fray Pul's calculation:

57 I retorted, "Did not the Nazarene [live] more than thirty weeks of years or 210 years before that time, according to our reckoning, which is the truth that his contemporaries – those who knew him and recognized him – testified about him. Even according to your reckoning, he [lived] more than ten weeks [or seventy years] before [the destruction]."

58 He argued, "Yes, it was so. However, in one verse it states, Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto one anointed, a prince. The one anointed is identical with the prince, who is the Nazarene."

59 I answered, "This, too, is an obvious error. Scripture divides the seventy weeks [of years] which [Daniel] mentioned, and [in the following verse], it enumerates from their [total]: unto one anointed a prince, shall be seven weeks [of years]. Afterwards, [in the same verse], it mentions, and for threescore and two weeks [of years], it shall be built again, with broad places and streets. Then it enumerates one week, and half of the week, during which he shall make a firm covenant with many. Thus seven weeks [of years] are completed. The Nazarene, whom you call the anointed one, a prince, did not come after seven weeks [of years], but after more than sixty weeks [of years] according to your reckoning. If you would attempt to explain to me the entire chapter according to your line of thinking, I could refute you, for you will never be able to explain it [satisfactorily]. Yet, you shamelessly speak of a subject about which you know nothing. However, I shall inform you that the anointed one, a prince, is Zerubbabel, who came at the time of seven weeks [of years], for it is so explained in Scripture."

Although the full diagram is located at the beginning of the post, below is a timeline
of the disputation between the Ramban and Christiani for your viewing convenience. (click image in larger window)

In stanza 57, the Ramban explains to Christiani that even according to Christian tradition, which is that Jesus "[lived] more than ten weeks [or seventy years] before [the destruction]," he could not have been the figure of mention in the verse in Daniel. This is because according to the Christian tradition, Jesus was born in the year 0, placing him born seventy years before the destruction of the Temple, and died in the year 33, thirty-seven years before the destruction of the Temple. This makes it clear that Jesus could not have been the "anointed one" of the verse because the "anointed one" was "cut off" in the same year that the Sanctuary (Temple) was destroyed, 70 of the Common Era. In short, Jesus died thirty-seven years too early to be the verse's prophesied figure, which was Titus, the Roman emperor who gave the command to destroy the Temple.

We also see that the prophecy speaks twice of "the anointed one." Since the passage of time between both of the "anointed ones" of the stanza in Daniel was four hundred thirty four years, longer than the lifespan of any post-Noahide person, it is clear that each of the "anointed ones" are different people. In stanza 58, Fray Pul says to the Ramban, "However, in one verse it states, Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto one anointed, a prince. The one anointed is identical with the prince, who is the Nazarene." In stanza 59 the Ramban responds by saying, "The Nazarene, whom you call the anointed one, a prince, did not come after seven weeks [of years], but after more than sixty weeks [of years] according to your reckoning." In other words, Jesus was not born after the forty-nine years (7 septets), but was born "after more than sixty weeks [of years]," or more than four hundred twenty years later, four hundred thirty four years later, to be exact.

Further, verse 26 in Daniel says that "the people of the prince will come will destroy the city and the Sanctuary"; if the anointed one was Jesus then "the people of the prince" should have been his twelve disciples (Simon, called Peter, Andrew, James, John, Phillip, Bartholomew [also called "Nathan"], Matthew, Thomas, James [son of Alphaeus], Simon, Judas Iscariot, Jude Thaddeus), yet we know that neither of them had any direct involvement in the destruction of the Temple.

Finally, considering that Jesus could have been neither of the "anointed ones," the former for the reason just shown, and the latter for the fact that he was not killed in the same year that the Temple was destroyed, disqualifies Jesus from being the verse's prophesied figure. Even today, after so many years of it being shown to be false, it is unfortunately still necessary to respond to the Christian argument.

Epilogue

Friar Paul Christian (Pablo Christiani), a figure of the thirteenth century, was born to a pious Jewish family, with the name Saul.[1] He became a Christian convert and Dominican.

He was believed to have been a student of Rabbi Eliezer of Tarrascon.[2] He married a Jewish woman and had children with her. Later, he converted to Christianity and took his children from his wife and made them Christians.[3] He then joined the Dominican Order of monks.[4] Prior to the 1263 Disputation of Barcelona, he was known for following Nicholas Donin's lead in attempting to ban the Talmud. His arguments centered on the "irrational" material within the text.[5] His participation in the Disputation of Barcelona with Nahmanides was to try his new missionary technique to bring Jews to Christianity.

The failure in the Disputation did not, however, discourage Christiani. Provided through the agency of Raymond de Penyafort with letters of protection from King James, he went on missionary journeys, compelling the Jews everywhere to listen to his speeches and to answer his questions, either in their synagogues or wherever else he pleased. They were even required to defray the expenses of his mission. In spite of the protection granted him by the king, Christiani did not meet with the success he had expected; he therefore went to Pope Clement IV and denounced the Talmud, asserting that it contained passages derogatory to Jesus and Mary. The pope issued a bill (1264) to the Bishop of Tarragona, commanding him to submit all the copies of the Talmud to the examination of the Dominicans and Franciscans. A commission was then appointed by the king, Christiani being one of its members, to act as censors of the Talmud; and they obliterated all passages which seemed to them to be hostile to Christianity. In 1269 Christiani interceded with King Louis IX of France and obtained from him the enforcement of the canonical edict requiring Jews to wear badges.

1. ^ Kobak, Joseph Jeschurun pg.21
2. ^ Lattes, Isaac "Kiryat Sefer" in Medieval Hebrew Chronicles II pg. 238
3. ^ Kobak, Joseph Jeschurun pgs.21-22
4. ^ Ibid., pg.21
5. ^ Ibid., pgs.1-15
This article incorporates text from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, a publication now in the public domain.

2007-12-13T18:56:00.000-08:00

One day God will bring that injustice to an end
It will be at the time of comprehension
At the end of apprehension’s time
Greater than the yoke of history is the light of truth, which removes my bounds
And how much greater yet is our Only King?
Holy King?
When the kingdoms of falsehood fall
Erected in their place will be the altar of truth
On which no men die for “you shall live by them and not die by them”
Bricks of lie cannot support any a structure
The mortar of truth will comprise the eternal edifice
The skins of inauthenticity will gush peace’s water when they rupture
Then the ingenuine will evacuate the premises
He will make metamorphose truth out of culture
And we will stand glaring down from atop the precipice
The shells will fall down and rest in front of the vultures
Who will come and consume all of the vacant emptiness
The Place will have brought us to our eternal juncture
And joy will fill up the passageways in each and every residence

2007-12-05T16:27:00.000-08:00

Do You Know What Channukah Is?

An excerpt from the writings of Rabbi Samson Hirsch, of blessed memory:

Pages 200-201 - Chanukah represents the clash of two doctrines, two views, two civilizations, capable of molding, training and educating those who until this very day compete for the mastery of the world. Hellenism and Judaism: These are the two forces whose effect upon the nations mark the historical development of mankind, and which surfaced in Judea for the first time in the days of Mattathias. Hellenism and Judaism: when examined in depth they are the two leading forces which today again are struggling for mastery in the Jewish world. (He wrote this in the 1800's in Germany)

There is an old prophecy, to our knowledge the oldest prophetic vision: "God will open the mind of Japhet, and He shall dwell in the tents of Shem" (Genesis 9,27). If we grasp the meaning of the prophecy, it proclaims nothing less than that God will give Japhet mastery over the minds of men (יפת* is the hiphil* of *פתה) but only Shem will build homes where God's glory will find its dwelling place on earth. Japhet blossomed into יון* - the Greeks, the Hellenistic nations, whose mastery of all that is gracious and beautiful conquered the hearts of men. Shem blossomed into עבר*, the Hebrew nation which erected homes for God, and became the foundation of God's holy Law, of right and love. Both were charged to cover the animal nakedness of mankind, and were called upon to elevate man to rise in the image of God. Both were charged with educating Ham who personifies sensuality. Ham had seen his father's nakedness and told his brothers about it. Shem and Japhet took the cloth and, walking backwards, covered their father's nakedness. The prophet accompanies this scene with these significant words: "Blessed be the God of Shem, may Canaan (Ham's son) become his servant. God will open the mind of Japhet but will dwell in the tents of Shem. And may Canaan be a servant to them" (Genesis 9,26-27). The history of the world to this day is a fulfillment of these prophetic words. On the stage of history only two elements have appeared to dominate man's intellectual development and actions: Hellenism - the blossoming of the spirit of Japhet, which found expression in Greek culture, and Judaism - the spirit of Godly teaching lived and fulfilled by Israel.

It appears, however, that only the blessing, the victory and the fulfillment of the perception of God as proclaimed by Shem would prevail. The domination of minds by Japhetic culture would only be the groundwork for the houses of men into which the God portrayed by Shem would move and find his place on earth. At first minds would be receptive to Japhetic culture and then Shem's God will enter into the tents of man. While all others are subdued by Japhet, Shem will overcome Japhet.

(This paragraph is directly relevant for Christianity)

Page 207 - Japhetic culture offers man his own pleasure, his own sense of grace and beauty as the motive and measure for his own perfection; but it also leaves him subject to human shortcomings and weaknesses, errors, and delusions. The opposite delusive belief [Christianity] denies the possibility of man's ennoblement ["original sin"] and robs life on earth of all justification and happiness. The Law of the God of Shem, however, establishes God's will as the motive and measure of man's ennoblement. It teaches him what is pure and impure, refined and unrefined, holy and profane, that which pleases God and that which displeases Him. It demonstrates to man the boundary between freedom and servitude, shows him where freedom ends and subjugation begins in the spiritual-material, divine-earthly human being, and admonishes him: for the sake of your God be pure, be holy; for the sake of your God take hold of your life and dedicate and sanctify all of your earthly existence; ban all that is impure, unclean, unholy, contrary to freedom, displeasing to God, unworthy of man in the context of his spiritual and physical life, so that your surroundings be holy and pleasing to God, that God will dwell with you and accompany you, bless you and grant you good fortune, and that He shall not see in your the animal nakedness that is displeasing to God and unworthy of man, and abandon you. ונמשמרתה בכל דבר רע-כי ה' אלקיך מתהלך בקרב מחנך...והיה מחניך קדוש ולא יראה בך ער ותת (דבר ושב מאחריך (Deut. 23, 10,15)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

· יפת Yafet
· Hiphil – a Hebrew grammatical form
· פתה Fetah – an opening
· יון Yavan – Japhet’s grandson, forerunner of Greek people and religion; Hebrew word for “Greece.”
· עבר Ever – Shem’s great grandson, Abraham’s great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather and teacher.

Excellent genealogical chart from www.timelessmyths.com (click on picture to enlarge)

2007-07-30T13:07:00.000-07:00

2007-06-29T06:04:00.000-07:00

My friend Tom wrote this. It's quite cutting edge and he's not worried about saying what's on his mind.

The following is what I would say if given the opportunity to give a speech at an AIPAC conference, and the hypothetical response. Though this is a hypothetical situation, I believe the reactions in real life would be quite similar, and for those of you who disagree, I ask you to consider just how honest with yourself you are being...

..............................................................................................

Shalom, hello. I would like to start by doing a little social experiment if everyone would let me. How many in the crowd here are Christians? Please raise your hand. That's a fair amount, thank you. And how many of you believe in G-d? (The same amount of hands are in the air) Now, of you who have your hands up, please keep them up if you believe the Jews are a chosen people and they and Israel will have a role to play in the end of times (roughly the same amount of keep their hands up). Thank you, you can put your hands down. Now, how many people in the crowd are Jewish, please put your hands up (the majority of the people raise their hand). Ok, of those of you who have your hand up, please keep it up if you believe in G-d (a fair amount, though a minority, of the hands go down). Thank you for your honesty, don't worry I won't tell your local rabbi. Now please keep your hand up if you keep kosher or observe the Sabbath, otherwise put it down (about half or more of the hands drop, though many of those who keep their hands up drive on the Sabbath or keep "kosher style" or keep kosher at home but eat non-kosher food when they go out). Ok of those of you with your hands still up, please put them down unless 1) you are a man who tries to wrap tefillin every day or doesn't own a pair but would if he did, or 2) you are a woman who goes to the mikveh or plans to once you get married (almost ever single hand goes down). Thank you.

It goes without saying that Israel is important to everyone in this room. We've all devoted time, money and or energy to defending and supporting it or support those who do. We all want to see Israel fare well and succeed. It would make sense that to achieve this goal we would want to work in the most efficient way possible, as one would with any goal. In America we live by the mantra, work smart not hard. To work hard on something in an inefficient way is not only working too hard, but also an actual loss as it is a mismanagement of opportunity cost.

How many of you would go through the effort of building a car, and not bother to put the engine in it? Not a single one I'm sure. Yet my friends, specifically my Jewish friends, we need to do some soul searching because this is exactly what AIPAC has been doing. Why is this? Because it is an origination, primarily of Jews, fighting for Israel, yet lacking faith to back it up. It appeals to every politician and leader far and wide to support Israel yet fails to appeal to the leader of the entire world, G-d, for the same (at this point a disproportionate amount of people start yawning and or step outside to go to the bathroom or check their voice messages).

AIPAC is a lobbyist organization. It works hard for a good cause, and it is indeed important in a democracy such as the United States to have such lobby groups for such good causes. Yet would we depend solely on lobbying as if it would be our savior? In pre-war Germany the Jewish citizens were leading the pack in all aspects of society- medicine, the arts, science, literature, you name it. It would have been the simplest thing in the world for a lobbyist to argue on a logical basis why the Jews were good for Germany, yet that wouldn’t have convinced that powers that be. Today we use the same approach, though instead of it being that the Jews are top notch citizens of the state, we claim that the Jewish state is the top notch citizen of the world. We cite its (debatable) status as a democracy, the only one in the Middle East. We cite its championing of human rights. We cite its inventions that lead the way in the fields of medicine and high tech. We cite its innovations in preventing terrorism and their contributions to our own fight against Islamic Extremism. Do not get me wrong, these are all wonderful things, but is this all to say that if Israel wasn’t the only democracy in the Middle East, and was only moderate with human rights, and didn’t come up with any great inventions, and didn’t contribute greatly to the fight against Islamic radicals, then Israel wouldn’t deserve to be supported and defended?

Israel is the land of the bible, yet too often the only people who seem to care about this, at least enough to vocalize it, are the Christians. Jews, the very people of the bible to which Israel was designated, continually fail to make this the centerpiece of their argument in supporting Israel, often searching for any reason BUT the bible to be used. And it is no surprise… just look at the outcome of our social experiment dealing with observance levels shortly ago. To say that Israel is the land of the Jews and deserves to exist, be supported and defended as such is to contend that the bible is right, and if one wants to say that the parts of the bible referring to that are right, one would logically have to assume that the other parts might be correct as well. This would be a big problem for many of us Jews who don’t live exactly as the bible would suggest we do, or don’t do so nearly enough. It’s understandable, the bible is nice and all but following it causes for many inconveniences. It’s one thing to ask your average Jewish supporter of Israel to write a check or even fire off an email to their congressman. But to expect them to put down that delicious hamburger in order to help Israel?!? People! Let’s not get too carried away here!

This is not such a new idea, in fact it’s thousands of years old. To quote Psalm 81 G-d says, “But My people did not heed my voice; Israel did not desire Me. So I let them follow their heart’s fantasies, that they might follow their own counsels. If only My people would heed Me, if Israel would walk in My ways. In an instant I would subdue their foes, and against their tormentors I would turn My hand. Those who hate Hashem would lie to him; but their time would be forever. And He would feed him with the cream of the wheat, and from a rock I would sate you with honey.” Ladies and gentleman, I think we would all like to see the foes of Israel be subdued. I think we would like the hand of G-d to be turned against the tormentors of Israel. I think we would all like to see Israel sated with honey. I know I certainly would, and I hope that you all would as well. Yet what do we do? We do not heed G-d’s voice and instead we follow our own counsels. What greater counsel, if any, do the American Zionists of today follow more than this counsel, the ultimate orgy of pro-Israel feel-goodedness?

AIPAC was named the second most powerful lobbying organization in the country by Fortune Magazine in 1997 and by the National Journal in 2005. Yet for such fearsome lobbying might, how has it failed to convince a single American president to date to sign into law congress’s desire to move the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the true capital in Jerusalem? How come it has failed to secure the freedom of Jonathan Pollard, an American Jew who has spent the last 22 years of his life rotting away in prison for spying for Israel, sending the Jewish state information on its enemies that was of no harm to America, and had actually been promised to Israel but had been failed to be delivered through the proper channels. The average sentence for the crime Pollard has committed is 2-4 years, yet he was punished with a life sentence in solitary confinement, spending his days cleaning toilets so that he isn’t forced to violate the Sabbath and work on it. Indeed, a search on the AIPAC website for the name “Jonathan Pollard” or even simply “Pollard” turns up no results, though if you misspell it by using only one letter “L” then it politely asks you, “did you mean Poland?”

During my junior year of college I participated in an AIPAC student leadership trip to Jerusalem where they flicked us around the city having us listen to the best and the brightest of Israeli and American politicians, bureaucrats, and political thinkers, all of whom were continuously brainwashing us into believing that disengagement from Gaza the previous summer was a resounding success and seemed to suggest that any who disagreed were right wing extremists or religious fanatics. The full implications of the disengagement hadn’t even begun to present themselves yet so these arrogant fools were able to smile while they sold us their smug lies. Yet a little more time would show that Hamas won the election, sparking a civil war that resulted in them taking power in Gaza. The citizens of the Gush Katif area, which had by years of blood sweat and tears created beautiful homes for themselves and a vibrant economy, were forced into long term living in what was meant to be short term housing. Much of the money they were paid as compensation for their lost homes has been spent on repairs on the shoddy temporary housing they are forced to cope with. 20 months after being taken from lives where joblessness was virtually unknown, unemployment jumped to 37%. Many people have been forced to continue to pay mortgages on homes that don’t even exist anymore. Yet a search on AIPAC’s website of the words “Gush Katif?” You’d have as much luck as searching for Jonathan Pollard.

One of the biggest problems with this organization people fail to see, though it is blatantly clear if one has rudimentary knowledge of how these things work, is that AIPAC is never truly free to serve Israel’s interests because it is not independent to do so. It is simply part of a three point circle that forms a continuous feedback loop. AIPAC lobbies the American government to support Israel. The issues AIPAC chooses and where it stands on these issues is based on the current policy of the Israeli government. The Israeli government is run mostly by corrupt politicians who rather than do the will of the people, take orders from the American government via the State Department in order to cling to their positions of power.

So I suggest you all gathered here, especially those of the Jewish persuasion to take into consideration what I’m saying, think about what really matters and what’s really effective. Put down those cheeseburgers and stop kidding yourselves.

...............................................................................................

…If having made it successfully through the entire speech without having my mic shut off or being kindly escorted off stage, most people would simply wait foaming at the mouth to hear some politician up for reelection make promises and pledges of support to Israel, whether empty or not, in exchange for votes. The speech would receive zero coverage and the masses would give it little consideration while wolfing down their delicious cheeseburgers later that night fantasizing about whoring themselves out to any politician or person of power that spent the breath to say, “Israel is ok by me I guess.”

2007-06-24T13:12:00.000-07:00

2007-05-20T16:37:00.000-07:00

1) Exodus 20:3-6 (First Commandment)

"You shall not recognize the gods of others in My presence. You shall not make yourself a carved image nor any lineness of that which is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the water beneath the earth. You shall not prostrate yourself to them not worship them for I am Hashem, your G-d, Who visits the sin of fathers upon children to the third and fourth generations, for My enemies; but Who shows kindness for thousands [of generations] to those wh love Me and observe My commandments."

2) Exodus 34:5-7

"Hashem descended in a cloud and stood with him (Moses) there, and He called out with the Name Hashem. Hashem passed before him and proclaimed: 'Hashem, Hashem, G-d, Compassionate and Gracious, Slow to Anger, and Abundant in Kindness and Truth; Preserver of Kindness for thousands of generations, Forgiver of Iniquity, Willful Sin, and Error, and Who Cleanses' -- but does not cleanse completely, recalling the iniquity of parents upon children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

3) Leviticus 23:27-28 (Yom Kippur)

You shall not do any work on this very day, for it is the Day of Atonement to provide you atonement before Hashem, your G-d.

4) Deuteronomy 7:9 (Before entering Israel)

"You must know that Hashem, your G-d -- He is the G-d, the faithful G-d, Who safeguards the covenant and the kindness for those who love Him and for those who observe His commandments, for a thousand generations."

5) Ezekiel 18:21-23

"As for the wicked man, if he repents from all his sind that he committed, and he observes all My decrees and practices justices and righteousness, he shall surely live, h shall not die. All his transgressions that he committed will not be remembered against him; he shall live because of the righteousness that he did. DO I desire at all the death of the wicked man? -- the word of the L-rd Hashem/Elokim. Is it not rather his return from his ways that he might live?"

6) Ezekiel 18:31

"Cast off from upon yourselves all your transgressions through which you have transgressed, and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit."

7) Psalms 32:1

"By David, a wise man. Praiseworthy is one who transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered over."

8) Ecclesiastes 10:4

"If the anger of a ruler [i.e., the evil inclination in each person] will get the upper hand [nevertheless:] do not abandon your position..." (Talmud, "He who wants to purify himself, will be helped.") (citation from Our Life's Aim by Naftali Hoffner)

9) Chronicles II 33:10-13

"Hashem spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they did not listen. So Hashem brought against them the officers of the king of Assyria's army, and they captured Manasseh with hunting hooks, bound him in chains and led him off to Babylonia. But in his distress he beseeched Hashem, His G-d, and he humbled himself greatly before the G-d of his fathers. He prayed to Him, and He was entreated by him and heard his supplication, and He returned him to Jerusalem, to his kingship."

10) Lamentations 3:40 (Written by the Prophet Jeremiah in response to the destruction of the Second Temple)

"Let us search our ways and return to Hashem." (57-58: "You always drew near on the day I would You; You said, "Fear not!" You always championed my cause, O L-rd, You redeemed my life.")

2007-05-16T16:35:00.000-07:00

___

A Jew who wears a cross on his neck and calls himself a Christian
I look at him and all I see is
Don Quijote
With his private Sancho Panza Jesus
Chasing false windmills
Help him look in the mirror and shatter his illusions

2007-05-01T19:33:00.000-07:00

2007-04-05T21:09:00.000-07:00

On striving for a better world... -

Category: Does G-d Exist?,

It cannot be natural that the human race suffers as much as it does. It cannot be a function of biology that the human world is full of injustice and resentment. Are there any other forms of life on this earth who bask in the joy of love or who recoil at the bitterness of mistreatment? Are there any other forms of life on this earth that recognize good and evil, and truth and false? Are there any other forms of life that have moral compasses? Plants, ants, dolphins, chimpanzees?

Absolutely not, the drive that human beings have to improve is a unique drive. But not only that, the innate desire to improve life is a strong implication that we feel that suffering is unnatural. But if we feel that suffering is unnatural, it's an even stronger indication that we feel that the joy of equality and justice are actually natural states. If that is true, then it would be very, very hard to accept a view that we are mere biological forms of life, for from where does a form of life ruled by biology get the impression that equality is natural? Our bodies are bound by the dictates of nature and erosion and yet our souls visualize a more complete world.

Our current paradigms of evolution tell us that death and survival of the fittest are natural functions of living things, but when we see those things, we register them as faults of the species; how can that be? Further, how can we have such a natural drive for equality if we have never experienced it? How are our minds able to conceptualize and imagine the concept of equality if we have never been through it? It's usually true that a person cannot imagine something without first having experienced something similar to it. Yet the human drive for equality is a strong suggestion that, somehow, humanity has experienced equality before and therefore the desire for it is implanted deep within the human conscious. Yet if we fumble backwards through the pages of history, we find no equality. The Torah tells us in a rather puzzling fashion that there was a time in the history of the earth where humanity experienced complete equality, when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. If we assume that the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is just a story designed to explain existence, not very different from other creation accounts, how can we explain our yearning for equality as if it is something that we have lost? Is it really possible that some clever individual created the Garden of Eden story in order to explain the almost physical drive that we have for equality? If that's true, it's easy to imagine that there would be tons of other creation stories with similar philosophical messages, and they would make up the backbones of other societies. If it's possible that somebody invented the story, we still grapple with the question of "why do we want equality?"

Most things have a cause, but we do not know what has caused the level of consciousness we posses to call ourselves human and to realize that we are different from the animals. All of this throws a wrench into the belief that we are mere biological forms of life, and presents strong empirical evidence that a closer-to-perfect existence is indeed our natural state. Further, we are bothered when we do something wrong and are unhappy with ourselves. On the flip side, it also points to the existence of G-d, Who is Perfect, and created humanity with perfection. Therefore, our desire for perfection is not an illusion, it is a desire to return to the present state that we once experienced. It makes the story of Adam and Eve very believable, and to offer a radical concept, perhaps it is true.
Please, comments and criticisms are welcome.

2007-04-04T21:03:00.000-07:00

Why Do We Need Religion if there is G-d?

What is G-d and what is religion? Without even trying to answer this question, it's clear that G-d and religion are not synonyms, for there are many religions, and we if operate under the assumption that there is only G-d, then religion and G-d can't be the same thing.

The direction of this relatively short essay will lead us away from the practical aspects of religion, such as particular beliefs, practices, etc., and will attempt to deal with some of the "basics" or universal and transcendent aspects of G-d. In other words, there are aspects of G-d that have nothing to do with the religion you practice and have everything to do with the fact that you believe in G-d. Later on in the essay, the direction will steer back to the particulars and finite aspects of religion, Judaism and Christianity in this case, and how G-d's essential nature is related to those religions.

Josh Greenberger, author of "Human Intelligence Gone Ape," postulates about the origin of the universe that, "It's almost as if there was no way for our universe to have come into existence." To summarize Greenberger's line of reasoning, if we try to pinpoint the first moments of our universe's existence by asking "what was before us, and what was before that, and what was before that?," a relatively common philosophical question, we either have to conclude that there was a first thing of which before there was nothing, or we have to say that there was no beginning and that existence is (and has always been) infinite. In other words, a child may ask, "Who are my parents? Who are thir parents? Who are their parents?" A child can ask this over and over again until reaching the first humans. You can ask the same question with regards to everything and eventually the search would trace back to the first thing in existence. The pursuits of science are also in love with this question, and so science ends up dealing with the possibility that the universe has an unexplained beginning from something before it, or that there was an actual point in time in which the universe came into existence from nothing.

However, the structures that science accepts to be true, many of them found through investigation of the universe, demand that each thing was created through the process of something else. For example, an orange came from a tree, the tree came from a seed, the seed came from organic matter, the organic matter came from... you get the point.

Science has a hard time answering how every single thing has a previous cause running forever backwards into eternity, for it is not capable of answering from material itself came. It also grapples with the question as to how something can come into existence when just before it there was nothing.

For example, the fields of science that investigate the origin of our universe (astronomy, astrophysics, quantum physics, chemistry, etc...) for the most part accept the occurrence of the Big Bang, a huge explosion of matter at the beginning of time, creating time itself, in which the entire materials of the present universe were flung out from one spot. Science is a noble pursuit, I truly do believe, and it fascinates me, but the Big Bang is an unproven theory. It's also as far back "chronologically" as science can go in explaining our origins. If that is true, the first possibility is that the giant sphere of material that eventually exploded was always there, but if it was always there, it means that something must have caused for it to physically exist. The other possibility is that it did not exist and then it existed; these are questions with which science, studying physical forces, grapples. As of yet, there are no tight scientific answers to these questions, only theories. That in and of itself is not bad, for the pursuit of knowledge is noble and necessary, but perhaps we are close to realizing that science studies forces that challenge our assumptions about the nature of just what exactly is physical.

The other entertained possibility is that there was nothing and then there was something. According to Greenberger, there is a theory (which is not so popular) stating that spontaneous creation is responsible for the creation of the universe, that indeed, from a scientific standpoint, the universe came from nothing.

According to Greenberger, "this notion is supported by the claim that sub-atomic particles have been observed appearing from nowhere." (91) However, Greenberger sites two problems with this theory, a) it's possible that the machine was simply not able to perceive things that were actually there, so when it suddenly perceived them, you came to the conclusion that there must have been nothing there before, and b) the "concept of nothing implies complete and total nonexistence, no energy, no matter, no gravity waves, no magnetic fields, absolutely devoid of any substance whatsoever. Such a state would have no force, drive, 'motivation,' or power to produce anything." (91) Therefore, an experiment showing that something appeared from nothing actually shows that there was something there, just that it was not (yet) perceivable.

Without mixing science and theology with each other, if we ponder on these scientific issues (of an infinite universe or of a universe that came from nothing), we come to a realization that perhaps the universe has no physical origins, and that's what Greenberger means when he says, "It's almost as if there was no way for our universe to have come into existence." The existence of G-d, then, would be a valid (scientific) theory postulating the origin of the universe, for it's at least a plausible explanation for the existence of the universe that answers some of the scientific qualms. "And it's this very fact that should move the concept of G-d away from the domain of philosophy and more toward reality. After such mind boggling concepts as black holes, exploding universes, anti matter, elusive subatomic particles, warped time, and curved space, G-d should hardly seem all that philosophical." (86) The existence of these "phenomena, as speculative as they are, are given a status of legitimacy"; why does science not allow for the thought that perhaps the universe has a non-physical origin? (85) It's not really that unscientific, and it is definitely not unscientific to consider it.

I have to quote from Greenberger here, because he is a bit more eloquent than me:

"Well, maybe that's the answer -- there was no physical way for our universe to have come into existence. The laws of nature, giving every indication that our entire universe is comprised of elements of finite potential, point in the direction of something of an infinite nature as the source of our physical universe. This source may not necessarily be easy to comprehend. Nevertheless, in light of the impossibility of sources to which we can relate on a physical level, this source, as incomprehensible as it may seem, must be the only rational explanation, our universe must have come into existence through 'something' which did not itself have to come from anywhere. Whats more, this is not the 'best' or the 'most probable explanation,' this appears to be the only truly plausible explanation; the being which created our universe must be a being of eternity. For without this, we are left with explanations which cannot be verified or substantiated by science or logic." (88)

Up to this point, we have only been talking about the scientific reality that whatever created the universe is likely infinite.

Getting into the Theological Mechanics

At this point in time, the essay will take a slight turn. I started off by attempting to explore some of the basics of G-d, which have nothing to do with the particulars of any religion and yet seem to be related to all of them - now I'll talk a bit about how G-d's Essential Nature as Creator of the universe is related to the particulars of religion (Judaism and Christianity in this case).

Judaism and Christianity believe that G-d is Infinite and Infinitely Wise, being the Creator of all that is. So far, the scientific sojourn into the origins of the universe aligns with these Jewish and Christian beliefs. But when we begin getting into G-d's Essential Form, from a scientific perspective, there are certain necessary attributes that a universal Creator must have.

For example, Greenberger states, detached from theological assumptions, the necessity of this Being's Nature:

"Finally, common sense will tell you that to bring a universe such as ours into existence, this being would have to possess powers beyond our imagination and intelligence beyond our conception, and this being could not possibly be bound or limited in any way by the laws of nature which govern our universe. Then, after putting these logical deductions together, you should arrive at a startling conclusion -- the concept which is G-d." (89)

He also says:

"Just as nothing in our universe can exist without time or space, so can nothing exist without having been born, formed, created, etc. But when you talk about G-d, the concept of 'birth' is not applicable. When we talk about a Being which brought everything that exists into existence, we're obviously talking about an Ultimate Source to which we were logically led to for want of any other possible explanation. Which means that what we've actually done is reached the "end" -- there simply cannot be a source beyond this. As a result, the concepts of 'origin' and 'birth' cease to exist at this point and are only products of His Creation, and He can obviously not be bound by them. If He were bound by such things, He could not possibly be the source of all that exists; something would have to have existed before Him, and we'd be back to square one. So when we talk about G-d,we're talking about that 'Final Source,' an Original Source, or an Ultimate Existence, before Whom nothing else could possibly have existed. The concept of G-d, therefore, implies an Existence unlike any other existence; an Existence to Whom the terms 'beginning' and 'end' simply do not apply; an Existence from Whom every other existence must have originated..." (90)

Judaism and Christianity believe in the existence of the One G-d, and suffice it to say that those of them reading the information contained in this post will most likely find the basic statements about G-d to be irrefutable truths. Let us look how the aforementioned statements possibly correlate with the first commandment in the Torah. In it, G-d says that He cannot be expressed in the form of anything (Exodus 20:4-5, Exodus 20:19-20). For those who do not have Exodus handy, it says, "You shall not make yourself a carved image nor any likeness of that which is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the water beneath the earth. You shall not prostate yourself to them nor worship them, for I am Hashem, your G-d -- a jealous G-d...," and in 19-20 He says, "'You have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven. You shall not make [images of what is] with Me; gods of silver and gods of gold shall you not make for yourselves.'" In this commandment, G-d departs the secret of His Essence to the Jewish and Gentile nations, that He has no physical, tangible, form.

Judaism

If, scientifically speaking, as Greenberger mentioned, "...this being could not possibly be bound or limited in any way the laws of nature which govern our universe" is true, then the scientific truth of a Beginner coincides with His instructions in the first commandment. In other words, the first commandment captures and unites all that is Divinely and scientifically true about G-d, i.e., the truths that make themselves apparent in both the spiritual and the physical world. It is possible that this is the "jist" of the first commandment?

The commandment says not to "make yourself a carved image nor any likeness of that which is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the water beneath the earth." It is likely that this was a reference to making idols in animal shapes, which was a popular practice among polytheists, but the commandment, years ahead of its time, states not to make "any likeness of that which is... on the earth below." Human beings walk around on the earth below as well, and if someone were to make an idol of a human being versus that of an animal, and bowed to it, it would still be idolatry. If a person believes that Divinity can be physically imagined, or looks in a certain way, even if he makes no physical representations of Divinity (I can't imagine what those would accurately be), he has created a form for himself in his mind and has created a spiritual connection to that form; herein lies the basis of the prohibition in the first commandment.

Christianity

Jesus' having an existence bound by physicality and time violates the notion of a G-d unlimited by space and time, His creations. That Jesus was born in a certain place and at a certain time indicate that he is bound by place and time. That he has to walk in order to be in a different place means that he is bound within the world in which he walks. That he must turn his head to see what is behind him suggest that he is a finite being. Anything existing within the universe it created cannot be its creator, and so anything or anyone bound by G-d's creations cannot be G-d, Who is not limited to earth. We know the date (time) and place (space) of Jesus' birth, both of which indicate that he was a created being, but if he was a created being, he cannot be eternal, and therefore not G-d.

Therefore, anything or anyone that had a starting (or finishing) point cannot be G-d. As Greenberger stated with respect to the Nature of a Universal Creator, the "... concepts of 'origin' and 'birth' cease to exist at this point and are only products of His Creation, and He can obviously not be bound by them." This would be a violation of the first commandment.

A common response might be, "True, G-d is not limited to earth, but He chose to place that limitation upon Himself." I have heard that statement before and I can see the logic in it, but it's not that G-d can't do what He wants, because He can, but it's that the world as He created it cannot contain Him and continue to exist. Why particularly G-d created the world in such a manner is a different topic, but I'll gladly discuss it if anybody wants to. For G-d to place Himself in the world would be like using a thousand-volt battery in a one-volt appliance - the appliance (the world) would be totally incompatible with the battery (G-d) or would be destroyed. Another metaphor would be like putting a thousand pound weight onto a paper towel hoping that it wouldn't rip. Now imagine an infinitely heavy weight placed upon a finite paper towel - the two cannot meet. The only way that one could place a thousand pound weight on a paper towel would be to cut off a small enough piece of the original weight and to place it on the towel. But if one did that, then he truly did not perform the miraculous act of placing the entire weight on the towel, he just placed a small piece on it, and the small piece is not synonymous with the weight itself. Further, what is every human being on the earth other than a microcosm of G-d, a small piece of the weight, for does Genesis not say that "G-d created Man in His Image, male and female He created them?" In a matter of speaking, when G-d made Man (humanity), He placed a part of His Essence into the human body of every single person, He placed Himself in flesh.

The flesh of Jesus, i.e., his body, if taken literally to be G-d, cannot be so because it was damaged during his crucifixion and eventually ceased to function, i.e., died. If G-d made Himself flesh, the body would have been invincible. Of course, one could argue that on top of deciding to limit Himself into the form of a man, He also allowed the body which somehow encapsulated Him to be mortal. This is somewhat like creating an argument for something based on lack of evidence. For example, if I tell you that someone stole my car, you could tell me that you didn't see my car in my yard on the day it was stolen. Then I could say that I actually parked my car at my friend's house that day and that it was stolen from there. When you called my friend to validate that I had placed my car there that day, he told you that he was at the store down the street and couldn't verify it. There would be no way to verify from the information at hand that my car was indeed stolen, and indeed, it would be a bit foolish to believe that it was. Likewise, there is no evidence that Jesus was G-d, for he looked like a man, spoke like a man, acted like a man, was born like man, reacted to injury like a man, and died like any other man were he crucified. Therefore, anything or anyone that had a starting or finishing point cannot be G-d. "Just as nothing in our universe can exist without time or space, so can nothing exist without having been born, formed, created, etc," it's an indication that time and space are necessary for a thing to be created or born.

Keep in mind that it is my usage of Greenberger's statements that are theological; his are deliberately unrelated to any particular religious theology. If they seem to align, it might be because the nature of the universe as created by G-d was made in concordance with His commandments.

These are not just theological or philosophical issues, which are relegated to the realm of thought and have limited, little, or no practical application; if G-d is real, these are imminent factors in understanding Him. G-d cannot be born or die, He doesn't have human biological functions, His Voice doesn't have a particular frequency, His body doesn't have a particular height, build, or a certain swing to his walk, and His eyes don't have a certain color. These things would all be relevant if G-d exists within the realm of His Creation, by which He is unbound, yet the moment He appears within His Creation, He is bound by His Creation. Remember, in Exodus 19, G-d says, "'You have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven." G-d is in heaven, not on earth, and therefore we should not imagine that He has the likeness of anything that is on earth, for that would be a violation of His True Self and a clear misunderstanding on our part.

To use a metaphor, let us imagine a computer whiz who has built a computer, created a sophisticated program to run it, invented his own software based on the program, for the computer, and created a video game with characters. Now let us imagine that he wanted to place himself into the video game that he created, among his characters. He could create a program, applicable to the design of the software, that would be able to contain him within it. For it to be able to contain him, it must be complex enough to contain him. For example, if you wanted to put yourself into a bag, it must be as big you and no smaller. However, he cannot fit his true essence onto a program that the computer can handle, for he is far more advanced than the computer. Put in another way, the computer cannot process the breadth, complexity, and sophistication of his information, and so he cannot place himself inside it. So instead of placing himself into the computer, he would create a program of himself that is on the level of the computer's sophistication and that can exist inside it and therefore he can base the information contained inside this program off of himself. However, it can never truly capture his essence in all its complexity, for the computer would not be able to handle it and it would fry its circuitry. Indeed, there is neither a program nor circuitry that would be able to handle the complexity of its maker, for if so, he would have created a creation equal to him, and if that is so, he would have duplicated, or created himself. If he duplicated himself, there would be two of him, and two things cannot be equal if one has created the other. In other words, one is the creator and the other is the created. and so having the status of creator and created makes them not equal to each other. So he would have to settle for an ultra-reduced version of himself that the computer can handle, not containing in the least all of his information, and it is this program that he places into the computer. The characters in the game interact with the character-shaped program, but since it is on their level of sophistication, it is not an equal or synonymous with its maker.

Relating this to G-d, "If He were bound by such things, He could not possibly be the source of all that exists; something would have to have existed before Him, and we'd be back to square one."

The concluding answer to the original question, "Why do we need religion if there is G-d?" is that He has aligned His Infinite Nature and Knowledge with finite particulars, specially designed in order for humans to come into closer contact with Him and to do His Will. Just what G-d's Will is also different according to Jewish and Christian theology, but another topic.

Peace, Yaniv...

2007-03-29T18:47:00.001-07:00

Religious Jewish Music is Boring

Pardon me?! That's right, you heard right; Jewish religious music is boring.

Why, you might wonder, am I saying this. That's easy, because it's true.

I actually don't believe that, but the truth is that, at least for un-observant Jews, religious Jewish music can seen stale or dorky.

The reason is very simple, and they're actually on to something. You see, secular music is unbound, that's one of the sources of emotional, almost spiritual, power that secular music has. In fact, it can be so moving that I hesitate using the word "secular" to describe it. There is a certain type of power inherent in many of the genres of secular music because it is unconcerned with notions of avoiding particular sentiments. In other words, secular music plays on all the ranges of human emotion. The secret to its power is that it regularly accesses some of the more confounding human emotions, such as confusion, cynicism, passion, anger, lust, unhindered idealism, and depravity - the result is that music has an overwhelming effect on the listener.

Religious music, on the other hand, approaches musical expression in different manner. Jewish music, such as Shabbat niggunim (worldless tunes) and z'mirot (with words) shape their components in a much different way. The goal is to not to create energy by tapping into the raw and wild emotions of the human experience, which once they are tapped almost take on a life of their own. Rather, Jewish music reaches into the heights of what makes a person unique, the soul, and creates expressions that attempt to fuse a person to more pure parts of their being. In that, the concept of holiness is an element in Jewish religious music that is not necessarily present, at least not purposely, in secular music.

We can use a metaphor of apple juice and water, with the apple juice being emotionally charged secular music and water being holiness-oriented religious music. At first taste, apple juice is much more appealing than water (I, for one, tend to only drink water when I'm thirsty); it's sweet, it has viscosity, etc... Water, on the other hand, is tasteless and plain, there is almost no reason to drink it. But when one is thirsty, water suddenly becomes the liquid life, the only thing a sweating, over-heated person wants. And the feeling a person in such a state gets is that the water is soothing and curing his entire body of what ails him as he drinks it, and unlike apple juice, the absence of sugar does not make him more thirsty, and therefore leaves an element of completed satisfaction.

Speaking in abstract terms, niggunim and zemirot have that effect; the soul yearns for an expression that doesn't speak to his "more lowly" elements, powerful emotions that can overwhelm him and remind him of all types of things, not excluding memories that he does not seek to remember. Rather, he desires a piece of music that speaks to a part of him which might be only sporadically accessed, a piece of him that raises him above his sophisticated animal emotions, making use of them as jump pads, but ultimately connecting him to something Higher than he. In truth, access to this "holiness" of which I am writing can be very similar to an emotion, and honestly, fragments of several emotions are probably ignited during the exposure to this holiness, but they all move together in a bundle towards a higher source, as if being lifted by helium. Without this holiness, which can be spoken of abstractly as an emotion of sorts, emotions on their own tend to have a sinking effect, like oil in water. If a piece of music moves a person to unbridled passion, but that passion dislodges hidden bits of negative emotion, such as bitterness or lacking, that music can have an aftertaste of melancholy or distress. Many pieces of music work on me in such a fashion, pieces that I have to say I like very much. And without treading on those pieces of music and the sentiment and significance they carry, the reason I like them is because they take to me places in which I have no control, and the experience of loss of control can be entirely breathtaking. This type of music is like an untrained animal; the moment it is released, it will do as it pleases. The sheer power of being a spectator to such an animal is magnificent, but the second the animal turns its attention to you, or does something against your wishes, you might be in trouble.

Music that attempts to ignite the sparks of holiness, or to awaken them from their dormant state, also implies an element of loss of control, but the movement is upwards, and goes along with the human being's natural desire to move in an ascending direction. The effect of secular music is not necessarily a downer, but perhaps it is more accurate to say that it moves one in sweeping gestures from side to side, bringing him into variantly different realms of emotion in close temporal proximity. The result is somewhat like jumping from a jacuzzi into a pool and then back again several times. It is definitely an invigorating experience, but it is exhausting. Holy music loosens the weights that hold a person in this world, his mundane emotions, and allows the natural lift to express itself, and the result is ultimately energizing, or calming, depending on the niggun or zmirah. This is not to say that this happens independent of the person, for he eventually can learn how to determine what parts of him are being accessed, and what parts he wishes to access, like a muscle, and can flex those parts. When he does that, he can be a partner, even initiate, the spiritual effect of that music. It is actually void to say that it can happen without his volition; he has to direct his mind and agree to move in an upward direction before it can occur, otherwise he is like a rock tied to a balloon. This is a bit different than raw and energetic secular music, which begins to move him in all kinds of directions the moment he begins to hear it; it speaks to his animal parts, his nefesh, his spirit. Niggunim and zemirot speak to his neshama, his soul, which wants to go up. The nefesh tends to be happy enough where it is, down here. However, as the Ramacha"l states in Cheshbon Ha-nefesh (Account of the Spirit), a person can use the sheer animalistic power to traject himself upwards, but like an animal, if he does not train it, it will overpower him and do whatever it wants with him.

The content of this powerful music also plays a grand role in determining what kind of effect it has on the listener; usually the content covers a broad range of things, which can be very entertaining to very moving. The listener, however, through his comprehension of words, taps into what the singer is trying to convey, and he will move only as high as the subject matter allows. Secular music has the ability to lift the person, but this type of secular music is few and far in between; we all have merited to hear particularly special secular songs that just play our chords like an expert violinist, and we cherish them, but they are rare diamonds that we collect. The very tune can be overwhelming, lifting us into a realm which we do not normally visit, and the order of the words and the message the singer is trying to convey, and his tone, all come together to create for an incredible song.

This is the effect of a holy song, but with a minor difference that ends up creating a larger gap. The holy song utilizes many of the same elements; tune, tone, and instrument, but the difference is in the content of the song, the ideas and messages conveyed in the song. Ultimately, since the only variable between the two types is content, the content is responsible for making the mind twirl when the words are repeated. We all know what it's like to reach a part in a song where those one or two sentences just send a dash up our spine and make our head tingle, but if the content of a song is about the wonder of G-d, let's say, very often the whole song can raise our awareness through our consciousness to higher things, and the tingles can be persistent. It seems that emotion-accessing songs and holiness-based songs are neck to neck with each other until they reach a certain point, and then the song of holiness advances ahead and leaves the other song behind. That the song is sung in a different language, even and especially a language one knows, can have this effect.

2007-03-26T18:19:00.000-07:00

Four Juicy Questions -

(1) How does biology and evolution account for the human sense of possessing a soul? Can we say that the sense that we have a soul benefit us in some biological way, i.e., that it helps us to function or even survive?

(2) Even if the soul was a biological trait, not literally existing, how would something like an unconscious evolution have the capacity to create the internal impression that we have a soul that connects us to something larger, even though that thing does not exist? In other words, evolution would be responsible for creating a whole spiritual paradigm that exists in our head, and not only that, it would have created the illusion that we have a love for and an interaction with an "object" external to us, with which we can relate by means of our illusory soul. We can ask, since we have this "soul," how is evolution able to orchestrate such a thing? If it is, then we must conclude that evolution itself possesses outlandish intelligence and even desire to create. If so, evolution itself becomes something not very different from the theistic notion of G-d.

(3) On top of this, this paradigm in our head creates a network of our mind, emotions, and body, with our soul an element of ourselves composed of, but higher than, these three elements. Even if we don't believe we have a soul, we still sense ourselves in a very unique and intimate way; this is virtually impossible to explain biologically. The very value of life is ideologically and emotionally diminished if we try to explain humanity as a series of highly complex and sophisticated biological organisms.

(4) This is also reflected in our laws, which recognize a concept known as "morality." Approaching it from the biological angle, morality can have the effect of moderating society and therefore contributing to the perpetuation of the organism. However, morality reaches a point where it ceases to be convenient and actually places strain on the organism, to the point where it would actually be easier for a society, or societies, to "break down" and detach itself from concepts of morality. Nevertheless, humanity continues to, almost obsessively, cleave to the notion of morality, which transcends the physical and biological realities of being a human being (we want to feed every human on the planet even though it could be numerically valuable for a portion of the human race to die out each year). It is a nagging call to truth that keeps a person from stealing something when nobody is around; the affect on society is minimal, and even children, whom do not understand what society is, feel that resistance, perhaps more strongly. It is things like this, which spark the conscious, which is located in the "soul" and alerts a resistance within us against engaging in such behaviors. This mechanism causes us to perceive that we are not alone at the moment of the event

The fascinating question is how biology and evolution attest to these things.

2007-03-21T09:46:00.000-07:00

Muslim Intellectual From Bahrain -

What are your opinions on what Dhiyya al-Musawi is saying?

2007-03-21T03:06:00.000-07:00

28% of Israeli Arabs Deny the Holocaust -

According to a March 18, 2007 article by the Associated Press, 28% of Israeli Arabs deny the Holocaust. That’s somewhere in between one quarter and one third. Can you imagine if 28% of America’s white population denied that American blacks were oppressed and mistreated in the United States’ own history?

Based on the findings of Sami Smoocha, “a prominent sociologist at the University of Haifa,” “radicals in the Arab world believe the Holocaust to be a political event, and many feel that by denying it they are expressing opposition to Israel.”

I am a strong advocate that today’s generation of Jews should have already, and if not, then it needs to, shed some of the persistent anxieties about the Holocaust (which is different than forgetting it). But the issue remains; denying a confirmed event, which was a product of World War II and Hitler’s attempt to take over the world, has no place in the lexicon of Palestinian resistance to the State of Israel’s existence. How deep is the abyss between historical truths and reality among radical hatred in the Palestinian towns that the veracity of the entire Holocaust will be downplayed just to stick it to the Jewish State? Can the “radicals” involved really have free reign to smudge history as they please in order to recreate a new picture that they find more suitable? What about the countless other tens of millions of people, non-Jews, whom were murdered in the Holocaust; do the radicals also deny that? That Hitler also targeted Poles, Russians, Czechs, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others was as well part of the Zionist plot to take land from the Palestinians? We must grasp the mythical importance to the Palestinian story of underplaying the veracity of the Holocaust, but we also must understand how it factors into reality.

But the statistics of the poll are not pure theory; according to the study, “Among Israeli Jews, 63 percent said they avoid entering Arab towns and cities, and 68 percent fear the possibility of civil unrest among Israeli Arabs.” These are Arab towns and cities in Israel, not the dreary images of West Bank municipalities, but areas into which an unseasoned visitor to Jerusalem, Haifa, Akko, or Tel-Aviv, cities in “Israel Proper,” might accidentally stroll. These aren’t Arabs who thrust their rifles into the air, they are the people who drive Israeli buses, maintain Israeli roads, guard Israeli post-office entrances, and shop in Israeli malls and stores.

Regarding “the Lebanon incursion,” Smoocha found that “While 89 percent said they viewed the IDF's bombing of Lebanon as a war crime, only 44 percent said they saw Hizbullah's attacks on Israel as such.” It is important to understand that large populations of Israeli Arabs live in northern Israel, which is where the some 4,000 Lebanese rockets landed. Smoocha “expressed surprise” with his findings, explaining that, “One would have expected more pro-Israeli results among Israeli Arabs due to the uniqueness of the most recent war: a war with no involvement of the Palestinians, a war in which the lives and belongings of Israelis were endangered, a war against an Islamic fundamentalist group that most of them don't support.”

Israeli-Arab Member of Knesset Ahmed Tibi said that he could not explain the numbers indicating support of Hizbullah, but said that, “usually there is no empathy for the aggressor,” referring to Israel, not Lebanon. That would explain the 89%.

He also said that the Holocaust was “the worst crime ever against humanity,” against humanity, not against the Jews. Humanity didn’t need a Zionist state.

Also according to Tibi, “some of the sentiments [of Holocaust denial] might stem from ‘reservations about the way the Holocaust is used as a political tool.’”

At the end of the day, I can’t blame the Israeli Arabs; Israel is the foolish one. It is a misnomer to suggest that Israel should allow Arab Members of Knesset the freedom to say such inflammatory things against the State in which they live. It is really Israel’s fault, which should have long become aware that the Arab population tends to feel that Israel doesn’t have many rights, yet they are still afforded the practical freedom to say and do much of what they please.

Ah, but one could say, “Yaniv, Israel is a democracy.” True, but the Israeli democracy has not done or said anything to show that it is unacceptable to support policies that reject the veracity of Israel’s existence, while pressure is put on Jewish Members of Knesset to conform to particular viewpoints. If such thing curbing applies to Jews in the Knesset as part of its competitive nature, which can said to be sometimes unfair, why does it maneuver around the Arab Knesset party “United Arab List?”

In a March 20, 2007 article by the Jerusalem Post, Member of Knesset Taleb a-Sanaa, also in the United Arab List party, is quoted as saying, “The international community should positively consider boycotting Israel, which is endangering the stability of the region.” His statement refers to a group of yeshiva students who “moved into a Hebron home formerly owned by a Palestinian who claimed not to have sold them the house.” Would it be acceptable if a Jewish Member of Knesset said the same thing with regards to the same incident?

“According to Hebron Jewish community spokesman David Wilder, representatives of the community purchased the building through an office in Jordan for the sum of $700,000.”

2007-03-05T12:30:00.000-08:00

Purim Post!

I'm very, very slightly not able to tell the difference between Haman and Morchai right now, and I broke my glasses while dancing yesternight, so this post must be a bit off the wall, but it's abut my Purim and don't care to be logical, because it's hafuch hafchei (flipped arouind).

I woke up today after a nap a bit late to the Rabbi's house, where all my bachur freinds were, and I['m talking about an hour and a half. I got, fought my yexter harah for the punk that it is, got dressed, and went out the door. The Rabbi told me on the phone how to get to his house, which was only a twenty or so minute drive on a bus from where I lived. I only took oral directions, which usually ensures that I{m going to get lsot, but it was Hashgacha Pratit (Divine Supervision) the whole way and I found exactly how to get there. I went ins ide and it was a gerat night.

After a few hours there, I thini, I went out to go back to the yeshiva, and realized that since I didn't make it to my friends' house, Dan and Arielle, friends form Tucson who married each other, I decided to find theri house (which I've been to) based on teh street names they told me. I asked a coupel of people ehere the streets where and kinda of walked my around the Jerusalem "Nachlaot" neighborhood until I found something familiar. At that point, for the third time, I asked G-d if He could just show me teh way if He wanted to, and I thought about the street name I was looking for, Givon, and immediately after that, and I"m taling about like 2 seconds, literally, someone shouted, "This is Givon street?" At thast point my friend Arielle shouted "Yaniv!" and I knew I foudn the house.

We broke into dance and song for a few mintues and then walked down to some place near the neighborhood where we heard (I cidn't see becaue my glasses were off) Dag Nachash, a famous Israeli band, play. The first song they sang was "Baruch Ata Hashem" by ALpha Blondie, which I happen to know, and then we walked a little asnd I took a cab back to teh yeshiva, where I am writing this.

ANyway, Happy Purim, Yaniv...

2007-02-28T17:40:00.000-08:00

G-d of Space -

According to an article from Yahoo News written by Irene Klotz, "A small spacecraft en route to Pluto flew past Jupiter early on Wednesday" stopping at the home of the Giant Red Spot's moon (out of several), Europa.

Like something out of the book/movie "Contact," the religious fundamentalists, and even the secular humanists, and yes, the left-wingers, should be angry, for while the world's governments spend tons of money (I haven't done the research on how much) on space exploration, our own planet spins on with its own issues. Now, other than tickling our astronomical fancies, what good will it do humanity to find out if one of Jupiter's moons, Europa, has "strong evidence of a subterranean, salty ocean?" We have a huge yetzer harah (tempting, or evil, inclination) to see what's "in our own backyard," while we haven't dealt yet with the issues in our own home.

Ah, yes, it is the philosophical interests of the elitist few, driven by their misled atheistic evolutionist views, that pushes on this trillion-dollar sojourn into space.

Can it be their desperate hopes to find signs of life on other planets just to demonstrate an inkling of a conclusion that humans are not alone in the universe, or at least in the solar system? Were that shown to be true, such as if a mere worm colony, long frozen, was found under the surface of Mars, they could find evidence that we too evolved from squashable things.

Can it be the arrogant, terrified, egotism of the 21st century's clean-cut intergalactic mis-philanthropists that sends metal to Mars just to prove their fairy-tale logic that we are apes, at the expense of the less-endowed?

"'I'm hopeful that we will get some real clues about the surface of that ocean,' Bill McKinnon, a planetary scientist with Washington University in St. Louis said before the encounter." Of course he is, then we can see if aquatic humans are living there and ask them who their god is. And please don't tell me that we have to go to Jupiter's "European" moon to find out more about our own weather patterns - that's why we had the movie "Twister."

I say this tongue-in-cheek; it's only a short while before the Jew-haters start saying that this is part of a Zionist plot to occupy land! And then, instead of giving extra-terrestial landmarks Roman names, we can call them "Jerusalem" and "Hevron."

But there is something sinister here, to demonstrate the G-dlessness of the universe. In other words, if G-d's grave can't be found on Earth, where He is needed and desired, perhaps they can bury Him on Mars, Jupiter, Europa, Pluto. The sad and true fact is that those exotic burial spots go for a lot these days, and the MIR, sorry, mere, transportation to tug the proverbial casket through the black ocean of the skies would be outlandishly expensive, especially with an apparently unnecessary American-led war going on in Iraq. The "black gold" is blamed as the perpetrator of crime, but what about all the black space between us and the frigid and rigid rocks floating within it? Missions are cast to these planets and moons, which we essentially shape into huge interstellar idols bearing the names of Greek and Roman deities. And what we are constantly finding is that they, like those idols, are equally lifeless. What will happen to us when the extent of our hysterical chimpish paganism reaches its fingers and dollar bills into the distant barren black deserts when our own world is fertile with strife? This isn't a fanatical shout of distopia; nothing more that isn't already happening will not. It's almost funny; acting like apes just to show that we are. Isn't the evidence driven by the assumptions? If so, this is a very expensive and devastating fallacy.

Speaking of the starry-eyed, Bob Marley, to whom I used to listen to a lot, wrote a stellar objection in his song, "So Much Trouble (In the World)." It goes like this:

"Now, they're sailing on their ego trip
Blast off on their spaceship.
Million miles from reality
No care for you, no care for me."

And in another song, "One Love," he wrote:

"Let them all pass all their dirty remarks.
There is one question I'd really love to ask.
Is there a place for the hopeless sinner,
Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own beliefs?"

2007-02-17T18:10:00.000-08:00

The Logical Conclusion of My Zionism -

In the near future, most likely, a certain question will come up with my cousins, whom I have seen this and last week for the first time in around six years. My two cousins, on my mother's side, have been like brothers to me and my sister since we were born, some of the first people our age we knew before leaving Israel for the States in 1986. Since I and my sister became observant around five years ago, realizing that our family in Israel was not sure of what to think about the change, the time has come for me to finally see our family in Israel after the change. Part of the reason for this post, like many, is to flush out all my ideas, many of which bubble in my mind during times when I am walking or on the bus.

My cousin always knew that I was a Zionist, years before I even fathomed a reality of myself living as an Orthodox Jew. I say with full comfort that nobody in my family knew that I would one day make such a decision, not even myself. My mom told me recently that she realized that I would become observant when I began to speak about Christianity with a degree of anger; why would a young man, around eighteen years old, speak with such fervor about the issues Christianity poses to Judaism. For several reasons the seeds of observance were planted in me, and I thank my mother, father, and my birth in the Land of Israel for basically being the reasons why I could not stay away from that path.

The main point of this post is for me to give written form for how my love of Israel and Zionism found their fullest expression in Judaism. There were several emotional factors in my choice of becoming an observant Jew, but Zionism's relation to this choice is perhaps one of the only factors that was totally tied to a faculty of logic - I saw no real way to continue holding Zionist views if I was not able to back them up with something more than the "run-of-the-mill" secular-backed explanations of Zionism's validity. For years during college I was an avid supporter of the pro-Zionist argument, and I still am, although I've developed my understanding of what it is a bit. Speaking to scores and scores of anti-Israel detractors, I was exposed to piles of ridiculous argumentation about the evils of the State of Israel. I had to strengthen my argument in order to efficiently cut through the falsities of their arguments and the result was that I learned a lot about the nature of the conflict, what was defensible, and what was not. Mind you, I am not using the word "defensible" regarding moral matters - I was and am convinced that Israel has the moral upper-hand; what I am referring to is what the world was ready to hear as valid defenses of the State of Israel, the Land of the Jews. Looking at it from my secular perspectives, which were also relatively Leftist, there were certain dead-ends in the defense of the State of Israel that I could not logically pass without contradicting my own views, the things that I demanded for myself. For example, and perhaps this is the singularly most important realization I eventually had, the nature of our claim to the Land of Israel, as strongly as surely I knew it to be true, was on equal footing with the publicized Palestinian claim to the Land, and the crazy Liberal anarchists with whom I argued knew it and exploited it. Despite that most of their arguments were emotional in nature and gave little attention to ideology that wasn't pseudo-Marxist, I began to realize that my arguments for the fundamental democratic nature of the State of Israel did nothing to provide it with any solid defense. If I was arguing for a democratic state, then I too should have been angered by Israel's declaration as being a Jewish state, for what would be the logical nature of a stance that there is a Jewish right of return, the hallmark of Zionist ideology, simultaneously "flaunting" how well Arabs had it in Israel. It was a crock, and it took me a while to see that. Democracy my elbow - Arabs on campus metaphorically gritted their teeth at me that I had the audacity to stand up there sporting a big Israeli flag telling people that Israel was a democracy when Arabs were unhappy in Israel. What kind of flaky democracy can I claim Israel to be when Arabs have limited opportunity and rights here? The answer? A democracy for Jews, not for Arabs. Israel was dancing around the middle ground of trying to appease its Arab citizens and grasp tightly on to the Zionist ideology, but this was a walking contradiction, and the supporters of Palestinians, who favored the democratic argument, exploited that strange and impossible attempt to please everybody. Even though their motives were driven by dislike, resentment, and evil, from a secular democratic paradigm, I would be forced to support a secular democratic Palestine. I knew in my heart of hearts that that was wrong, and so I had to contemplate my refurbish my understanding of the situation. What line of argumentation could I find, one which I believed to be true, for I had always been a horrible salesman of things in which I did not believe, that I could present to people?

The historical argument seemed especially strong to me; Israel rightfully belonged to the Jews because it was our cultural stronghold, defining who we were, and this transcended our long exiles and total loss of sovereignty in the Land, remaining transfixed even though as the Land lay nearly empty of Jews for long periods of time. This seems interestingly parallel to the religious argument, although I was making basically the same argument without buying into the religious ideologies. What this really shows is that the history and religion of Judaism are inseparable, but my mind was not yet ready to grab on to such an idea. That I couldn't make that particular case from a Jewish cultural standpoint points out the inherent limitations of culture in the acquisition and maintenance of land, for not only had we developed culture in other parts of the world, the culture of Israel had neutered itself of anyway to make a truth-backed defense of its own right to exist, for culture was ever-changing. The Arabs were on to this, being a deeply religious people (as the majority of Jews used to be), and this reason, along with the reason that the Jews in Israel had no genuine way to regain the justice of truth with culture as their only weapon, Israel would be forced to make concession upon concession of its Land to them. In the end, religion is stronger than culture, for religion is a moderator of values while culture just allows for values to seep out and to be replaced by new ones. There is no eternality with culture, for what rights does the Jewish cultural argument have to Israel? We can have a Jewish culture in Tucson, Arizona or New York, New York, or any other coastal city to which Jews have traditionally been drawn like moths to a lamp - why do we need Israel for that? The Israeli culture itself is deeply disconnected from its inherent right to be there, with many Israeli's not being entirely convinced or especially resolute about the Jewishness of the Land. On the other hand, the Arabs are convinced of their religious right to live in and have sovereignty over the Land - is this even a fair competition? Even if secular Israeli's do care, they are not in the right for making any solid argument if they are not prepared to a) stand up for what is theirs, or b) sacrifice some levels of personal comfort and peace of mind in order to achieve a measure of lasting happiness and security.

My mother told me a story when I was little kid. It went like this: during the year, a colony of ants had stored up large amounts of food through consistent work. When they saw the grasshopper, who was lazy, they asked him why he was not also storing food while he was able. His answer was that he would begin storing during the winter, which is when he would really need the food. As long as it was abundant, there was no reason to worry about having it. Come winter and the grasshopper began to starve. Remembering that the ants had a stockpile of food stored up from their work during the year, he asked them if he could stay with them and eat. The ants knew something and were willing to sacrifice a certain level of comfort and untroubled ease of mind in order to live in comfort at a later date. The grasshopper on the other hand, chose immediate satisfaction and the easy path, and the result is that when the hard times came, he had nothing (and his life was at risk). Many Jews are not willing to put forth the energy and to take up the cause of the future of their own country of residence and well-being, choosing immediate satisfaction over future guarantee. In this scenario, the Israeli's are the grasshopper, but the sad thing is that the Palestinians have not merited to be the ants, consistently saving up, for the lazy grasshopper is not a threat to anybody. Israeli's have withered and long since become ensconced in the attempt to have all the things that are currently being promoted as valuable all over the world, primarily the luster of American culture. But American culture will not promise Israel a future and then we will have no place to implant any culture, except for one that we will have to communicate in the Arabic tongue. Further, we are scared, and the more we ponder our situation, the more scared we become yet run around like caged "shtetl Jews," to borrow a friend's term. We act pathetically and the Palestinians smell our fear and yearn for it.

In the end, after a hefty amount of debating myself, I realized that the religious argument was the only one that held water that could not be spilled. The modern politics of democracy would ensure us nothing, not over the religion of Islam, and certainly not over the tactics of violence the Palestinians were enacting, which only served to sparkle the eyes of its victims - such is the nature of abuse, especially on a traumatized psyche; the abused always runs to the abuser. But for secular Jews to make the religious argument as a mere tactic for the defense of Israel would not only be dishonest and therefore a lie to everybody around, including the self, it would turn truth into an unbelievable mockery. Making the religious argument from a secular standpoint is like shooting deafening blanks; the Arabs would know it was a bluff and wouldn't even flinch. The key then is to believe the religious argument, but how could a Jew believe the religious argument without being sold on it, without really believing it? Therefore, we would be required to familiarize ourselves with the nature of the religious argument, in the same way we familiarized ourselves with the democratic one. Our religion holds the key to our survival, but should we become religious in order just to ensure our survival; would that not be dishonest foolishness? If religion holds the key to our survival, perhaps it deserves a measure of attention and analysis; what it is about religion that establishes one in eternality? Perhaps there is an element of truth in the religion of Judaism, and if so, independent yet related to the State of Israel, if it is truth, we should pursue it. But if we pursue it, we should pursue it for its own sake, and if survival of the State of Israel and its citizens will benefit from this truth, then it is only logical that we take steps in embracing it. Through Judaism we could have the real solidarity we Jews so desperately needed with each other, driven by love, for G-d and for ourselves, and so we would choose the religious path for its truth because truth can only yield good things. The Catch 22 however, would be that in order to make the only truly valid argument, after all arguments were exhausted and shown to be unworkable, we would have to cleave to our religion as solely a means for survival. That is, after all, the story of why we are still here. In other words, G-d has sent us a great test; only by cleaving to the truth can we survive, and this means a return to and revival of our religion, i.e.,dedication to G-d, our only support beam in the world. To lean on G-d for survival is the most honest thing a person can do.

2007-02-15T18:04:00.000-08:00

Free Trip to Israel! -

Registration opens tomorrow morning, Thursday, February 15th at 9:00 AM EST at www.mayanotisrael.com.

2007-02-15T17:53:00.000-08:00

What is Judaism? -

You can study the Torah and come to a score of conclusions; it's seemingly open enough and enough in certain points that you can get what you want from it. If you read the Torah for just half an hour you would understand that the connection between Judaism, Jews, the Torah, and Israel is crystal clear.

Let's start like this; Abraham is the father of the Jewish religion through his revelation by G-d. He settled in Israel vis-a-vis a commandment by G-d, upon leaving Egypt the Jews received the Torah and settled in Israel also upon a commandment from G-d. G-d commanded King David to build a permanent abode for His Presence and that was the Temple in Jerusalem, where Abraham went to bind and sacrifice Isaac. All of that is in the Torah.

Judah is one of the twelve tribes of Israel, whose original name was "Jacob." In English, from the name "Judah" we drive "Jew." As history has it, the ten northern tribes of Israel were driven from the land during the Assyrian invasion in 722 BCE and the rest during 586 BCE by the Babylonians. The tribe of Judah, the tribe from which King David is, remained intact and so the rest of the Israelites intermarried with them (which was already occuring) and gradually took on the name of Judah. This is how it came to be that the Israelites took on the name of Judah, "Jew." For example, my family traces its lineage to the tribe of Levi, but I am still a Jew; it's a nomenclature. Since we now use the word "Jew," we use it interchangably with "Israelite" and "Hebrew," and so we say that Moses and Abraham were Jews.

So who are the Jews?

The Jews are technically Israelites, but this is just a physical, biological understanding, which ultimately is irrelevant in defining a Jew, whose being is bound up in his soul. For example, is Jewish blood different than any other blood? Is there Jewish DNA? The first Jew was Abraham, a Hebrew, but that ethnicity is more-or-less lost to us today; does that matter? A Jew is charged with infusing the world with the unified knowledge of G-d through observing the commandments and teaching the world how to live G-dly lives as well. Ultimately, the genetic formation of his flesh is of no consequence - it is a physical paradigm that Judaism does not condone, nor is there any foundation for it in the Torah.

Many people have been given descriptions of Judaism that classify it as a pseudo-cultral-ethnic phenomenon; that's not what it is at all. There are Jews of all "races," and people can convert to Judaism, which would be impossible if it was not a religion. When a person converts to Judaism, it is said that his/her entire being goes through a change, including the body and the soul.

The Temple in Jerusalem, called the "Bet Hamikdash," destroyed the second time in the year 70 by the Romans, is where the animal sacrifices took place. The sacrifices were used to atone for sin. It is also the courtyard where the Jewish court took place in order to carry out legislation, such as dealing with disputes and carrying out sentences, i.e., the application of the Law. It was also the seat of the Torah-based Jewish monarchy and according to Torah belief, will be again when the Mashiach, Messiah, comes.

Judaism is a way of life totally surrounding the Will of G-d in every aspect of existence; if you want to call it a religion that would technically be accurate if you understand religion to mean a composite set of both practice and doctrine encompassing all of life, originating from G-d's Mind. Through observance of the 613 commandments, the Jews bring the world to the state that G-d desires; part of that desire is to inform the nations of the world, the Gentiles, that they too have obligations to G-d. These are encapsulated in the Seven Noachide Laws. All of these things are kept intact in Orthodox Judaism. That itself is a name (meaning "right" "thinking") that has been given to it, but that's fine, it does the job. In other words, Judaism is the Torah, which is the blueprint of existence. That is Judaism.

This is a very general and simplistic description of what Judaism is, you can find more intellectually probing perspectives in a series of good books, such as "If You Were G-d" by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, a personal favorite, "To Be a Jewish Woman" by Lisa Aiken, who lives not very far from me, "The Other Side of the Story," by Yehudis Samet, and a really fascinating read, "The Science of G-d," by Gerard Schroeder.

One particularly good book on Jewish philosophy is "Path of the Just" by Rabbi Moshe Chayim Luzzatto (the Ramchal). A very good work called "The Thirteen Principles of Faith" is a short compendium of Torah doctrine written by the Sage Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon, also known as "Maimonides" or "the Rambam."

Enjoy and have good day, Yaniv...

2007-02-10T09:59:00.000-08:00

A Third Intifada? -

JERUSALEM (AFP) - Stone-throwing youths have clashed with Israeli forces in Jerusalem and across the West Bank as protests flared again against Israeli building work near the holy city's most contentious site.

Muslim leaders have vowed to press on with demonstrations against the repair work near the Al-Aqsa mosque compound in the Old City of occupied east Jerusalem that has angered Muslims across the world.

Israel has mobilised more than 2,000 police to quash any further unrest after rioting in Jerusalem on Friday left 15 Israeli policemen and at least 20 Palestinians wounded.

Cracks have appeared within the Israeli government about whether to continue with the renovation work, which the Arab League condemned Saturday as a "criminal attack" on Islam's third-holiest site.

The prospect of further unrest loomed, with Muslim leaders warning that work near the site which Jews call the Temple Mount and is known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary could trigger a third intifada, or uprising.

"We have a full programme of protests for the coming weeks in order to stop the Israeli crimes against the Al-Aqsa mosque," said the head of the Islamic movement in Israel, Sheikh Raed Salah, on Saturday.

"Continuing the work will increase the tension and anger among Palestinians and in the Arab-Islamic world," he added.

Six protesters were arrested outside the Old City's Flower Gate on Saturday and police had to rescue Canadian tourists whose bus came under attack from Palestinian stone throwers, police said.

In the West Bank town of Bethlehem, Israeli troops arrested 30 Palestinians who were hurling rocks at Rachel's Tomb, an army spokesman said.

Clashes also erupted in the flashpoint city of Hebron and at the Qalandiya checkpoint separating Jerusalem from the West Bank, where two Palestinians were wounded, according to witnesses.

Leaders of Israel's left-leaning Labour party called for the work on a stone ramp leading to the compound near Dung Gate to halt but others insisted that Muslim leaders would not dictate policy with street violence.

"There is no reason to yield the country to a handful of extremists from the Islamic movement who want to escalate the violence," Public Security Minister Avi Dichter said.

"This ramp will be built, it is a done deal, and there will not be a third intifada as a result," said Dichter, the former chief of Israel's internal security agency, Shin Beth.

The United States, Israel's closest ally, urged the Jewish state to take the "sensitivities" of others into account over the work.

And Labour leaders called for the government to stop it altogether.

"We must reconsider this issue, even if we are right from a legal and archaeological point of view," Deputy Defence Minister Ephraim Sneh said.

"We will only defeat the Islamic extremists if we have the support of the moderate ones and this is why it is necessary to act intelligently."

The renovations are scheduled to resume next week after being suspended for the Sabbath, the Jewish day of rest, police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld said.

At a meeting on Saturday, the Arab League described it as a "criminal attack" on the compound and urged the United Nations and the Middle East diplomatic Quartet to act to stop what it said was threatening efforts to revive the peace process.

Israel insists the works, expected to take months, pose no risk to the holy sites and will strengthen an access ramp for the "benefit and safety of visitors" after an earthquake and snowstorm damage in 2004.

The compound, whose fate is one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is where the second Palestinian uprising erupted in 2000 after a visit by then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon.

In 1996, more than 80 people were killed in three days of Palestinian riots after then Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu opened a new entrance to a controversial archaeological tunnel near the holy sites.

Yaniv's commentary:

"At a meeting on Saturday, the Arab League described it as a "criminal attack" on the compound and urged the United Nations and the Middle East diplomatic Quartet to act to stop what it said was threatening efforts to revive the peace process."

The only crime here is the perpetuation of a lie which says that the Temple Mount does not rightfully belong to the State of Israel. Israel repairing an area of land that should be rightfully internationally recognized as its own is well within the bounds of what is legal. Further, I have been at southeastern corner of the Temple Mount where the Israeli government is repairing the bulge, and it is absolutely impossible to even consider that repair of that area of land that would threaten "Arab interests," which are malevolent towards Israel anyway. To situate you, the area of land is adjacent to a public street with cars whizzing by and is near a huge valley and mountain, known as the "Mount of Olives." Just like the Palestinian Authority Minister of Communications communicated to an excited audience of Palestinians that they planned the second intifada and that Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in 200o was an excuse to start it, this talk of a "third intifada" is exactly the same thing. Here's the video of that.

The Palestinians want war, the Israeli's want to repair an area of land that could possibly damage the larger infrastructure of the Temple Mount area. If the water damage continues there, according to a tour guide I know who took me and my yeshiva to that site, the entire southeastern region of the wall could collapse, and that in turn, just so the Muslims know, would likely damage the Dome of the Rock, which is located nearby.

I hope Israel stays firm to this policy:

"Leaders of Israel's left-leaning Labour party called for the work on a stone ramp leading to the compound near Dung Gate to halt but others insisted that Muslim leaders would not dictate policy with street violence.

'There is no reason to yield the country to a handful of extremists from the Islamic movement who want to escalate the violence,' Public Security Minister Avi Dichter said."

This might give you an insight into the seemingly irrational behavior of Palestinian mobs:

"In the West Bank town of Bethlehem, Israeli troops arrested 30 Palestinians who were hurling rocks at Rachel's Tomb, an army spokesman said."

Rachel's Tomb is a on a hill overlooking the east side of Bethlehem, I've been there, and that site too has absolutely nothing to do with anything happening in Jerusalem, except for a desire to demonstrate violence on the part of Palestinians. To tie that into another example, when Israel pulled its citizens out of Gaza more than a year and a half ago, the Palestinians, whom were formerly screaming and shouting and killing Israeli's in order to make them leave, screamed and shouted and killed more Israeli's for them to come back! I commented on that in my previous blogs about the Gaza pullout. Why did they change their mind so quickly? Because the Palestinian national identity, which is really just a euphemism for an Arabist war tactic, realizes that Israeli cooperation with Palestinian demands means that the Palestinian "government" can make no more demands. With that realization, Palestinian attacks actually escalated in order for Israel to call off the pullout, come back to reign control over them, and then to be forced into negotiations where it could be suckered into giving back even more land. In Gaza, just like at Rachel's Tomb, legal Israeli land (a bit different from Gaza, which is considered to be "occupied"), the rock-hurdling has the intent of driving Jews away. The overall goal is, wherever Palestinians are successful in driving Jews out of, that place receives a status of "contested" and then opens up to "negotiations." Please note, Bethlehem has nothing to do with Jerusalem, it's basically an arbitrary site for Palestinians to attack, other than a strategic intifada tactic, i.e., "desperate man's invasion."

"'We have a full programme of protests for the coming weeks in order to stop the Israeli crimes against the Al-Aqsa mosque,' said the head of the Islamic movement in Israel, Sheikh Raed Salah, on Saturday."

Excuse me, how exactly is Israel's repair a crime on Al-Aqsa mosque?

"The prospect of further unrest loomed, with Muslim leaders warning that work near the site which Jews call the Temple Mount and is known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary could trigger a third intifada, or uprising."

It's not called the Temple Mount, it is the Temple Mount. It was the Temple Mount at least 700 hundred years before that mosque was erected. Doesn't anybody care about history?

The second paragraph said that it angered Muslims across the world! The truth is being exposed, it is Muslims, not Arabs, who feel effected by this - this is a religious conflict, not an Arab one, and it is sad that the majority of the world's Muslims feel obligated (and pressured) to support the "Palestinian cause" as if it were synonymous with the religion of Islam itself! For Heaven's sake, there are Orthodox Jews who oppose actions of the State of Israel, and a fringe group that rejects the existence of the State itself! Yet non-Arab Muslims feel it their duty to support "Palestine," an historically false entity. And of course, it's unacceptable for world Jewry to support Israel.

The only people who should be protesting are Israeli, and anyone who hates injustice.

I live twenty minutes away by bus from the site about which they are talking.

2007-02-07T15:43:00.000-08:00

Zionism is the Main Cause of Anti-Semitism Throughout the World?

This picture appeared on the page of an intelligent, humorous, insightful, and compassionate individual on MySpace. -

If Zionism truly is the main cause of anti-Semitism throughout the world, why did it exist before Zionism?

The Pharaoh's hatred of the spiritual was easily manifested in the hatred of the Jews; they stood for understanding the depth of a person vs. the Egyptian understanding of the exaltation of the body, and so he tried to destroy them, all the Torah sources explain this. Did the Pharaoh hate them because they were Zionists or because of what they stood for? So my main question is, if Zionism truly is the main cause of anti-Semitism in the world, why did anti-Semitism exist before Zionism? What caused people who hated Jews to hate them before the State of Israel existed? And an even juicier question if you can connect the dots, why are there people who hate Jews after the State of Israel came to being? What's the only constant in this historical equation?

Phew! Now that I know that Zionism is really the cause for anti-Semitism in the world I can rest my conscious.

We also should wonder, is Zionism also the reason why the "Arabized" Janjaweed hate the African Sudanese? Or is it the reason why the Chinese oppressed the monks of Tibet? Is it why the early Americans basically killed off the Native Americans? Is it the reason why the Palestinians hate the Israeli's? Zionism is a form of nationalism; were the aforementioned groups driven to hatred due to nationalistic movements, or was there another reason that they hated those groups? Is Zionism the reason anti-Semites hate Jews, or perhaps is there another reason?

Think about it.

2007-02-04T13:59:00.000-08:00

From African Royalty to Judaism -

“The café owner has been eavesdropping. Now he interrupts us. He wears a baseball cap with the letters USA, but his London accent gives him away. ‘I am a convert also,’ he says, ‘and we converts see things so much clearer than you confused Jews from birth. Perhaps there should be a special prayer in the morning where we thank God for having made us gentiles who had to convert .’”

*You can find the rest of the recording at www.youtube.com under the keywords "Rabbi Natan Gamedze," or "From African Royalty to Judaism." Enjoy!

2007-01-29T12:30:00.000-08:00

Three Human Beings and One Suicide Bomber in Eilat Dead -

So I have an idea of how to settle this. What do you with a population in which there is a population who has turned death into victory and the rest of the population treats their death as victory as well? The answer is this; the murderers will never stop until they have a reason to stop, and they won't have a reason to stop until Palestinian society has a vested interest in stopping. Since the dead are seen as victors, it is the living that must feel the pressure and perhaps then they will put pressure on the terrorists to stop, because nothing else seems to work. So the idea is like this; for every suicide bomber, a few innocent families are expelled from either the home town of the bomber or somewhere where there is known terrorist activity. However, from a practical perspective it is probably impossible to expel only a few families (remember the Gaza Pullout - it would have been impossible there too to pull out only a few families), so a whole village or town would have to be expelled, and again, it's not impossible if we remember how it was done with the Jews in Gaza. The murderers target innocent Israeli civilian populations, so Israel has to target innocent civilian Palestinian populations; the key is that innocent Palestinians having absolutely nothing to do with terrorism feel the pressure, and then they will begin to agitate against the terrorists. This is what happened in Lebanon when Israel started bombing them; the innocents started resisting against Hezball-ah, and they stopped bombing Israel.

We dare not commit the double standard of saying that Palestinian lives are more valuable than Israeli lives; it is not right for one to do whatever it wants to the other while the other cannot defend itself. שלום Peace

2007-01-28T16:28:00.000-08:00

Palestine; Islamic Never-Never Land -

"Palestine" has become idealized and fantasized in Muslim thought. However, this illusion is as thin as the veils that Muslim women wear in front of their eyes. Muhammad never spoke of an entity called "Palestine" and he never referred specifically to it, as something important to Islam.

(The first picture in this profile is an example. Quaint and beautiful, I must admit, but deceiving nonetheless.)

Actually, Jerusalem or the Land of Israel having any practical importance to the religion of Islam was not an opinion shared by Muhammad. After he died, indecision on who should be his heir arose in the Muslim world. His family (and their supporters) sought for it to say within the family, while other Muslims did not believe that rule should be dynastic and relegated to Muhammad's family. The Umayyad Dynasty based in Syria was one of several Muslim dynasties, and its leader, Umar, sought to collect power for his dynasty. The Muslms that supported Muhammad's family later became known as "Shi'a" Muslims, and those who believed that anyone could be the heir later became known as "Sunni."

During Muhammad's lifetime, he specifically stated the belief that the Prophet and Patriarch Abraham travelled to Mecca to sacrifice Ishmael, and also stated that the Torah's record of Abraham wanting to sacrifice Isaac was a Jewish fabrication. Since the sacrifice of Isaac, according to the Torah, was to take place in Jerusalem, Muhammad was entirely against the idea that Jerusalem have any importance in Islam, lest it become 'Judaized." Therefore, Mecca was the 1st important holy site and Medina was the 2nd.

Within Umar's Umayyad Dynasty was the city of Jerusalem, a holy site to Judaism and Christianity, and so he reasoned that he had to have a political project in order to gain power in that area of land. His idea was to "Islamicize" Jerusalem, i.e., to introduce its significance into the narrative of Islam. He took the verse from the Qur'an referring to Muhammad's Night Journey, which most likely up until that point referred to two separate mosques in Mecca and Medina, and applied it to the site of the (destroyed) Temple in Jerusalem. The verse refers to "the farthest mosque," in Arabic "al masjid al aqsa," and so he built a mosque in Jerusalem and named it "Al Masjid Al Aqsa," "the farthest mosque." There most likely was an outcry in the community of those Muslims who supported Muhammad's family's rule, but all was said and done after Muhammad had died and he was not there to resist the changes that Umar introduced into Islam. Eventually, the entirety of the Muslim world accepted the changes, even the Shi'as, who were loyal to Muhammad and his ideas and supported the next in leadership coming from his line. The Shi'a acceptance of Jerusalem's significance in Islam was to accept Umar's interpretation of the Qur'an, which involved a re-reading and alteration of the events of Muhammad's life.

It is important to understand that the relationship between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims was not in the least cordial after the dispute of leadership had arisen, and even today, despite the agreement on the significance of Jerusalem in Islam, there are certain lasting polemics between Sunni's and Shi'as. A book written in 1997 by Wilferd Madelung, named "The Succession to Muhammad," ( Cambridge University Press) states, "In face of the fake Umayyad claim to legitimate sovereignty in Islam as God's Vicegerents on earth, and in view of Umayyad treachery, arbitrary and divisive government, and vindictive retribution, they came to appreciate his (Ali) honesty, his unbending devotion to the reign of Islam, his deep personal loyalties, his equal treatment of all his supporters, and his generosity in forgiving his defeated enemies." A historical overview of the Shi'a-Sunni split can be found here. This is relevant because despite lasting disputes, sometimes, as shown, polemical and occasionally violent, there was agreement between them on the place of Jerusalem in Islam. The Muslim polemics against Judaism and Jews had the capability of overshadowing Muslim polemics against each other. The presence of an external religious enemy allowed Muslims to lay to rest disputes regarding Jerusalem's place in Islam, a gigantic issue, while other issues, arguably less dramatic in nature, remained alive. Further, the very fact that Shi'as believe Umar's change to be reflective of historical truth speaks only to the success of Umar's campaign and to nothing else. The fact is that by following him they neglect and deviate from the callings of the founder of Islam.

Nevertheless, Umar's changes had the psychological importance of attaching the verse to Jerusalem. Years later Umar built the golden-domed shrine to Muhammad on top of the Holy of Holies, the holiest section of the Temple. Its name, "the Dome of the Rock," refers to the rock on which Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac. Therefore, Jerusalem became the "third holiest site of Islam." Since then, Muslim interest in Jerusalem has spread to all of the Land of Israel, and the term "Palestine" is the latest manifestation of that wholly un-Islamic want for Israel. Muslim "love of Israel" is entirely un-Islamic, and "puritanical Muslims," those committed to the leadership of Muhammad and his founding of the religion of Islam, per the Mouth of All-ah, should at least be honest to his callings and not unknowingly loyal to the changes introduced by his opponent, Umar. The Sunni's too are living a lie by glorifying Jerusalem and the mosques there, which are buildings intended to be stumbling blocks to the Jews - there is no reason for those edifices other than politics, which Islam supposedly rejects.

Related Posts:

The Torah is not the Qur'an

G-d Always Chose the Younger Son

Will the Real Akediah Please Stand Up?

A Fire not Pleasing to All-h

G-d of Sameness

Jews and Muslims Clash

Ishmael/Ismail in the Bible and Qur'an



2007-01-27T14:33:00.000-08:00
Monotheism is the Height of Human Evolution                                                                                    -

The evolutionary argument is that development occurs from a simple state to a more complex state.  Not only that, but the inherent implication in the evolutionary argument is that when and if a species survives, its survival is due to its development of one or another beneficial characteristic.  The point of this post is not to talk about whether evolution occurred or not, although the scientific record matches quite well with the Torah's, but rather to show how the peak of evolution is exemplified with monotheism.

A quick summary: G-d creates existence, the universe, Earth, life on Earth, and then Man.  With Man He creates the ability to perceive Him. After Adam and Eve eat of the fruit, they no longer understand things to be "true" or "false" but rather "right" and "wrong," -- value judgments, and subjectivity becomes the prime directive of humanity's paradigm.  This leads to humanity's creation and invention of all types of ideologies, which first manifested themselves as variant forms of polytheism, i.e., subjective forms of the Man-G-d relationship.  Hundreds of years passed after the abatement of the flood before Abraham was successfully able to "re-piece" G-d's Existence together for the world.  Abraham's true understanding of G-d, which culminated in a revelation, ended an era of unchallenged polytheism; it marked the end of a repeating cyclical process and the beginning of a generally ascending cycle.  Therefore, once Man was really Man, which the Torah defines as a being with a soul (us), he ceased to go through physical evolutions and began to go through mental, intellectual, moral, and spiritual evolutions.  Monotheism was the evolutionary peak of mental, intellectual, moral, and spiritual evolution - there was none higher and all were lower.  As is, the "class GPA" of the world would rise due to this merited revelation; it would bring up the consciousness of the rest humanity.

Post-monotheism; Atheism 

Can we not say that atheism is the logical conclusion of monotheism?  If the process of one replacing many was a revelation of truth, can we not say that the process of none replacing one is a further development of truth?  No, we cannot.   The reason being is that atheism does not afford humanity something more than monotheism.  Monotheism rejected the polytheisms of the day in favor of a theistic understanding that a unified reality, with the One G-d, was the only true one; this was synonymous with absolute morality.  The polytheists also had somewhat developed systems of values, ethics, and morals, but they waiver in relation to their instable and changing gods.  G-d is Stable and the system of values, ethics, and morality instructed by Him is unchanging.  Atheism's system of values, ethics, and morals is non-existent, as is their god.  The subjective idea of atheism is a world void of implicit and inherent truths and morals; rather, in that world, one must extract truth and morality from the surrounding culture, a compass incapable of such a task.  Culture has no interest in truth, and therefore cannot define falsehood, and so convenience and inconvenience replace these items respectively.  It is not a violation of any inherent truth of human value to murder people, rather it should not be done because it is invconvenient to live in a society where people are free to end the lives of others.   A society so morally irresolute must resort to replacing "falsehood" with the word "incovenient."   There are several people in society who are prepared to tolerate the inconvenience of killing people if that's all it really is.  As society becomes more silent, the murderers (rapists, cheaters, corrupters, etc...) become more emboldened.  As the void becomes larger, the behaviors that potentially fill it become more variant.  What we see is, through atheism, a return to a polytheistic-like world.  The only difference is that the murderers murder to please themselves, not the gods.

There is an even more striking similarity; in an atheistic world, the obsession with the gods is still current- it seems that the void of morality, ethics, and values has not filled the void of the human need for the spiritual, and so many, if not all, types of spirituality are in demand.  For example: wicca, the simplistic and superficial revival of ancient polytheistic religions, mystical trinkets such as tarot cards, shopping aisle astrology, and pseudo-psychological dream books, and of course new age spirituality.

The difference however is that the polytheists actually believed in these things and to a degree developed and organized them; today's "pop polytheism" is entirely external and superficial, not able to touch on the core of the way polytheists actually viewed the world 3,000 years ago and more.  As a result, godless ideologies, religions actually, have developed, many of them humanitarian and social in essence.  Valiant and noble causes, such as saving the environment, eradicating war, toppling injustice, and bringing and end to sexual oppression, start where religion ends.  The people involved in these activities are fully engaged and embracing of the ideology of whatever group they have joined to the point where it ignites the spirituality within them and they become full of motivation and elation; the result is a strange and diluted form of worship.  The imprint of religion is apparent even in these in that a few people, usually leaders, are seen as patriarchs or matriarchs of the movement and the rest of the people are disciples.  The cause becomes universal in scope and the person is ready to dedicate the whole of his being to it.  The cause or the objective goal of grandeur itself becomes the god, the object of devotion.  However, no such god really exists, no command other than some loosely-composed internal drive to make something in the world better or perhaps to leave behind a vestige of immorality, completely fueled by self-initiation, and devotion fails as quickly as the whim flails.

But atheism facilitates the emergence of real evil.  At any moment that the void is so large that anything can fit inside, with so many unchallenged acts of immorality, that any given act of "super destruction" can occur, and the previously immoral relativists, now suddenly awake to the possibility that evil exists, challenge it.  However, one cannot develop an internal and composite perspective on morality overnight, and those who challenge it too are the products of years, if not decades or generations, of loosened moral fiber.  Therefore, their judgment has become skewed by years of exposure to the irresoluteness of their culture and they, like most people, even those opposite to them, have lost the right to be the champions or torch-bearers of any ethical or moral mantle.  Further, why should any maniac heed the moral urgings of the populace when they previously consumed immorality like voracious wolves?  Will they now be hypocritical?  If they believe in nothing, then they have not the right, but the ability, to say nothing. In the end, only the monotheists have room to speak and only they have the power to resist anything, for it was they who warned against evil when the stakes were still low.  It is better to listen to the war drums before they become soaked in blood.           
          



2007-01-24T15:11:00.000-08:00
Noachides Spreading the Word (of G-d)                                                                                                                     -
 Isaiah's Suffering Servant
Amazing!



2007-01-23T14:55:00.000-08:00
Philosophy of Atheism                                                                                                                                                                -
  As a disclaimer, different people call themselves atheists for a variety of reasons.  However, I am only focusing on one; the philosophical factor.   
  One can ask, "How can there be a philosophical factor to a paradigm that states overarching randomness of the universe?"  There is indeed a very philosophical way to understand life and existence through the lens that everything, including human life, occurred through randomness; the main premise here is freedom to choose, but the real core of the premise is the freedom to choose anything.  Atheism is a kind of liberation theology, from theism.  If theism can be shown to establish fixed and absolute morals, then atheism is liberation from the establishment of fixed and absolute morals.   
  But there is an underlying logic to atheism, one which I reject, but yet which I feel at least holds some sort of intellectual spark.  To understand it we can first divert our attention to monotheism, i.e., not one of the few forms of religion in which one god was selected out of a pantheon, but the true form of monotheism, where only one Divinity was understood as existing.  When that form of monotheism (Judaism) came about, the polytheists likely considered it to be a radical, strange, and extreme form of belief, for what kind of strange Deity, Whom resides over everything, possibly exist?  Most people probably considered it borderline lunacy and/or heresy; each nation and peoples were committed to their national gods, yet monotheism claimed that those gods in fact did not exist and that only "their G-d" existed, and that He was the G-d of all the nations - sounds a bit chutzpadik (audacious) if you are a polytheist, don't you think?  Very loosely speaking, we can try to understand monotheism, in the eyes of polytheists, to be atheism, for it declares that those gods do not exist.  In light of that it can be said to be similar to contemporary atheism, which declares that G-d does not exist, and many "theists" are bothered by that declaration, sometimes acting on an urge to label atheists lunatics and heretics.   
  I once heard an atheist say, "I just believe in one less god than you."  This succintly sums up the way most atheists view atheism; just like monotheists rejected the gods and believed in One, atheists reject the One and believe in none - to them it is the same thing.  In other words, a mere reduction of gods until arriving at zero accurately explains to an atheist the formation of polytheism to monotheism to atheism.  Yet the pioneering spirit of monotheism, to atheists, is alive in atheism, for just like the monotheist was fighting against the illusions of polytheistic society, the atheist sees himself as fighting against the illusions of monotheistic society, which are primarily that G-d exists.  They do not see atheism as a sin, not just because there is no Higher Authority on morality, but because they see themselves doing humanity a favor by fighting against the belief in a Divine Creator.  To them, immorality, and even evil, is hinged upon belief in a Divine Creator.   
  I can understand the frustrating concerns of an atheist, in the case that I am speaking about the type who is concerned about humanity and truth (many so-called atheists are simply people lack the veracity to follow through on such inquisitive sojourns).  The reason I think there is a parallel is because a similar tendency exists in Judaism itself.  One can view monotheism as a type of machine designed with a built-in self-moderating mechanism; when the dial approaches one or another extreme, an alert is signaled and the components of the machine begin taking action returning the machine to a state of moderation.  When monotheism is working properly, people can see this normalization process occurring.  The type of atheists I mentioned, likely not home-grown on monotheism, are reacting in a very similar manner as is monotheism to the issues plaguing society; their desire is to calibrate society.  Further, the parallel is even stronger when we consider that atheists link the issues of the day as being inherent to theism similarly to the way monotheists linked the issues of the day with polytheism.  If  theism can be rejected, the issues of the world will disappear with it - this is what atheists hold to be true.   
  The only problem with atheism, in light of this desire to do to tikkun (repair), is that they have an incomplete circuit.  The purpose for the machine exists but there is no certified blueprint, and since this ingredient is missing, the moving parts of the machine do not know their role and cannot orchestrate themselves properly in order for the machine to actually do its job.  They have preserved the purpose and goal of humanity, a  (living) vestige of monotheism, but have rejected the blueprint and the responsibility that each piece has.  The result is that each piece performs an individual task.  The machine becomes nothing more than a clutter of sputtering pieces strewn about on a table, hopping and clanking and making noise, colliding with each other and completing nothing.  The desire of this "type" of atheism might be to locate and achieve peace, harmony, and order - a noble goal - but all it ends up doing is creating war, strife, and chaos.  The most ominous realization about this attempted machine is that its parts do not work in the way they were designed to work; they have grown and learned, and in doing so created new informational pathways, tweaking and changing the original blueprint.  They continue to grow and deviate from their blueprint.   



2007-01-22T04:33:00.000-08:00
Tragedy in Palestinian Society                                                                                                                                                -

* (This was a response to a ridiculous blog that was sent to me about a man's trip to the West Bank.  I will post it here with his permission, but for the meanwhile, here's my response.)

This is a great video about this topic, and it's full of great Middle Eastern music too, very dramatic.

Let me think about what I wanted to say.  Oh yes, how much could have the Arab countries in the Middle East done for the Palestinians to help remedy their undeniably "not fun" living conditions?  Much.  Rather than do that, however, they have chosen the path of "least resistance," which to the Palestinians translates as the path OF resistance.  In other words, we have a case of tragic and inhuman neglect, and not to mention mistreatment, that is true, but Arab governments are guilty of this sin and crime by omission.  Silence is agreement, I am sure you are familiar with this philosophy.  Not only are the Arab governments and civilian societies SILENT towards what is happening to the Palestinians, they have an active part in egging it on through countless propaganda campaigns.  Why, you ask?  Because the Palestinians are fighting the battle of the Arabs for them.  In a Middle East that is mostly Arab, the what we call "primitive" tribal desire to smite Israel, very unprogressive indeed, is a culturally accepted value.  We Westerners don't understand that until we've been there; did you by chance catch a glimpse or two of that phenomenon while you were on your vacation in Palestine-land?  This is how it works:  Arab governments who have not yet fully accepted Israel, full of terrorist groups, send financial and emotional support to Palestinian groups jihading against Israel.  The Palestinians then, less out of desperation and more out of sheer (perverted) ideology, carry out atrocities towards Jewish civilians, which they justify through, again, perverted Muslim religious ideals.  One can even make the case that they are being honest to the intent of the verses they use, but that is another topic.  In other words, the Palestinians serve as a weapon against Israel, yes, a group of people, an entire society created to fight off the existence of another society, with their own lives, by destroying other peoples' lives.  Were Palestinian society actually to become affluent, the entire impetus to carry out their ideological Crusading campaign would become fruitless; like Bob Marley says in "Slave Driver," Them belly full but we hungry, a hungry man is an angry man."  The Palestinians have been kept hungry for a specific reason, politics, and who have kept them hungry?  Other Arab socieites.  By far, Israel has done for to appease and satisfy them, physically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually, than any other government in the world.  The Arab idea of "helping" them is giving them the ability to fight Israel more; I have been told this by a few Arabs in my days.  The UNRWA also pumps money into Palestinian society, and again, it goes towards nothing good.  Palestinians have also confessed to me that they know that the Arabs don't care about them - this entire frantic homicidal religious campaign was engineered from 1964 onwards - the Palestinians, sadly, were a composite society made up of pieces of the Lebanese, Egyptian, and primarily Jordanian Palestinian society with the intent of imposing on Israel the pre-1948 status quo.


2007-01-21T14:15:00.000-08:00
The (Ir)Rational Response Squad - Opiate of the Asses                                                                                -

Come on, with a name like that, you'd be irrational to think that nobody would have played on this earlier.

The (Ir)Rational Response Squad is a group that got its start on Youtube, and its focus is to have people "deny the Holy Spirit," which according to Christian belief, lands you in Hell.  The point of this denial is to a) affirm the atheism of the testifier, and probably to interject themselves onto their fancified understanding of what Galileo and other "famous rejectors" have turned into by way of contemporary biases, and b) to show their belief that Christianity is false and that they have no fear of going to Hell.

A few criticisms by way of a rational believing monotheist Jew, if I may.  a) I am not above saying that the majority of the people who "testify" in their denial of the Holy Spirit probably have not taken the time out of their busy lives to sit and ponder about just what exactly it means to believe in G-d.  As it were, their philosophy on theism, to use the Rational Response Squad's key word, is probably painfully underdeveloped at least and embarrassingly humorous at worst.  b) There is a certain contemporary pop-culture chicness associated with atheism, but like other philosofads that pop up and down like plastic beavers at miniature golf course, those ideas bubble loudly and neutralize softly.  It reminds me of when I used to cook spaghetti in my pot on the oven; when the heat was turned on, the water would violently bubble and threaten to boil over the top, but when I would turn off the heat, the water would almost immediately lose its resolve and return to calmness.   "Pathetic display of power," I thought, for such a loud noise.  Perhaps those rebellious youth and well-seasoned anti-conformity elders have not taken into account that this particular wave in which they are surfing, which is more like a groove in the water, makes usage of the same mind-control for which they bash religion.  Who says that the chemical, disaffectionately coined by (the Jew) Marx as "the opiate of the masses," inside the body does not work on atheists and those irresolute?  Are they above biology and social human psychology?  Does their pituitary gland cease to function when they cease believing in the existence of a Creator?  The opiate is too of the asses.  From what I've seen by speaking with several atheists, some have good thought-out questions, but more often than not, many of them simply suffer from an inability to make lasting moral demands of themselves, demands that would require an unchanging commitment were their peers and general society to shift directions.  "Atheism" is and has been for a while now a philosophically-charged word for "confusion" and/or "agnosticism" and also perhaps "moral relativism," including the silver-haired intellectual elite on top of their mountain of colorful books.   Go, go!  Your disciples of mice are calling for you, you fat hungry cats.  You will eat seven fat mice and still be skinny.


2007-01-20T14:29:00.000-08:00
Polytheism or Ploytheism?                                                                                                                                                    -

Shavua tov and good week!

I just read an article from Yahoo about a group of Zeus-worshippers in Greece who want to revive the ancient Greek religion.  According to the article, many of them chose worshipping Zeus because they do not like the Greek-Orthodox Church.  Just talking about my own life here, but I always found that defining yourself by setting yourself in opposition to something never really worked that well.  In other words, worshipping Zeus because you don't like the Greek Orthodox Church is not a reason to worship Zeus; if you are going to worship it, do it because you believe in it, not because you want to "stick it" to the Greek Orthodox Church.

One thing I'll never understand about polytheism is how the "faithful" get around the belief of other polytheists whom believe in other gods.  Why exactly is Zeus the god of worship over Marduk (the chief Babylonian god) Rah, the head Egyptian god, or Buri, who in the Norse religion is the first god to exist?  Why are the particular traits of each of those first gods associated with the creator god?  Do not the individual traits of the gods, given that they differ from each other, not bother those who believe in them?  Further, each religion is composed up of belief in many gods; which system is true system, or does truth not fit into the equation?

Anyway, I thought I would include a list of here of some of the choices of worship you had were you a polytheist.  Here is a link to wikipedia list of probably most of the gods you could choose:
African
  Jeebo
Jengu
Mami Wata
Waaq
 
 [edit] Anglo-Saxon
 Eostre, goddess of spring
Fríge, counterpart to the Norse Frigg. Friday comes from her name.
Ingui Fréa, counterpart to the Norse Frey
Seaxnéat, the founder of the Saxon race
Thor, the same god as the Norse deity by the same name. Thursday comes from his name.
Tiw, counterpart to the Norse Tyr. Tuesday comes from the name of this god.
Wéland, counterpart to the Norse Volundr
Wóden, counterpart to the Norse Odin. Wednesday comes from the name of this god.
 
 [edit] Akan
 Brekyirihunuade
Kwaku Ananse
 
 [edit] Ashanti
 Anansi
Asase Ya
Bia
Nyame
 
 [edit] Australian Aboriginal
 Altjira
Anjea
Bagadjimbiri
Baiame
Bamapana
Banaitja
Bobbi-Bobbi
Bunjil
Daramulum
Dilga
Djanggawul
Eingana
Galeru
Gnowee
Julana
Julunggul
Karora
Kidili
Kunapipi
Mangar-kunjer-kunja
Numakulla
Pundjel
Ulanji
Walo
Wawalag
Wuriupranili
Yurlungur
 
 [edit] Ayyavazhi
 Ayya Vaikundar - Triune God (see: Ayyavazhi Trinity)
Sivan
Nathan
Thirumal
Arumukan
 
 [edit] Aztec
 (See the much longer list at Aztec mythology)
 Chalchiuhtlicue - goddess of lakes and streams
Cinteotl - god of maize
Coyolxauhqui - goddess of the moon
Ehecatl - the god of the wind
Huehueteotl - an ancient god of the hearth, the fire of life
Huitzilopochtli - god of the sun, fire, and war
Ilamatecuhtli- goddess of the earth, death, and the milky way.
Itztlacoliuhqui-Ixquimilli - god of hard stone
Mayahuel - goddess of maguey
Mictlantecuhtli - god of death
Ometeotl - god/goddess of heaven
Quetzalcoatl - god of the breath of life
Tepeyollotl - god of earthquakes
Tezcatlipoca - god of discord
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli - god of dawn
Tlaloc - god of rain and lightning
Toci - goddess of earth
Tonacatecuhtli - god of food
Xipe Totec - god of spring
Xochipilli - flower god
Xochiquetzal - love goddess
 
 [edit] Bahá'í
 God, who has manifested himself in many prophets, such as: Abraham
The Báb
Bahá'u'lláh
Buddha
Jesus
Krishna
Moses
Muhammad
Zoroaster
 
 
 [edit] Baltic
 Bangputtis
Diwas / Dievas
Kurche
Laima
Melletele
Potrimpos
 
 [edit] Celtic
 (See the much more complete lists at Celtic mythology and Celtic polytheism.}
 Abellio - god of apple trees
Agrona - a British goddess of strife and war
Alaunus/Fin - god of the sun, healing, and prophecy
Ambisagrus - god of thunder and lightning
Ancamna - a Gallo-Roman water goddess
Andarta - a Gallic warrior goddess
Anextiomarus - a British equivalent of Apollo
Artio - goddess of the bear
Aveta - goddess of female-fertility, childbirth and midwives, also associated with all fresh water.
Belatu-Cadros - a British war god
Belenus - "Shining One", associated with fire and healing
Belisama - goddess connected with lakes and rivers, fire, crafts and light, consort of Belenus
Borvo - deity was associated with mineral springs, hot springs and healing
Brigit
Brigantia
Camma - hunting goddess
Camulus - god of war
Cernunos - horned nature god associated with produce and fertility
Cissonius - equivalent of mercury, probably a god of trade and protector of travellers
Cocidus - god of war, hunting, forests, groves and wild fields
Condatis - associated with rivers and healing
Coventina - goddess of wells and springs
Dagda - supreme god of Irish mythology
Damara - British fertility goddess
Danu - a mother goddess
Epona - goddess of horses, donkeys and mules
Esus
Fagus - god of beech trees
Glanis - a Gallic healing god
Grannus - god of the sun, healing and mineral springs
Gwydion
Loucetios - a war and thunder god
Lugh
Lyr
Manannan mac Lir
Maponos - god of youth
Morrigan - war goddess
Nantosuelta - goddess of fire and fertility
Nemain - war goddess
Nemetona - goddess of temples and sacred groves
Nuadha
Ogma - god of scholars, education, writing and eloquence
Rhiannon - Goddess of the moon
Robur - god of oak trees
Rosmerta - goddess of fertility and abundance
Rudianos - Gallic war god
Segomo - Gallic war god
Sirona - healing deity, associated with healing springs
Smertios - Gallic war god
Sucellus - Gallic god of agriculture, forests, and alcoholic drinks
Sulis - deification of spring water
Tamesis - goddess of water
Taranis - god of thunder
Toutatis
 
 [edit] Chinese Malaysian
 List of Malaysian Chinese Gods:
 Na Tuk Kong / Na Tok Kong (Chinese: 拿督公)
Celestial God Tnee Kong (Chinese : 天公)
Earth God Teh Choo Kong, Tu Di Gong (Chinese: 土地公)
Tua Pek Kong (Chinese: 大伯公)
God of Prosperity Choy Sun Yeh / God of Fortune (Chinese: 财神)
Kwan God Kwan Kong (Chinese: 關公)
Kwan Yin Ma originated from Sanskrit Avalokiteśvara (Chinese: 觀世音), commonly known as the Goddess of Mercy.
Matsu (goddess) (Chinese: 媽祖) is the Taoist Goddess of the Sea who protects fishermen and sailors.
Di Zhu God (Chinese: 地主神) Lord of the Land Used.
Gao Yao Chinese god of justice and judgement.
 
 [edit] Christian
 The Trinity (The Triune God) God the Father (Yahweh)
God the Son (Jesus, Logos)
God the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God)
 
 
 [edit] Dacian
 Bendis
Gebeleizis
Zamolxis
 
 [edit] Dahomey
 Agé
Ayaba
Da
Gbadu
Gleti
Gu
Lisa
Loko
Mawu
Nana Buluku
Sakpata
Sogbo
Xevioso
Zinsi
Zinsu
 
 [edit] Discordian
 Eris
 
 [edit] Efik
 Abassi
Atai
 
 [edit] Egyptian (Pharaonic)
 Amun - creator deity
Anubis - divine embalmer and tomb-caretaker who watches over the dead
Apep - Serpent of the Underworld, enemy of Ra
The Aten - the embodiment of the Sun's rays in a brief, monotheistic interlude
Atum - a creator deity, and the setting sun
Bast, protector of the pharaoh, cat-bodied or cat-headed
Bes - dwarfed semigod associated with protection of the household, particularly childbirth, and entertainment
The four sons of Horus
Geb - god of the Earth and first ruler of Egypt
Hapy - god embodied by the Nile, and who represents life and fertility
Hathor - Goddess of Love and Music
Heget Goddess of Childbirth
Horus the falcon-headed god, God of Pharaohs and Upper Egypt
Imhotep God of wisdom, medicine and magic
Isis - Goddess of Magic, sister of Nephthys
Khepry - the scarab beetle, the embodiment of the dawn
Khnum - a creator deity, god of the innundation
Maahes - god of war
Ma'at - personified concept of truth, balance, justice, and order
Menhit - Goddess of war
Mont - god of war
Naunet - the primal waters
Neith - goddess of war, then great mother goddess
Nephthys - mother of Anubis
Nut - goddess of heaven and the sky
Osiris - god of the underworld, fertility and agricultural, possible father of Anubis
Ptah - a creator deity, also god of crafts, possibly Men-Nefer (Memphis)
Ra - the sun, possible father of Anubis, also a creator deity
Sekhmet - goddess of destruction, particularly against demons of sickness
Sobek - Crocodile God
Set - god of storms, possible father of Anubis; later became god of evil, desert, also Lower Egypt
Shu - embodiment of wind or air
Taweret - goddess of pregnant women and protector at childbirth
Tefnut - embodiment of rain, dew, clouds, and water-weather
Thoth - god of the moon, drawing, writing, geometry, wisdom, medicine, music, astronomy, and magic
Wepwawet
 
 [edit] Estonian
 Peko - god of fertility, crops and brewing
Pikne (lightning) - god of thunder
Tharapita - god of war
Vanemuine (the ancient one) - god of music (possibly a spurious later development)
 
 [edit] Etruscan
 Alpan - a goddess of love (but usually identified with Persephone, not Aphrodite)
Aplu - equated with Apollo
Menrva - equivalent to the Greek Athene
Nethuns - derived from Greek Poseidon
Tinia - equivalent to Zeus
Turan - the goddess usually identified with Aphrodite
Uni - equivalent of Hera
Voltumna - god of the Etruscan race, equivalent to the Roman Volturnus
 
 [edit] Finnish
 There are very few written documents about old Finnish religions; also the names of deities and practices of worship changed from place to place. The following is a summary of the most important and most widely worshipped deities.
 Ahti (or Ahto) - god of streams, lakes and sea
Jumala - a physical idol (the name was later used for the Christian god)
Loviatar - One of Tuoni's daughters. Goddess of pain.
Mielikki - Tapio's wife
Otso - son of a god, king of the forest, whose carnal form is the bear
Pekko (or Peko) - god or goddess (the actual gender is obscure) of fields and agriculture
Perkele - the devil (originally a Lithuanian deity, adopted into Finnish tradition at a late date)
Rauni - Ukko's wife, goddess of fertility
Tapio - god of forest and wild animals
Tuonetar - The wife of Tuoni
Tuoni - god of the underworld
Ukko - god of heaven and thunder
 
 [edit] Ancient Greek
   Topics in Greek mythology  
   Gods
 Primordial gods and Titans
Zeus and the Olympians
Pan and the nymphs
Apollo and Dionysus
Sea-gods and Earth-gods
  
   Heroes
 Heracles and his Labors
Achilles and the Trojan War
Odysseus and the Odyssey
Jason and the Argonauts
Perseus and the Gorgon
Oedipus and Thebes
Theseus and the Minotaur
Triptolemus and the
Eleusinian Mysteries
  
   Related
 Satyrs, centaurs and dragons
Ancient Greek religion
  
 
 Aphrodite - goddess of love and beauty, one of the twelve Olympians
Apollo - god of poetry, music, the sun, and prophecy, and an Olympian
Ares - god of violent war, an Olympian
Artemis - goddess of the hunt, virginity, and childbirth, twin sister of Apollo, and an Olympian, often associated with the moon
Athena - goddess of wisdom, defensive and strategic war, guardian-goddess of Athens, an Olympian
Chaos - non-gendered primordial entity from which Gaia was created
Cronus - leader of first generation of Titans, also a harvest deity
Demeter - goddess of the harvest and of grain, mother of Persephone, an Olympian
Dionysus - god of wine and sensual pleasures, took Hestia's place as an Olympian
Eos - goddess of the dawn
Eris - goddess of discord
Eros - god of love
Gaia - primordial goddess of earth, mother and grandmother of the first generation of Titans
Hades - god of the underworld and material riches, brother of Zeus
Hebe - wife of Heracles and goddess of youth
Hekate - goddess of witchcraft, crossroads, and the harvest moon
Hephaestus - god of smiths, an Olympian
Hera - Queen of the Gods and Heaven, goddess of marriage, an Olympian
Heracles - porter of Olympus, patron god of gymnasia and wrestling rings, god of strength
Hermes - messenger of the gods and transporter of souls to the Underworld, an Olympian
Hestia - goddess of the hearth, gave up seat at Olympus to Dionysus
Hypnos - god of sleep
Pan - god of shepherds and forests
Persephone - daughter of Demeter, queen of the dead, also a grain-goddess
Poseidon - god of the sea and earthquakes, an Olympian
Selene - goddess of the moon
Thanatos - god of death
Ouranos - sky god and ancestor of many of the other gods
Zeus - King of the Gods and god of the sky, air, and storms
 See also: Demigods, the Dryads, the Fates, the Erinyes, the Graces, the Horae, the Muses, the Nymphs, the Pleiades, and the Titans.
 
 [edit] Gnostic
 Aeons
Archons
Christ
Sophia
Yaldabaoth, Yao, Saklas, Samael, the Demiurge
 
 [edit] Guarani
 Abaangui
Jurupari
Tupa
 
 [edit] Hindu
 Brahman, the one and only (formless) supreme aspect of God. The Universe in Potential Static Energy.
Adi - Shakti, the Female aspect of the Supreme Divine in Kinetic Dynamic Form.
 The Three Maha Shaktis (Super Powers) of the Universe or the Super Goddesses In Hinduism. MahaSaraswati (Great Saraswati) - Universal Force of Creation
MahaLakshmi (Great Lakshmi) - Universal Force of Preservation
MahaKali (Great Kali) - Universal Force of Dissolution
 
 The Hindu Trinity: Brahmâ, the creator
Vishnu, the sustainer
Shiva, the destroyer
 
 The Hindu Tridevi - Triple Goddess, the consorts of the Trinity Saraswati - Hindu Goddess of Knowledge and Wisdom, Wife of Brahma
Lakshmi - Hindu Goddess of Wealth and Fertility, Wife of Vishnu
Parvati - Hindu Goddess of Power and Might, Wife of Shiva
 
 Vishnu Avatars (Incarnations) of Vishnu Matsya Avatar - Fish Incarnation
Kurma Avatar - Tortoise Incarnation
Varah Avatar - Boar Incarnation
Vaman Avatar - Dwarf Incarnation
Narasimha Avatar - Man-Lion Incarnation
Rama Avatar - Incarnation as the Epic King in Ramayana
Krishna Avatar - Incarnation as the Epic Prince in Maha Bharata
Buddha Avatar - Incarnation as Gautama Buddha, Founder of Buddhism
Kalki Avatar - The Avatar yet to come on the onset of Apocalypse
 
 
  Other Deties Associated with Vishnu Garuda- The Eagle Headed Deity who is the vehicle of Vishnu
Ananta or Shesha- The Infinite Serpent which is the Bed of Vishnu
Narada- The Divine Messenger of the Gods
Hanuman - Personified as a Monkey Headed Deity, God of Service and Devotion
Dattatreya - Shown with Three Heads, representing the Oneness with Brahma, Vishnu and Siva (Shiva) - He is Guru and God, worshipped by all sects
Hayagriva - He is shown with the head of a horse and is worshipped as the repository of all wisdom and knowledge
 
 
 Shiva The Manifestations of Shiva Nataraja - The Lord of Dance
Dakshinamurti - The Lord of the South - The Preceptor and Guru
Mahadeva - The Great God
Ardhanarishwar - The Androgynous God (Half Man and Half Woman)
 
 
  Other Deties Assocciated with Shiva Ganesh - Oldest Son of Shiva and the God of Prosperity, shown with an elephant head
Kartik or Skanda - The Second Son of Shiva, The God of War, Youth and Purity
Veer Bhadra - The Deity who Guards the Abode of Shiva
Nandi - The Bull which is the vehicle of Shiva
Ayyappa - Also called Manikantha, Sasta - son of Siva and Mohini, the feminine form of Vishnu
 
 
Lakshmi The Eight Forms of Lakshmi Adi-Lakshmi
Vijay-Lakshmi
Vidya-Lakshmi
Dhana-Lakshmi
Dhanya-Lakshmi
Santan-Lakshmi
Dhairya-Lakshmi
 
 
  Other Goddesses Associated with Lakshmi
Shri Devi- The Goddess of Beauty
Prithvi or Bhudevi - The Goddess of Earth
Alakshmi or Jyeshta Devi - The Contra Goddess of Misfortune
 
 Parvati The Passive/Peaceful Manifestations of Parvati Sati- Goddess of Marriage and Wedlock
Shashti - Goddess of Marriage and Childbirth
Annapurna - Goddess of Food and Nourishment
Lalita - Goddess of Beauty
 
 
  The Warrior Manifestations of Parvati Kali - The Goddess of Time and Death The Ten Great Wisdom Manifestations of Kali Kali - The Goddess as Time
Tara - The Goddess as Space
Chinnamasta - The Goddess as The Cycle of Life and Death
Bhuvaneshvari - The Goddess as Perfection
Tripura Sundari - The Goddess as the Most beautiful
Bhairavi - The Goddess as the Most frightful
Bagalamukhi - The Crane headed Goddess as upholder of Universal Order
Dhumavati - The Widowed Goddess as Chaos and Misery
Matangi - The Goddess as Leftovers and Salvage
Kamala - The Goddess as Perfection
 
 
Durga - The Goddess of Power and War The Nine Manifestations of Durga Shailaputri
Brahmacharini
Kushmanda
Skanda Mata
Katyani
Chandraghanta
Siddhi Dhatri
Maha Gauri
Kaal Ratri
 
 
Maya - The Goddess of Illusion and Mystery
 
 
 The Adityas Indra - god of weather and war
Mitra - god of honesty, friendship and contracts
Ravi, Surya - the Sun gods
Varuna - god of the oceans and rivers
Yama - god of death
 
 Some of the most important Devas:
 Agni - god of fire
The Asura - Demons, Anti gods
The Aswini - gods of sunrise and sunset
Dyaus-pitar - ('Heaven-father') cognate of the Roman god Jupiter
Ganesh - personified with the head of an elephant, god of wisdom, intelligence, education and prudence
Parjanya - god of wind
Parvati or Parvathi, wife of Shiva
Prithivi - the Earth goddess
Purusha - the Cosmic-Man
The Rudras - the storm deities
Soma - the lunar deity
Ushas - The goddess of sunrise
Vasus, the
Vayu - god of wind
The Visvedevas Ishvara - One who gives prosperity.
Hari - One who destroys sins (obstacles on the way to Moksha (liberation from the cycles of birth-death-birth)).
Narayana - The final destination towards which all individual souls are travelling.
 
 
 [edit] Igbo
 Aha Njoku
Ala
Chukwu
 
 [edit] Incan
 Apo - mountain god
Apocatquil - god of lightning
Chasca - goddess of dawn, twilight, and Venus
Coniraya - moon god
Ekkeko - god of hearth and wealth
Illapa - weather god
Inti/Punchau - sun god
Kon - god of rain and wind from the south
Mama Allpa - multi-breasted fertility goddess
Mama Cocha - goddess of sea and fish
Mama Pacha - dragoness fertility goddess
Mama Quilla - moon goddess
Mama Zara - goddess of grain
Manco Capac
Pacha Kamaq - creator god
Pariacaca - water god
Supay - god of death
Urcaguary - god of metal and jewels
Viracocha
Zaramama
 
 [edit] Islamic
 Allah (God)
 
 [edit] Isoko
 Cghene
 
 [edit] Jehovah's Witnesses
 Jehovah
 
 [edit] Judaic
 Adonai/Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh/El/Elohim/Shaddai/Shalom/Yah/YHWH/YHWH Tzevaot (God) ("YHWH" is often transliterated "Jehovah" or "Yahweh", but only by people outside of Jewish tradition: see the article Tetragrammaton for more details.)
 
 [edit] Khoikhoi
 Gamab
Heitsi-eibib
Tsui'goab
 
 [edit] Korean
 Dangun - the grandson of the god of heaven.
Hwanin - the grandson of Hwang-gung, one of the Four Men of Heaven and considered a direct ancestor of the Korean people.
 
 [edit] !Xũ
 Mantis
Prishiboro
 
 [edit] Lotuko
 Ajok
 
 [edit] Latvian
 Auseklis
Dēkla
Dievs - a god (the name was later used for the Christian god)
Jumis
Kārta
Laima
Māra
Pērkons
Saule
Ūsiņš
 
 [edit] Lugbara
 Adroa
Adroanzi
 
 [edit] Lusitani
 Ares Lusitani
Atégina
Bandonga
Bormanico
Cariocecus
Duberdicus
Endovelicus
Geleshus
Mars Cariocecus
Nabia
Nantosvelta
Runesocesius
Sucellus
Tongoenabiagus
Trebaruna
Turiacus
 
 [edit] Maya
 Ahaw Kin - Sun God
Bacabs - Gods of the 4 directions
Balac - War God
Balam - Protector God
Bolon tza cab - Ruling God of All
Chaac - Rain God
Hunah Ku - Creator God
Itzamna - Reptile Creator God
Ix Chel - Moon Goddess
Kukulcan - Feathered Serpent God
Xbalanque - God of the Jaguar
Xi Balba - God of the Death
Yum Kaax - Corn God
 
 [edit] Mesopotamian
   Fertile Crescent
myth series  
   
  
  Mesopotamian  
  Levantine  
  Arabian  
  Mesopotamia  
  Primordial beings  
  7 gods who decree  
  Demigods & heroes  
  Spirits & monsters  
  Tales from Babylon  
  The Great Gods  
   Adad · Ashnan
Asaruludu · Enbilulu
Enkimdu · Ereshkigal
Inanna · Lahar
Nanshe · Nergal
Nidaba · Ningal
Ninisinna · Ninkasi
Ninlil · Ninurta
Nusku · Uttu
Annunaki
  
 
 Anshar - father of heaven
Anu - the god of the highest heaven
Apsu - the ruler of gods and underworld oceans
Ashur - national god of the Assyrians, thought by the Assyrians to be king of the gods
Damkina - Earth mother goddess
Ea - god of wisdom
Enlil - god of weather and storms
Ereshkigal - Goddes of Darkness, Death, and Gloom
Hadad - weather god
Ishtar - goddess of love and one of the highest-ranking deities in Mesopotamian myth
Kingu - husband of Tiamat
Kishar - father of the earth
Marduk - national god of the Babylonians, later thought to be king of the gods
Mummu - god of mists
Nabu - god of the scribal arts
Nintu - mother of all gods
Ninurta - god of war
Nergal - god of war, disease, death and destruction; ruler of the underworld
Shamash - god of the sun and of justice (Shapash in Ugaritic, Shamsa in Sumerian)
Sin - moon god
Tiamat - dragon goddess slain by Marduk
 
 [edit] Mormonism
 The Trinity Heavenly Father
Jesus Christ
The Holy Spirit
 
 
 [edit] Native American
 
 [edit] Abenaki
 Azeban - trickster
Bmola - bird spirit
Gluskab - kind protector of humanity
Malsumis - cruel, evil god
Tabaldak - the creator
 
 [edit] Haida
 Gyhldeptis
Lagua
Nankil'slas
Sin
Ta'axet
Tia
 
 [edit] Ho-Chunk
 Kokopelli
 
 [edit] Hopi
 Aholi
Angwusnasomtaka
Kokopelli
Koyangwuti
Muyingwa
Taiowa
 See also: kachina.
 
 [edit] Huron
 Airesekui
Heng
Iosheka
 
 [edit] Inuit
 Igaluk - lunar deity
Nanook - master of bears
Nerrivik - sea mother and food provider
Pinga - goddess of the hunt, fertility, and medicine
Sedna - sea goddess, ruler of the underworld
Torngasoak - sky god
 
 [edit] Iroquois
 Adekagagwaa
Gaol
Gendenwitha
Gohone
Hahgwehdaetgan
Hahgwehdiyu
Onatha
 
 [edit] Kwakiutl
 Kewkwaxa'we
 
 [edit] Lakota
 Canopus
Haokah
Whope
Wi
 
 [edit] Navajo
 Ahsonnutli
Bikeh Hozho
Estanatelhi
Glispa
Hasteoltoi
Hastshehogan
Tonenili
Tsohanoai
Yolkai Estasan
 
 [edit] Pawnee
 Pah
Shakuru
Tirawa
 
 [edit] Salish
 Amotken
 
 [edit] Seneca
 Eagentci
Hagones
Hawenniyo
Kaakwha
 
 [edit] Norse
 Balder - god of beauty and light, slain by the trickery of Loki
Bragi - god of bardic poetry
Freyja - goddess of fertility
Freyr - the brother of Freyja and a fertility god
Frigg - goddess of marriage, household management, and love, Queen of Heaven, and wife of Odin
Heimdall - god of the rainbow, a bridge to heaven. His job is to blow his horn if danger approaches.
Hel - daughter of Loki and the giantess Angrboda, Queen of the Dead
Hodur - brother of Balder and tricked by Loki to kill him
Idunn - guardianess of the Apples of Youth that kept the gods young
Loki - trickster-god, giant, blood-brother of Odin, will eventually lead the forces of evil against the gods in Ragnarok
Niord - god of sailors and fertile seaside land
Odin - king of the gods, god of wisdom and runes
Sif - the wife of Thor
Thor - god of war and storms, famous for his hammer, Mjolnir
Tyr - god of war and glory
 
 [edit] Pastafarian
 Flying Spaghetti Monster
 
 [edit] Persian
 See the article: Persian deities
 
 [edit] Philippine
 Amanikable - God of the sea.
Amihan - North Wind.
Anitan - Guardian of lightning.
Anitun Tabu - Goddess of wind and rain.
Apolake - God of war, guardian of the sun.
Bakonawa - Lizard god, ruler of the underworld.
Bathala - Supreme god of the ancient Tagalogs.
Dian Masalanta - Goddess of love.
Hukluban - Goddess of death.
Idianale - Goddess of agriculture and husbandry.
Ikapati - Goddess of fields, fertility, and lands.
Kalinga - God of Thunder.
Kan-Laon - Ancient Visayan god, king of time.
Lalahon - Goddess of fire, volcanoes, and harvest.
Manggagaway - Goddess of sickness.
Mangkukulam - God of fire.
Manisilat - God of broken homes.
Maria Makiling - Protector of Mt. Makiling.
Mayari/Bulan - Lunar goddess.
Sitan - God of afterlife and the underworld.
Tala - Goddess of the stars.
Malakas - God of strength
 
 [edit] Polynesian
 
 [edit] Hawai'ian
 Atea
Ina
Kane Milohai
Lono
Maui
Papa
Pele
 See also: Menehune.
 
 [edit] Māori
 Haumia-tiketike - deity of uncultivated food, especially fern root
Hine-nui-te-pō - deity of death
Hine Tītama - deity of the dawn
Hine Raumati - deity of the summer
Papa-tū-ā-nuku - deity of the earth
Rā - deity of the sun
Ranginui - deity of the sky
Rongo - deity of cultivated food
Ruaumoko - deity of earthquakes
Tāne Māhuta - deity of the forest and its creatures, man
Tangaroa - deity of the sea and its creatures
Tāwhiri-matea - deity of the weather, especially storms
Tū Matauenga - deity of war
Uenuku - deity of rainbows
 
 [edit] Prussian
 Ukapirmas - the chief god, creator of the world
Perkūns / Perkuno - the god of thunder
Pikuls (Pickollo) - a god (in Christian times, he was vilified as the devil)
Kaūks - a deity
Swāikstiks / Suaixtix / Swaixtix - a deity
Dēiwas - a god (in Christian times, the name was applied to the Christian god)
 
 [edit] Pygmy
 Arebati
Khonvoum
Tore
 
 [edit] Roman
 (NB- this is very incomplete, as there are numerous personifications, etc. Greek equivalents, if there are any, will be on the page about the deity. Keep in mind that Flamens are high-ranking Roman priests, Flamen Majores being High Priests and Flamen Minores being Lesser Priests.)
 Acis - river god near the Etna, son of Faunus and the nymph Symaethis
Aesculapius - god of health and medicine
Apollo - god of the sun, poetry, music, and oracles, and an Olympian
Aurora - goddess of the dawn
Bacchus - god of wine and sensual pleasures, not considered an Olympian by the Romans
Bellona - war goddess
Caelus -god of the sky
Carmenta - goddess of childbirth and prophecy, and assigned a Flamen Minore
Ceres - goddess of the harvest and mother of Proserpina, and an Olympian, and assigned a Flamen Minore
Consus - chthonic god protecting grain storage
Cupid - god of love and son of Mars and Venus
Cybele - earth mother
Diana - goddess of the hunt, the moon, virginity, and childbirth, twin sister of Apollo and an Olympian
Discordia - goddess of discord
Faunus - god of flocks
Febris - goddess who prevented fever and malaria
Flora - goddess of flowers, and assigned a Flamen Minore
Fortuna -goddess of fortune
Hercules - god of strength
Hespera - goddess of dusk
Hora - Quirinus' wife
Janus - two-headed god of beginnings and endings and of doors
Juno - Queen of the Gods and goddess of matrimony, and an Olympian
Jupiter - King of the Gods and the storm, air, and sky god, and an Olympian, and assigned a Flamen Majore
Juturna- goddess of springs
Juventas - god of youth
Libitina - goddess of the underworld
Lucina - goddess of childbirth
Luna- moon goddess
Lupercus - god of shepherds
Mars - god of war and father of Romulus, the founder of Rome, and an Olympian, and assigned a Flamen Majore
Mercury - messenger of the gods and bearer of souls to the underworld, and an Olympian
Minerva - goddess of wisdom and war, and an Olympian
Morpheus - god of dreams
Nemesis - goddess of revenge
Neptune - god of the sea, earthquakes, and horses, and an Olympian
Orcus - a god of the underworld and punisher of broken oaths
Pluto - King of the Dead
Poena - goddess of punishment
Pomona - goddess of fruit trees, and assigned a Flamen Minore.
Portunes- god of keys, doors, and livestock, he was assigned a Flamen Minore.
Priapus - god of fertility
Proserpina - Queen of the Dead and a grain-goddess
Quirinus - Romulus, the founder of Rome, was deified as Quirinus after his death. Quirinus was a war god and a god of the Roman people and state, and was assigned a Flamen Majore.
Silvanus - tutelary spirit of woods
Sol Invictus - sun god
Somnus - god of sleep
Suadela- goddess of persuasion
Terminus - the rustic god of boundaries
Trivia - goddess of magic
Venus - goddess of love and beauty, mother of the hero Aeneas, and an Olympian
Vesta - goddess of the hearth and the Roman state, and an Olympian.
Victoria - goddess of victory
Volturnus- a god of water, was assigned a Flamen Minore.
Voluptas - goddess of pleasure
Vulcan - god of the forge, fire, and blacksmiths, and an Olympian, and assigned a Flamen Minore
 
 [edit] Deified emperors
 Each deified emperor was assigned a Flamen Majore. Please add more, as this section is incomplete:
 Julius Caesar
Augustus
Claudius
Vespasian
Titus
Nerva
Trajan
Hadrian
Antoninus Pius
Lucius Verus
Marcus Aurelius
Pertinax
Commodus
Septimius Severus
Geta
Caracalla
Severus Alexander
Gordian I, II, III
Philip I, II
Traianus Decius
Herennius Etruscus
Valerian I
Piso Frugi
Gallienus
Victorinus
Claudius II
Aurelian
Probus
Carus
Numerian
Maximian I
Diocletian
Constantius I
Maximian II
Constantine
Constans
ConstantiusII
Julian II
Jovian
Valentinian I
Valens
Gratian
Valentinian II
Theodosius I
Arcadius
Constantius III
Theodosius II
Valentinian III
Leo I, II
Anastasius
 
 [edit] Sardinian
 Sardinian deities, mainly referred to in the age of Nuragici people, are partly derived from Phoenician ones.
 Janas - Goddesses of death
Maymon - God of Hades
Panas - Goddesses of reproduction (women dead in childbirth)
Thanit - Goddess of Earth and fertility
 
 [edit] Semitic pagan
   Ancient Southwest Asian deities  
 
  Levantine deities  
   Adonis | Anat | Asherah | Ashima | Astarte | Atargatis | Ba'al | Berith | Dagon | Derceto | El | Elyon | Eshmun | Hadad | Kothar | Mot | Qetesh | Resheph | Shalim | Yarikh | Yam
  
 
  Mesopotamian deities  
   Adad | Amurru | An/Anu | Anshar | Asshur | Abzu/Apsu | Enki/Ea | Enlil | Ereshkigal | Inanna/Ishtar | Kingu | Kishar | Lahmu & Lahamu | Lilith | Marduk | Mummu | Nabu | Nammu | Nanna/Sin | Nergal | Ninhursag/Damkina | Ninlil | Tiamat | Utu/Shamash
  
    This box: view • talk • edit
   
 
 Abzu/Apsu
Adad
Adonis
Amurru
An/Anu
Anat
Anshar | Asshur
Asherah
Astarte
Beelzebub
Baʿal/Hadad
Dagon
El
Enki/Ea
Enlil
Ereshkigal
Inanna/Ishtar
Kingu | Kishar
Lahmu & Lahamu
Marduk
Mot
Mummu
Nabu
Nammu
Nanna/Sin
Nergal
Ninhursag/Damkina
Ninlil
Tiamat
Utu/Shamash
Yaw
 
 [edit] Gods of Ur of the Chaldeans (only appearing in the LDS Book of Abraham)
 Elkenah
Libnah
Mahmackrah
Korash
 See also: Judaism and Islam, Levantine mythology, and Book of Abraham.
 
 [edit] Shinto
 Aji-Suki-Taka-Hiko-Ne - god of thunder
Amaterasu - sun goddess
Ama-no-Uzume - fertility goddess
Amatsu Mikaboshi - god of evil
Chimata-No-Kami - god of crossroads, highways and footpaths
Ho-Musubi - god of fire
Inari (mythology) - god of rice
Izanagi - creator god
Izanami - creator goddess
Kagu-tsuchi - god of fire
Kura-Okami - god of rain
Nai-No-Kami - god of earthquakes
O-Kuni-Nushi - god of sorcery and medicine
O-Wata-Tsu-Mi - god of the sea
Sengen-Sama - goddess of the Mt. Fujiyama
Seven Gods of Fortune Benzai-ten or Benten - goddess of money, eloquent persuasion, and knowledge
Bishamon-ten - god of happiness and war
Daikoku-ten
Ebisu (also spelled Yebisu)
Fukurokuju
Hotei-osho
Jurojin
 
Shina-To-Be - goddess of wind
Shina-Tsu-Hiko - god of wind
Sojobo - king of the tengu
Susanoo - god of storms and thunder, snakes and farming.
Taka-Okami - god of rain
Take-Mikazuchi - god of thunder
Tengu - minor trickster deities
Tsukuyomi - god of the moon
Uke-Mochi - goddess of food
Wakahiru-Me - goddess of the dawn sun
 See also: Kami, List of divinities in Japanese mythology.
 
 [edit] Sikhism
 Waheguru.
 
 [edit] Slavic
 Belobog - god of light and sun (speculative)
Berstuk - evil god of the forest
Cislobog - moon goddess
Crnobog - god of woe (speculative)
Dajbog - sun god
Dziewona - equivalent of Diana
Flins - god of death
Hors - god of the winter sun
Jarilo - god of vegetation, fertility, spring, and associated with war and harvest
Juthrbog - moon god
Karewit - protector of the town of Korzenica
Lada and Lado
Marowit - god of nightmares
Perun - god of thunder and lightning
Podaga - weather god, and god of fishing, hunting and farming
Porewit - god of law, order and judgement
Radegast (god) - possibly a god of hospitality, fertility and crops
Rugiwit -
Sieba - fertility and love goddess
Siebog - god of love and marriage
Stribog - god and spirit of the winds, sky and air
Svarog - god of fire
Svetovid - god of war, fertility and abundance
Triglav - three-headed god
Veles - god of earth, waters, and the underworld
Zirnitra - dragon god of sorcery
 
 [edit] Sumerian
 An
Enki
Enlil
Inanna
Nammu
Nanna
Ninhursag
Ninlil
Sin
Utu
 See also Annuna and Mesopotamian deities for a more complete list.
 
 [edit] Thracian
 Zibelthiurdos
 
 [edit] Tumbuka
 Chiuta
 
 [edit] Ugarit
 ‘Anat - war goddess
Athirat - mother goddess
‘Athtart - goddess of fertility
Dagon - god of earth
El - the father god and head
Haddu - commonly titled Ba‘l, a rain god and storm god.
Mot - the god of death
Yam - the god of the sea
 Note: Ugarit gives the earliest and fullest snapshot of Canaanite religion and northwest Semitic religion.
 
 [edit] Wiccan
 The God (also known as the Horned God, the Great God, the Great Father, the Sky father, the Lord, etc)
The Goddess (also known as the Great Mother, the Triple Goddess, the Earth Mother, the Lady, etc)
 
 [edit] Yoruba
 Aja
Aje
Egungun-oya
Eshu
Oba
Obatala
Odùduwà
Oloddumare
Olokun
Olorun
Orunmila
Oshun
Oshunmare
Oya
Shakpana
Shango
Yansan
Yemaja
 
 [edit] Zoroastrian
 Ahura Mazda
I think that there are a couple of hundred deities listed here, and hopefully I've made it easy for you to research them and find out which one you want to worship.















2007-01-19T01:00:00.000-08:00
Orthodox Judaism and Intellectual Independence                                                            -

Intellectual independence got me here, so why shouldn't it be something that I keep?  First of all, I am no Abraham figure, I did not derive the existence of G-d or that the Torah exists through my sheer ability and toil in the nature of all that exists, as did Abraham.  Rather, I live in a post-revelation period in which G-d has already revealed the Torah and therefore I am allowed to simply latch on to it.  Nevertheless, in what I retrospectively call a secular Jewish upbringing, I had to go through a long series of philosophizing and thinking about the things around me in order to understand that G-d indeed existed (although I always had in inkling feeling that He did) and that His existence necessitated the adherence to His commandments.  I cannot say, however, that in that oh-so-Abrahamic way I reached these conclusions on my own; no way!  I went to a Conservative Jewish school until I was in 6th grade and learned much about Judaism and G-d there.  After that "break away" from it (my parents put my sister and I in a public school for a variety of reasons), my interest in G-d and spirituality remained, although my formal understanding of organized religion deteriorated to the point where by high school I had absolutely no idea that two such things could have any possible relationship.  I continued to dabble in books on Jewish spirituality, and I found one packet giving a simple summary of Kabbalah, and included the story of the four great Rabbi's who each studied it, with Rabbi Akiva being the only one to safely emerge.  My point is that I, in this post-revelation age, had many signs pointing me to the right way.  These things can definitely be considered revelations, but the kinds that G-d allows to people like me in this day and age.

Years later (2001) when I became an Orthodox Jew, which I saw as nothing more or less than an acceptance of the natural order by which G-d had created the world, the intellectual independence and desire to search and understand did not peter away.  However, the dynamics between free and unrestricted thinking juxtaposed within a doctrinal religious framework was an entirely new experience for me.  I am quite convinced that every ba'al t'shuva and convert to Judaism experience this internal tension.  Further, I am also convinced that the quality of their experience as a Jew will be largely based on how well they can find the underlying unity and harmony between intellectual freedom and religious doctrine.  I can accurately say that this, among many other things, has highlighted my wading into the world of Torah.

One major way that I found how to internalize and make sense of this was to understand that doctrines were products of intellectual thought.  They are not dogmatic; if one rejects a doctrine simply because it is a doctrine, he has not bothered to understand the internal and external logic of such a thing.  From the outside what seems to be a contradiction in terms, was to understand the process that created Judaism.  Abraham himself had to toil and find the proper Divine philosophy, and to extract his mind from the functioning ways of the world around him, yet not annihilating his place within it.  Once he arrived at the perfect reasoning (as perfect as a man can), G-d decided that it was the right time to reveal Himself to him.  Through Abraham's reasoning and through G-d's revelation to Abraham, the Covenant between G-d and us was forged.

Our tradition calls G-d "the G-d of Abraham," and so in order to cleave myself onto Judaism, I first had to try to grasp and understand "the G-d of Abraham."  Once I was able to flush, to the degree that was safe and possible, i.e., without harming my sanity and emotional well-being, the ideas of the world around me, I was able to slowly begin trading them for the ideas of Judaism, i.e., the ideas of "the G-d of Abraham."  It is important to say that I did not go through a complete overhaul of the content in my head; the instruments of perception inside must remain - it is the ideas that must change.  Further, many ideas have within them pieces of truth, and therefore the idea as a whole itself cannot be thrown out, but rather, the pieces that are false.  This is why the ba'al t'shuva process needs to be slow, at least from a perspective of understanding what one is doing.  On the other hand, it cannot be too slow where a person becomes immobile and stagnant - part of the wonder of growth is the slight discomfort felt by standing in a new place.

In this way was I able to reconcile for myself the so-called paradox of free thought and religious doctrine; what we now call "doctrines" in Judaism were at the beginning of the Covenant products of Abraham's intellectual sojourns.  Later, G-d wrote them in stone, as it were, with the Giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai, a direct line and relationship between Abraham and Moses and these items became our commandments.  Therefore, accepting the religious doctrines of Judaism is an acceptance of the intellectual sojourns of Abraham that led to G-d making the Covenant.  Suffice it to say that nobody has the ability to internalize an intellectual item without trying to understand it.  Understanding, therefore, is the key to Judaism, but on the other hand, one should not neglect a thing until he understands it; we can feel safe with G-d that adhering to a commandment will only lead us to good places.

Shomer Negiah

Shomer means "one who gaurds" and negiah means "touch."  In modern Jewish usage, the phrase "shomer negiah" is used as an adjective, i.e., "I am shomer negiah," I gaurd my touch.  Shomer negiah is a Rabbinic ordinance derived from the Be'oraita mitzvah (Written Torah commandment) not to engage in sexual activity before marriage.  A Rabbinic ordinance has the clout of a Written Torah commandment, for it was derived from the Oral Law, the Torah she'be'al peh (the Torah passed down by speaking).  In non-Jewish philosophies, shomer negiah can be accurately understood as a religious doctrine.

Shmira negiah, or shomer negiah, was, I believe, the third Jewish doctrine that I accepted; the first two were Shabbat and kashrut, although I only kept those to degrees at first.  Being shomer negiah was a tough battle for me; although I was never "wild with the ladies" before I became observant, I was not as modest with them as I would have liked.  My interest in women was flying high and I was at a peak time in my life, not to mention living with roommates, to be involved in the ventures of women.  The external battle was simply not to have physical contact with women, but the internal battle was to change the way I perceived them, for to refrain from physical contact without an internal transformation of thought would be close to impossible and foolish.  Earlier in my observance I deemed it silly when my friend Darron, also an observant Jew, told me that speaking to women too much should be avoided.  At this juncture in time I figured the best way to approach shmira negiah was to start by cutting out the amount of time I spoke with women.  What this meant was a serious curbing of the amount of flirting I did, which was not ridiculously high, but nevertheless, it existed.  Slowly, the external effort to speak with women less created an internal response; every single attractive woman did not exist for a man's satisfaction.  Gradually, I began to see women as human beings independent of their being attached to a sexual status, and therefore, notions of attractiveness became less of a factor in judging a woman.  This process occurred over a long time, probably six months to a year, until I felt that I had reached a certain level of natural comfort with the concept of shmirah negiah.  Being shomer negiah also means not seeking out romantic situations with women, for they lead to physical contact, and so on.

Touching a woman goes beyond just in romantic situations; many Jews also do not shake hands, for example, with the opposite sex - the concept is applied consistently.  There are Jews, however, who shake a person's of the opposite sex hand in order to avoid embarassing them, although I prefer not to.  Standing outside of their physical reach is usually a good non-chalant way to accomplish this.  After this process, probably about one year, I decided that I was ready to date.  I began to see a newly-observant woman whom I had already known for one year, and we dated for seven months, as shomer negiah Jews.  We began to speak about getting engaged (seven months is relatively long for Jewish couples), but things did not go as planned and we eventually broke up.  I plan this year, G-d willing, on beginning to look again.

To conclude, Judaism and intellectual independence have a seat right next to each other as long a person a) is endowed with free will and b) is able to utilize it. What better expression of a person's free will other than to use it better himself?  Fleeting joy can only bring moments of joy, but the investment in joy, likened to a plant in a garden, brings a more permanent edifice of joy in this world, and of course, you knew I was going to say this, in the next.  There are many concepts in Judaism for one to accomplish; they are never-ending.

To conclude, in a rational age, is it really rational to say that intellectual independence is an anathema to organized thought?


2007-01-18T14:35:00.000-08:00
So, most of my readers know that I have a deep respect for Noahides, who are Gentiles who have chosen to live according to the Seven Laws of Noah, as is commanded them in the Oral Law, or Talmud.  This means that they cannot practice any religion that they currently do.

Here is an article written by a Noahide Gentleman.  I was sent the link to the article through another Noahide, who found out about through another Noahide named "Adam." 

Here's the link:

http://1stcovenant.org/pages/WithOrWithoutJesus.htm

Enjoy and peace...


2007-01-17T14:11:00.000-08:00
The Atheist in Me                                                                                                                            -

Many years ago, before I was even aware that there was such thing as a commandment-oriented way for Jews to live, my spiritual and emotional life were going through a violent turmoil.  It was during this phase of my life in which I dabbled in several different philosophies of how one should live - only two made my list of actual potentials; Christianity and atheism.  When I now realize just how different Christianity and atheism are, I basically can't understand how I considered either this one or that one - how could I have been satisfied with two different paradigms so different from each other?  It would have made more sense if I had found favor in either one system or another which bore similarities discernible to the eye, but what discernible similarities could those two have had for me to actually group them together?  Never in my spiritual path did I even consider Islam, Buddhism, or a similar path; Christianity and atheism spoke the most loudly and most clearly to me.

There was a certain philosophical acuteness that I found in both of them, and I will attempt to briefly summarize just what was the nature of that acuteness was.

The Christian Period

The first thing I must mention about my, what was a relatively short-lived but nagging, interest in Christianity stemmed from a deep lack of knowledge of Judaism.  It was clear to me most of my life that I was a spiritual person, i.e., a person interested in "the other side," and on top of this I really enjoyed intellectual stimulation.  Judaism didn't offer me any spiritual or intellectual stimulation; by that point in time in my life I was almost totally alienated from it and from other Jews.  To me, Judaism was either something to ignore, or if I had to, which with to disagree.   Suffice it to say that I knew nothing more about Christianity than I did about Judaism; my spark of interest in Christianity did not stem from a knowledge about Judaism that I felt somehow completed it, but rather from it being able to fill the void of my Judaism.  Christianity was the best candidate for that at that point in my life for one basic reason: the way it was presented to me.  I was eighteen years old at that point in my life and I was taking a general education class at the community college which I attended; the class was "Old Testament" and a pastor taught it.  I was fascinated by the topic - I knew it then and I know it now - it was a fascination with my Jewishness, which my parents had helped maintain alive in me (and my sister) by keeping whatever traditions alive they could.  Not to mention, the frequent trips to Israel to visit our family also worked in keeping us connected.  I understand now that, judging by my glancing over at Christianity, visits to Israel could only go so far in keeping me close to Judaism; that I was far from it is the proof in the pudding.

I would have hour-long talks with the pastor/teacher after class, who of course, taught the class from a Christian perspective, i.e., that everything led up to Jesus, and would steer our personal talks in a way that would get me to budge towards Christianity.  I responded with rebuttals to everything, buy my disgraceful knowledge about Judaism, even the basics, allowed him to back me into intellectual corners and dilemma's to which I had no answer.  After a semester I was secretly pondering if perhaps Jesus was really the Messiah.  It filled me with a great fear, not the fear of going to Hell, which I didn't understand, but the fear that I and my entire people, my family, and the State I so loved were wrong all along.  I remember imagining my family in Israel and their response to the news of my choice, and that I would feel obligated not to tell them about Judaism (I was very idealistic), but about Christianity.  The obligation and the knowledge that I would be an outcast filled me with fear, but the fear invoked excitement and pushed me onwards.  After a short while my musings about Christianity died, not because I was able to prove them wrong, but because my fear had so shaken and overwhelmed me (again, I was emotionally distraught at this point in my life) that it is almost as if I shut down in order not to let in what I was not able to ward off.  The only thing that I considered to be positive about Christianity was that it would make me different, i.e., from my family, but that in and of itself says nothing about Christianity itself.  Obviously, it was not enough of a driving factor to make me interested, and besides, I was years away from being able to genuinely understand spirituality, theology, and religion.  Thank G-d I "short-circuited" and never went down the paths of Christianity.
The Atheistic Period                                                                                                                                                                    
Since Christianity couldn't be right, because I wouldn't allow it to be, and because I knew next to nothing about Judaism except for things I read here and there, atheism was an alluring and brilliant concept.  Perhaps I would somehow try to suffuse my intellectual curiosity and lust for spirituality with atheism.  Indeed, the notion that you know a massive secret, that G-d doesn't exist, makes you a philosophical war-lord and hero, that your view trumps the view of everybody and simultaneously slaughters them and lays them to waste.  This aspect of atheism was especially alluring to me.  Not only that, I had seen myself, in some strange way, being a representative of G-d, believing in Him and having a strong belief in ethics and morality; atheism was adept at supplanting my urge of helping bring a new knowledge to the world, that there was no G-d.  I saw the Jews as people who carried the world into the future and into peace by producing intellectual and philosophical genius; I saw atheism as the most powerful and magnificent philosophy.  Not only that, the grand irony of it all would be that, the people to whom G-d revealed Himself first, which I interpreted as being simply an awe-inspiring philosophy, now realized the error of this way and once again took it upon themselves to take humanity to the next level, which was that there was no G-d.  The allure of it was "very Jewish," I was motivated in this direction for a reason closely related to my identification as a Jew, and it was even stronger and more solid than my short interest in Christianity, although most likely it helped compound my fear.  I actually remember thinking that I rather believe in no G-d than in Jesus; I said to myself, "If G-d is actually going to allow Christianity to be true, if G-d actually made Jesus His son, this goes against everything I feel deep down in the deepest form of myself to be right, and I rather reject G-d than accept this model."  So I rejected G-d because Christianity, being G-dless to me, might as well have been atheism.

The death of my grandmother on my mom's side, whom I loved dearly and to which I responded with shouting, punching, and, for the first and last time in my life, literally cursing G-d's Name (and punching my dad), made atheism a high priority for me.  Then a few days later the news of one of my best friends to whom I looked up (a girl on whom I also had a crush) being killed in a car accident when I was in Israel compounded it.  I hated G-d and was totally closed to Him and to even thinking about Him; I spent the next year or two in a spiritual gaze with no relationship with myself or with G-d.  However, deep down inside the deepest part of me knew that I believed in G-d, which makes sense considering that I said that I hated Him, for how can you hate Someone that does not exist?  As time went on and my bitter anger and resentment towards G-d did not decrease but simply reached disgraceful peaks of neutrality, I was able to relatively easy enough contend with myself and others that G-d simply did not exist.   "Hell" would be a good word to describe that period of time in my life, and there is no G-d in Sheol.
The Jewish Period                                                                                                                                                                                       
It took years for the thick barrier that I erected to begin cracking to the point where water could again flow through.  It all culminated when I was twenty one years old and went on a Birthright trip to Israel.  My anger and bitterness were, for the few years before this, slowly being replaced with joy, inspiration, and a rediscovered, if not dramatically altered, understanding of G-d.  Not only that; I also knew by that point, now for actual theological and philosophical reasons, that Christianity was false, although I still reserved much anger for it.  I had begun to understand the urgings of Islam and realized that it too was false, while the Eastern religions never spoke loudly to me anyway.   On my trip to Israel that year, equipped with an existent faith in G-d and His existence, He allowed an interesting experience at the Kotel, the Western Wall.  I had come to realize that a vow I made when I was in my senior year of high school, that I would not become religious until I felt G-d because so many people called themselves religious but were jerks, was answered with an overpowering spiritual experience.  Upon returning to Tucson it took me about five months to digest this experience and to let it seep into my conscious, but when it did, I realized that the only proper course of action for me was to become an observant Jew, i.e., Orthodox, i.e., living in accordance with the commandments of the Torah.

From the time before I approached atheism, I understand in retrospect that certain things I was doing, certain minor "obsessions" I had, which annoyed my family, were in fact "primordial" attempts to embrace my (and our) religion.  I was makpid (stringent) with my family on Chanukah to turn off all the lights in the house (although I now know that this is not allowed) and to open the presents in a ritual manner, and showed an external desire to light candles on Shabbat, say Kiddush, and eat the meal together.  On Passover I insisted stubbornly that we say the entire Passover Hagadah, which annoyed my family, and even though I too gained little spiritual benefit from it and even resented it a little, wanting to get to the meal already, I felt that it was the right thing to do to read the whole thing.  On Yom Kippur, in which my family stayed in our house and fasted, we would try to sleep all day, and I believed that through the relative discomfort we had, that we were achieving the goal of Passover; this is only partially true.  We would attend an Orthodox synagogue twice a year, Chabad of Young Israel in Tucson, Rabbi Yosi Shemtov, and although I didn't know how to pray, I felt happy enough holding a siddur (prayer book) in my had, flipping its thin pages, and being surrounded by the service.  Rabbi Shemtov also taught me my Bar-Mitzvah portion, of which the reading was held there, with all of my Gentile friends, and some Jews.   I was trying to find a way to let something inside of me find external expression, and it just so turned out that that thing was Orthodox Judaism, although I didn't feel like I could accurately call myself an Orthodox Jew until years into observance.
Modern Times                                                                                                                                                                                               
Five years after coming back from Israel on Birthright, I am learning in a yeshiva in Jerusalem, my sister is Orthodox and married to one of my good friends, my newly-wed cousin is married and in living in New York with her husband, my other cousin (her brother) believes in G-d whereas before he was an atheist, and our Tucson family in general has accepted our observance and embraced it in their own ways.  My aunt and uncle kashered their house and my dad davins Shacharit (prays morning services) with Orthodox friends and eats lunch with them on Shabbat, which I also did with him when I was in Tucson. Thank G-d, He has surely granted our family with blessing and brings us nearer to our tradition of truth.
I now understand both the appeal of Christianity and of atheism, and having learned about Islam and Eastern religions, I have somewhat of an understanding what makes a Jew go in either of those directions.
 




2007-01-13T09:57:00.000-08:00
What Monotheism Means to Me                                                                                                                                        -

 If Abraham received revelation and was so successfully able to reason G-d’s existence and the non-existence of the deities being worshipped, why did a conceptual development of Divinity occur in Abraham’s mind; why didn’t he intrinsically know that G-d existed?This is a question I’ve always bothered myself with.  We know from the Torah that there were people prior to Abraham who held polytheistic beliefs and that with Abraham came monotheism.  The Torah tradition also alludes to a certain type of development of understanding in Abraham’s mind as to the nature of monotheism, that it was something he reasoned must be true through perceiving the implicit falsehoods of polytheism.  For example, a midrash says that Abraham believed that the moon must have been the prime Divinity since it lit up the night.  When the morning came and the sun rose, he reasoned that the sun was the prime Divinity since it replaced the moon.  Then when the moon returned at night he reasoned that there must be a force beyond the two in control of both of them.   Another midrash explains the same scenario about the moon and the sun, except that he saw the sun’s reflection in the water and reasoned that the water was the prime Divinity, and he went so on and so with every element of nature until he reached far back enough to reason that G-d existed and created everything.

  
   
  Herein lies the question.  We know for a fact, historically speaking, that there was polytheism before monotheism, meaning that during and before Abraham’s time (and after, of course) he witnessed such polytheism.  Another way to ask the question is, why do I believe that monotheism is true if it was presented to the world through the development of a conceptual process?  If monotheism is just another idea, albeit a “better idea” that any of the polytheisms, how am I so convinced that it is indeed true?  How am I convinced that the One G-d Whom I know exists and in Whom I believe is not just another idea on the scale of polytheism to monotheism?  How do I know that He is not an idea on the gradual spectrum of humanity’s ideas, indicating an “evolution” of thought from polytheism to monotheism?  Finally, and perhaps this encompasses all of these questions, how can I be sure that He is real if He was “discovered” through an ideological process, not to mention, the ideological process of one man?
    
  Let us try to get into Abraham’s head using what we know about him through the tradition of the Torah.  According to the midrashim I referenced, Abraham went through a conceptual process of sorts until he understood that G-d existed, at which point G-d removed the barrier of doubt and actually spoke to Abraham, revealing Himself to him.  The way I understand it, once Abraham successfully removed all of the other options of true forms of divinity, he was left with only one glaring option, and at the moment that he succeeded in that, the Object of his thought, G-d, revealed Himself to him from His Place.

  
   
   However, this doesn’t really do much to explain the developmental process.

  
   
  Let us look at G-d’s existence as a mere concept.  Let us assume that it was a concept that Abraham reached after measuring and evaluating, as it were, all of the other forms of religious worship and beliefs of his day.  What is so powerful and truth-revealing about the concept that the One G-d exists that would logically do away with all of the other forms of belief and worship?  Why does this particular recognition inherently reject the existence of other “theologies” contemporary to Abraham, showing them all to be glaring lies?  What is so air-tight  about the reasoning of monotheism that tore holes in the reasoning of polytheism, rendering it useless?  The answer is that the monotheism that Abraham suggested did not allow the various and disparate ranges of spirituality, existing independent of each other, to hold logical value (“logic” having a different meaning some 3,000 years ago than it does today) in light of the unified whole that monotheism implied.  

Each form of polytheism covered some element of physical nature or of the nature of humanity, and therefore expressed some inherent elements of truth.  However, each form, which we can call “religions,” covered a different element of truth without regards to what another religion had to say and therefore many of them said contradictory things to the other.  Yet, none of the believers in each of these religions stopped to wonder why so many different religions existed, giving pause, not necessarily to wonder about the nature of their own belief, but about the nature of the relationship between their belief and that of someone else.  Remember, each belief stated its own absolute truth; how could several religions be absolutely true? On the other hand, beyond contradiction, there were several religions that overlapped in areas of “philosophy,” i.e., they had areas of agreement; how could it be that there were areas of truth common to a set of religions when the rest of the belief systems were in disagreement?  We also cannot overlook the reality that the nations worshipped vastly different gods and goddesses from each other; did it not dawn on them that it was impossible for several different deities to have all created the world, and in manners entirely different from each other?   The holes of polytheism became apparent from the reality that they were different, yet each assumed universality.

Further, what about the areas of “theology” that a group of religions left out, each being scattered and grouped along a spectrum of beliefs?  What truths rested in the gaps existing between the scopes of several religions, in the areas that they left untouched?  The monotheism of Abraham succeeded in understanding the inherent relationship between all of these disparate views, focusing in on them, seeing them as a whole, unifying them (often against their wishes) and therefore “correcting” some of their misguided beliefs, revealing the true message beyond a particular belief or ritual.  This also required some "adjusting" (such as, but not limited to, the ending of human sacrifice and its replacement with animal sacrifice, which continued in Judaism up until the year 70 of the Common Era when the Temple was destroyed. Animal sacrifices were a mainstream part of Judaism quite possibly longer than normal religious developments would have dictated; they ended only because the edifice in which they took place was destroyed and all records in the Torah show that they would have continued).  There was nothing that the polytheisms could do in light of the revelations of Abraham other than accede to their own  false nature and logic other than a) be at war with monotheism.  In that time, this “accession” and merging into the whole of monotheism can be given our contemporary word, “conversion,” and it is recorded in Genesis that Abraham and Sarah converted several people. (Abram took his wife Sarai and Lot, his brother's son, and all their wealth that they had amassed, and the souls they made in Haran; and they left to go to the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan."  (Genesis 12:5)  Abram and Sarai were childless at this point, and so "the souls they made" were not their (literal) children, but rather converts, as the Talmudic commentator Rashi explains.

   
  The question still remains; does a conceptual social transformation indicate the absolute truth of the concept?  This is a great question seeing that it refuses to go away.  The answer lies somewhere in our realm and G-d’s Realm.  The absolute universalism and transcendence inherent to the concept, clarifying all aspects of life and the nature of humanity, leaves no room for it to be a concept and not a reality.  In other words, the fact that it is a concept is an indication of the finite, limited, and human fallibility that grasps it, but the fact that it is infinite, universal, and transcendent in scope, clarifying all of life and leaving no room for an alternative cogent perspective, indicates immediately that it is real and true, in the literal and tangible sense.  So to answer the question, given the nature of this concept, like which there is none other in the broad grasp of human cognition, the very existence of the concept is testimony to its being real, literal, physical, tangible, and of course, true.

  
   
  Also, let us look at the word “recognition,” the very make-up  of the word explains its meaning; “re” and “cognition.”  “Re” means “again” and “cognition” means “understanding” or “perception” – to recognize something means to once again gain an understanding of something.  That humanity, through Abraham, recognized that G-d existed, means that humanity held a knowledge of G-d prior to the time of Abraham.  The Torah itself records this in its first book, Genesis, when it records that the people living before Abraham’s time, namely Adam, Eve, their children and other contemporaries, and Noah and his family, testifies that monotheism existed before Abraham’s time.  In the period between Noah and Abraham, it seems that humanity had forgotten about and lost the knowledge of the One G-d, it recognized it when Abraham, after this period of “drought,” reasoned that G-d indeed existed.  What vestige of the monotheistic tradition pre-existing Abraham was available to him is difficult to glean from the text of the Torah, but we know that he is responsible for re-introducing it to the world.  
   
  To conclude, considering the vast nature of the “jump” from the reasoning of polytheism to monotheism, it is absolutely impossible that another jump could be made from the monotheism of Abraham to something more unified and holistic; no such jump of equal magnitude can ever be accomplished again.  I am speaking of course about Christianity and Islam, and every other religion claiming a supersessionist spot in the G-d narrative.  Neither Jesus nor Muhammad were able to teach something new to the world, not because they had personal deficiencies, but because there was nothing new under the sun to bring forth.  The apparent aggression of both Christianity and Islam, in their empire forms, is due to this inability to spread their religions on the basis of a new and unique theology, totally re-doing the previous; only political power and military prowess facilititated their spread.  Yet, both of their narratives record that the religions spread because people had become absolutely convinced.  At least the Muslim historical record accedes that Muhammad unified political power; Christianity likes to ignore that an ingenuinely converted pagan (Constantine) was the emperor of Rome, and it was he who caused Christianity to spread to where it did.  The message of Jesus might have belonged to Jesus, but Constantine, who did not even believe in Jesus or Christianity, was responsible for spreading it; this shows that Christianity was a political force as much as it was a religion. 

That no new religion, theology, or philosophy was able to actually supplant Judaism, this is to say that everything that had to be revealed to humanity was revealed through Abraham’s reasoning and the subsequent revelation by G-d, and there is no other revelation that could possibly achieve what Abraham’s revelation achieved.  Further, the Promise of Torah and Israel were given to the descendants of Isaac - the Covenant G-d made with Abraham was the same Covenant that G-d made with Moses.  We are left with a glaring and unchanging, and perhaps discomforting truth, that Abraham’s revelation is singularly the most important revelation that humanity has received and that all human knowledge and existence is hinged upon it.  The discomforting, but ultimately comforting thing, is that nothing else matters and that nothing else (or different) is true.  We should not fear this if indeed G-d is our King, for He will never act unjustly.           



2007-01-04T18:39:00.000-08:00
A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism (continued)                                                -
   
   I am reading a book by the aforementioned name and I guess that this post is a bit of a “book report” on this book.  However, rather than writing a full-fledged report, I’m going to quote from the book and then include my commentary not only on that particular quote but on the author’s utilization of the quote.  
   
  Often times throughout the book the author, Yakov M. Rabkin, quotes Orthodox Jews who, before and during Israel’s existence, were and are fundamentally critical of Israel’s approach to religion and Torah.  That is all and well, but Rabkin is not an Orthodox Jew and likely does not even agree with Orthodox paradigms.  If that is true, which is relatively easy to see through the way he thinks, why does he use the Orthodox argument when pushed to honesty, he probably has fundamental issues with religiosity anyway?  Is it intellectually honest to utilize the arguments of a group of people with whom you do not agree?  It would be clear or at least possible to consider that he tries to fuse his dislike of Zionism with religious dislike of Zionism.  In other words, it’s as if he uses the Orthodox anti-Zionist argument to support his own secular anti-Zionist argument, but the nature of the two is entirely different.  This “alliance” that he is trying to create is curious – would Orthodox Jews whom oppose secularism just as much (he says) they oppose Zionism agree with Rabkin’s usage of their own ideas and ideologies?  It is likely that they would not.
   
  A few of Rabkin’s quotes:
   
  “The Jewish tradition traces the origins of the Jews to the shared experience of the epiphany of the exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai.  As a group, the Jews are defined by their commitment to the Torah.  Even though the Torah abounds in episodes of transgression and disregard for divine law by the children of Israel, the normative bond with the Torah remains the determining factor.  It is precisely this bond, which obligates them to follow the commandments of the Torah, that makes Jews the “chosen people,” a status that implies no intrinsic superiority.” (32)  
   
  This is certainly an eloquent, truthful, and empathetic description of the essentials of Judaism.  However, it makes you wonder if Rabkin is secretly fond of traditional Torah observance and religiosity, given his optimistic and friendly description.  Does Rabkin even believe in the literality of the “shared experience” of revelation and the “giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai?”  Does he really care about “this bond, which obligates them to follow the commandments of the Torah?”  He even offers a warm explanation usually offered by Orthodox Jews themselves, “the ‘chosen people,’ a status that implies no intrinsic superiority.”  Again, I have no absolute clue as to Rabkin’s religious background, but would he actually provide such a sympathetic depiction of Orthodox Judaism if it means “gaining access” to its particular criticisms of Zionism?  Are the secular arguments against Zionism not good enough? 
   
  In a section titled “The Birth of the Secular Jew,” Rabkin writes:
   
  “Unlike the Reform movement in Central and Western Europe, which modified Judaism but did not abolish it, the Jewish radical movements of Eastern Europe sought to eliminate every notion of religious responsibility.  By the latter decades of the nineteenth century, they had come to see themselves as the first generation to have cast off the yoke of the Torah, a conviction reflected in the Israeli national anthem, Ha-tikva: ‘our hope is not in vain, two thousand years of longing, to be a free people on our land, the land of Zion and Jerusalem.”  The expression ‘to be a free people on our land’ contains an element that never fails to elicit a fierce response from the rabbinical authorities, who take it to mean ‘free from the yoke of the Torah,’ not only ‘free from oppression.’” (32)
   
  For a moment I thought that Rabkin was actually defending Torah Judaism in Israel and criticizing Zionism’s application of Jewish thought to nationalism.  Again, he gives ample voice to the Orthodox criticism of Zionism, but does he really believe it?  Does that even matter?  If intellectual honesty and avoiding committing fallacies is a value, then it clearly does.  
  He even goes on to quote from the most respected and revered Torah scholars (Gedolei Ha-dor; giants of the generation) to make his point.  Suffice it to say that his presentation of their ideas might not be entirely honest to the initial intent or context, which would be a complicated thing to identify.  Nevertheless, he quotes: 
   
  “Even Hafetz Haim, a recognized authority in the laws of proper speech, attacks the concept in the most categorical terms: 
   
  ‘I fail to understand the expression ‘free Jews’ used today.  What does it mean?  True, they may be free, but they are not Jews.  The two contradict one another, for the Jew is not free, and he who is free is not a Jew…. They [the free Jews] are like the dead extremities of our nation, which cause the entire body to rot.  Even though they call themselves Jews, they inveigh against the Torah, an opinion based on the false concept according to which one can be a Jew without the Torah and its commandments.  But this opinion uproots the Torah in its entirety.  (Wasserman 1986,7)” (32)
   
  I was not aware that Rabkin was a fan of the Chafetz Chaim or that proper speech and avoidance of “lashon harah,” improper or evil speech, was so important for him in his avodah (service of G-d).
   
  “The concept of the secular Jew, the very antithesis of the traditional Jewish concept, became the cornerstone of Zionism.” (34) Again, wow, it seems like Rabkin actually cares about the traditional Jewish concept.    
   
  A few times he does something interesting, seemingly overlaying his own criticisms of Zionism, secular in nature, and presenting them under the headline of a particular criticism uttered by a respected rabbi.  In this he misrepresents the ideas and beliefs of the rabbi’s whom he quotes.  For example:
   
  “In full awareness of Zionism’s anti-Judaic content, the influential Viennese rabbi and historian Moritz Gudemann (1835-1918) rejected, as early as the first Zionist congress in 1897, any attempt to separate the Jewish nation from its monotheistic faith (Wistrich, 151).  In his view, the Torah must be free of territorial, political or national consideraton.  Ever since the Babylonian captivity, the Jews had, he believed, become a ‘community of believers’; Jewish nationalism would, in spiritual terms, be a step backward with regard to the sublime vision of the messianic realm that the Jews had developed in the Diaspora.  To return to a pagan concept that would confer exclusivity upon Jewish nationality would be a self-destructive form of collective assimilation for the Jews.  For him, the nationalist approach stood as a contradiction in adjecto: one cannot be both Jewish and an atheist, that is to say, Jew and non-Jew, at the same time.  Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan (1838-1933), best known for his book, Hafetz Haim (He Who Desires Life), identified the same contradiction a few years later; it was to remain a vital component of the Judaic critique of Zionism.” (30)
   
  The stance on how exactly the Land of Israel is to be settled in proper terms of acquisition according to the Torah is, as any Torah student can tell you, a machloket, a dispute, and the solution is not black and white.  There are serious hashkafic (philosophical) divides with the Orthodox world on just what the Torah requires of the Jews in this particular field of Jewish Law, or Halachah.  Rabkin’s presentation of the Torah’s view on settlement of the Land of Israel comes from an uninformed perspective, which screams “agenda.”  Jewish nationalism (in the way the Torah defines it) is the core of Messianic redemption!  The “sublime vision of the messianic realm that the Jews had developed in the Diaspora” was not developed in the Diaspora, it even predates entrance into the Land of Israel.  “Exclusivity upon Jewish nationality” is not a “pagan concept,” but the core of Judaic thinking and it is antithetical to a “self-destructive form of collective assimilation for the Jews.”  It is glaringly indicative that Rabkin is thinking about Judaism, ironically, from a secular, liberal, post-Zionist hashkafa (philosophy, or lens) and attempting to use the Torah and Torah giants as support beams for his argument.  
   
  “For Rabbi Shalom Dov Baer Schneerson (1860-1920), the fifth Lubavitch Rebbe, whose influence in Russia extended well beyond the Hasidic community, to seek freedom from the yoke of exile is as pernicious as to seek freedom from the yoke of Torah.  In order to escape their fate as Jews, the Zionists must abandon the Torah and the faith of Israel:
   
  ‘In order to infuse our brethren with the idea of being a ‘nation’ and an independent polity… the Zionists must give nationalism precedence over the Torah because it is known that those who cling to the Torah and the commandments are not likely to change and accept another identity, especially such as is implied in leaving exile by force and redeeming themselves by their own power…. Hence, in order to implement their idea, the Zionists must distort the essence [of Jewishness] in order to get [the Jews] to assume a different identity.  (Ravitzky 1996, 16)’”
   
  The problem; if Rabkin had not simplistically and retroactively assumed that Torah giants shared his contemporary post-Israel biases against Zionism, products of guilt waves in Israel due to liberal peer-pressure, he would find that there certainly are Torah-based permissions (and even obligations) to enter and settle the Land of Israel.  Not only is this dishonest, it does an injustice to the giants of the generation whom he quotes, sorry to say, without getting a more complete picture of their view and the view of the Torah.  
   
  In the next few days I will add a few of Rabkin’s quotes about the Mizrachi, or North African Jews, who came from Muslim countries.  Stay tuned and have a Shabbat Shalom.



2007-01-03T14:42:00.000-08:00
Reason to be Frum (Orthodox, observant, etc...) for Me                                                                                    -

I have often thought about why the Holocaust happened.  After having thought about this several times and in several different ways, from an Orthodox perspective and from an un-orthodox perspective when I was not Orthodox, I have not come to a good, conclusive answer to perfectly satisfy me on why G-d would allow such a thing to occur.  I have come to a realization though, that the inability to have an answer to such a thing should not be a source of distress or a stab to faith in the least.  There are many things in the world and existence that I do not understand, and many of those things are good things, so why should I fret when I don't understand the nature and dynamics of how bad things happen?  Do I fret when I don't understand the most intricate mechanics of how being in love, for example, or connection with G-d functions?  The fact is that they do function and that a driving force behind them makes them function; it is the same logic that drives me to believe that I do not need to understand the mechanics of a negative thing any more than I need to understand those of a positive thing.

Consider; I might have the tendency to strive to understand evil or negative things simply because they unseat me and bother me.  However, looking at a positive thing, that that thing brings me satisfaction, logically, does not excuse me from trying to understand it from the inside out.  Having said that, there is no inherent difference between a good and an evil occurrence; if I am to try to understand either of them it should be because I am curious, but if I decide not to strive to understand either of them, it's because I accept the way G-d makes things work.  Ultimately, however, I should either strive to understand both of them or neither of them, because anything else would be a bit hypocritical.

In the end it comes down to this.  I do not possess the knowledge or insight of G-d to understand why the Holocaust happened.  All I am left able to do is to thank G-d that I was not there, for I do not know if I could have passed such a test, and rather than feel like I missed out on a special test (which seems sadistic), I am much happier knowing that G-d has chosen a different lot for me in this world and has blessed me by having made me born in this time rather than that one.  Having said that, having seen survivors, especially survivors who are believing and observant Jews, I am in awe of their ability to pass such a test, and rather than wanting to confer merit on myself by saying that I would be able to pass such a test too, I realize something else.   If they did so much to keep their Judaism through such evil occurrences, I, who face much less evil than they do (thank G-d), am up against much less adversity than they are and am able to be Jewish much more easily than they are.  Since this is the case, I will keep Judaism.  What do I face compared to them?  Assimilation?  Potential strife with other Jews (and possibly family) because I reject a secular life-style?  All of these "challenges" pale in comparison to things that my elders faced in the Holocaust, and I will stray from my Judaism because my challenges confound me?   The survivors did so much to ensure their own survival and ultimately the survival of Judaism that I owe it to them, not to mention to G-d, to pick up the mantle where they took off.  G-d knows it's much easier for me to do that today  here then it was for them there.   Yes, it is logical to say, when a thing is so glaringly obvious, that one should do something simply because he can.  I can keep Judaism and so I will.  This is one motivation that kept me going strong in observance after I already had become so.

Fertile Crescent myth series

Mesopotamian
Levantine
Arabian
Mesopotamia
Primordial beings
7 gods who decree
Demigods & heroes
Spirits & monsters
Tales from Babylon
The Great Gods
Adad · Ashnan Asaruludu · Enbilulu Enkimdu · Ereshkigal Inanna · Lahar Nanshe · Nergal Nidaba · Ningal Ninisinna · Ninkasi Ninlil · Ninurta Nusku · Uttu Annunaki

Ancient Southwest Asian deities
Levantine deities
Adonis \| Anat \| Asherah \| Ashima \| Astarte \| Atargatis \| Ba'al \| Berith \| Dagon \| Derceto \| El \| Elyon \| Eshmun \| Hadad \| Kothar \| Mot \| Qetesh \| Resheph \| Shalim \| Yarikh \| Yam
Mesopotamian deities
Adad \| Amurru \| An/Anu \| Anshar \| Asshur \| Abzu/Apsu \| Enki/Ea \| Enlil \| Ereshkigal \| Inanna/Ishtar \| Kingu \| Kishar \| Lahmu & Lahamu \| Lilith \| Marduk \| Mummu \| Nabu \| Nammu \| Nanna/Sin \| Nergal \| Ninhursag/Damkina \| Ninlil \| Tiamat \| Utu/Shamash
This box: view • talk • edit