Does God Exist? - Part 2

What Kind of Evidence is there for God's Existence?

Some form of description of God needs to be given if we are to even try to understand how to demonstrate His Existence. God is not finite or corporeal. He does not possess any deficiencies, is not timebound, and created and supercedes everything. Evidence for such a Being by definition must be qualititavely different than anything that exists in the physical, natural world.

Given the descriptions above, from an empirical perspective, you can only look for God in the effect that He has on other things, i.e., on what He does. This is not necessarily because God desires to hide Himself, although that is a Jewish tenet described in many sources. It is rather because the world He created cannot contain Him. Nevertheless, a cursory examination of the laws that govern the physical world reveals intelligence and order. It is as if a person tries to build a computer to which he can download all of his brainpower. To put this into perspective, it is currently believed that a human brain contains more information than all of the libraries in the world combined. It would be an unfruitful search to shop for a computer capable of holding such a vast amount of information. With God we are speaking about an Infinite Being, which means that the world is infinitely incapable of containing Him in any capacity. We have just provided evidence that an Intelligence beyond this world is vested within the confines of administering this planet.

By nature, beings can only create things that resemble them in some way. Every created thing possesses properties of its creator. Computer processing, for example, is in some respect modeled on the processing of the human brain. Even though computers can process information at a faster rate than the human brain, they are limited by human imperfection (hence computer crashes, bugs, fried circuit boards, etc.) As an aside, computers can process information faster than the human brain because that is their sole purpose and because it does not confuse them. Human beings must register and comprehend their thoughts to function properly. If a human being's brain processed thoughts at the magnitude of a computer, he might have a nervous breakdown. There are actual mental conditions whereby a person cannot slow down or stop thoughts from entering his mind. One purpose of meditation is actually to slow down the mind so that a person can isolate his thoughts.

Since God is free of all deficiencies, it reasons that in some way the world reflect His Perfect Nature. While the world is a finite place and clearly not free from imperfection, it is as close to being perfect as it can be for a created environment with limitations and restrictions. Nature functions seemingly without continual orchestration and the living beings within it provide for each other, even if this means that they consume each other. In another way, limitations are part of perfection because they force compassion. We have just provided evidence that the limitations of the world indicate God's Perfection.

Regarding God's non-temporeal nature, scientific inquiry into the mechanics of time produces some bizarre results. Admittedly this is an area that I do not completely understand, but a few different theories seem to propose that at any level smaller than the currently smallest known distance (Plank length), "the structure of spacetime becomes dominated by quantum effects, and it is impossible to determine the difference btween two locations less than one Plank length apart." Since space "ceases to exist" at this tiny level, time also ceases to be relevant. Unless in the future humans discover a way to measure an even smaller unit, it seems time "does not exist" at any more elementary level than the Plank length.

Another theory, which as well I do not fully understand, also points to the conclusion that time does not exist. This theory is actually an equation known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, in which "utterly lacked a time variable. The symbol t denoting time had simply vanished. Taking the result literally, time doesn't exist." (word search: Does time exist?)


Comment below.
Previous Post
Does God Exist? (Part 1 - Definition of Proof)

Related Post
What Kind of Evidence Exists for the Sinai Event?

Does God Exist? - Part 1

Article Sections

• The Definition of Proof
• Black Holes
• Application to God

The Definition of Proof

What does the word proof mean? The common understanding of the word proof means absolute proof. When you ask someone to give you proof, you expect them to provide such a good argument that you are left with no choice but to agree. That is an incorrect understanding of the word proof. Proof comes from the word prove, which means to provide evidence supporting a particular conclusion. When you ask for proof of something, you are really only asking for evidence of something. There is no such thing as absolute proof because by nature proofs are based on logic, and every argument has opposing logical arguments. Everything is measured by ideas. It is true that opposing arguments range in number and strength, but as long as somebody can argue the opposite of your point, you cannot have access to absolute proof. There will always remain that little portion of doubt. As long as you rely on logic, there is always room to see something in a different way.

However, we should understand this doubt for what it really is. The little portion of doubt that remains as a result of opposing arguments should be of no concern. All that matters when you make a decision about anything is that you have enough evidence, as stated in the previous paragraph. You are not frozen in indecision until you have absolute proof, because it is unattainable. The remaining doubt is simply a function of the inability to provide evidence in every single area and under every single set of circumstances. Therefore, although having sufficient evidence to support a conclusion is not identical to absolute proof, it still justifies making a decision based on the available information. It is perfectly justified to be satisfied with belief regardless of the presence of unknowns. Because absolute proof does not exist, the presence of unknowns do not mean that your reasoning is wrong.

Back to Top

Black Holes

This is also why it's a fallacy to criticize somebody for relying on faith in the absence of absolute proof. There is no absolute proof for anything. For example, on many topics scientists hold fundamentally different views with each other, such as black holes. Black holes are relevant because according to the Black Holes website, it "... is now thought that almost every galaxy has a giant black hole at its center... If this is true, then black holes may play a pivotal role in the formation of conditions in the universe that are necessary for life." Further, according to Astronomy Cafe, they indirectly "...tell us that our relativistic theory of gravity and space-time provided by Einstein's general relativity is fundamentally correct. When we use these same equations to study cosmology we have some confidence that they may be correct and give us answers that make sense." Notice that the author of this site said that "we have some confidence [my emphasis] that they may be correct..." Even though they only have "some confidence" that theories based on the existence of black holes are correct, most "... physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that 'there are no black holes' — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks."

Despite their importance to physics and cosmology, there is fundamental disagreement as to their nature. One of the common opinions regarding black holes is that because "no light can get out, people can't see black holes. They are invisible... But scientists can see how the strong gravity affects the stars and gas around the black hole." According to According to National Geographic, in an as of yet unreviewed paper, Stephen Hawkings suggests the relatively radical idea that black holes are not "perfectly 'black.'" "Instead," he says, "they emit radiation just beyond their event horizons..." This means that it is possible to observe black holes without solely relying on observing their surroundings.This implies a change in the understanding of black holes indicating that many accepted theories on the mechanics of the universe will have to be rewritten. According to Space.com, Hawking's proposal, dating back to 1974, "violates a basic piece of quantum theory, the idea that information cannot be destroyed."

Back to Top

Application to God

This type of thinking is also applicable when determining if God exists, although in a slightly different way. The existence of black holes is absolutely fundamental to both theoretical and practical matters, and scientists are willing to accept their existence even though they are invisible. Their decision to do so is justified because there is ample evidence of their existence. The existence of God, Who is invisible, can as well be "detected." The important thing to understand here is that no two detections are created equal. The type of evidence you can have for any given thing depends completely on what you are trying to prove. For example, you can't measure heat with a barometer, and you can't measure air pressure with a thermometer. Trying to measure each of these things with the wrong device would yield no results. This should not lead you to the conclusion that heat does not exist! This is an important principle to keep in mind when requiring proof. Giving up on trying to prove something because you expect the wrong kind proof is your own fault.

Detecting God is similar; you can only do so if you use the right tools and the right type of evidence. Some people mistakenly claim that it should be impossible to not believe in God if He really Exists. There should be overwhelming evidence of His Existence. Yet from a logical perspective it is hard to understand why this should be the case at all. Could God not conceal His Existence if He sought to? After all, we accept the existence of invisible black holes and, according to one of the common opinions, "people can't see black holes. They are invisible... But scientists can see how the strong gravity affects the stars and gas around the black hole," as cited earlier (NASA.gov). People cannot see God, but they can observe the effects of God's Existence on a variety of things described in part 2 of this post.

Back to Top

Comment below.


Next Post
Does God Exist? (Part 2 - What Kind of Evidence is There for God's Existence?)

Related Post
What Kind of Evidence Exists for the Sinai Event?

What Kind of Evidence Exists for the Sinai Event?

Contents

• Introduction
• When Did the First Passover Observance Occur?
• Is There Evidence That a Large Group of People Wandered in the Desert?
• Are There Extra-Biblical Reports of the Sinai Event?
• The Greatness of the Event
• The Relevance of the Event to the Reporting Nation
• Commonality of Reporting

Introduction
Having just described what counts as evidence and the differences between sufficient evidence and absolute truth, we can apply it to the Sinai event. Because my goal is only to define what counts as evidence, I am not actually presenting research done on this particular topic, which the reader may do on his own time.

If you find yourself wondering if there is any evidence for the Sinai event, you would have to first determine what consists as evidence. What counts as evidence given the nature of this event? This depends on how can we categorize the Sinai event. Because the Jews make supernatural claims about the Sinai event, and do not claim the same about anything else, can we really put it any existing category? Even though the Sinai event possesses clear differences from any natural event, it nevertheless shares some things in common with other historical events. After all, Jews do consider the Sinai event to be historical, i.e., having actually occurred. If it was historical then there are certain historical elements left behind by the Sinai event.

Back to Top


When Did the First Passover Observance Occur?
Of course religious Jews will tell you that the first Passover observance was none other than the exodus from Egypt with Moshe as the leader at the Hand of God. But the critic would argue that you cannot use your assumption to prove your point, and in this case he would be right. So we can ask the critic to provide us another date or historical point for the observance of the first Passover. The critic has to provide us with this information because the majority of Jews, across the religious spectrum, observe Passover. Because it has become common practice, it has to have some origin. Our question to the critic is, "What is Passover's point of origin if not the Sinai event, as we claim?" Was it during the Sinai event or did the Jews observe the first Passover at a later point in history? It is certainly plausible that the Jews started keeping Passover, for example, in the 13th century and linked it to a theoretical exodus. However, there is no evidence supporting the conclusion that the first Passover was observed, in this example, in the 13th century. We are left with two categories of possibilities. The first category is that the first Passover occurred at the Sinai event. The second category is that it occurred at any point in time after the claimed Sinai event under different circumstances and for any set of reasons.

Back to Top


Is There Evidence That a Large Group of People Wandered in the Desert?

What kind of evidence would substantiate our claim that a large group of people spent a significant period of time in the desert of Sinai? The first place to look would be the actual locations where they camped. Rashi counts that the Jews made 37 total encampments over the 40 years between the exodus and the settlement of Canaan. This means that the Jews spent slightly over a year in each place (on average 1 year and 12 days). That would be a good starting point. If you succeed in matching the current sites with their original locations, you could look for evidence and other remains of a presence in those areas. For example, what kind of things do people leave in a location that they've camped in for a year? Clothing? Clay cooking vessels? Religious articles? Animal remains (camels, donkeys)? Burial plots? What can we find according to the description given to us in the Torah? It is important to develop an idea of what type of evidence you are looking for before looking for it. You must also consider whether the aforementioned articles have deteriorated by now.

Back to Top


Are There extra-Biblical Reports of the Sinai Event?
Before attempting to find extra-Biblical reports of the Sinai event, we should ask whether it is common for nations to produce reports about events that occurred to other nations. This in part depends on three things:

• The Greatness of the Event

  It would be unlikely for another nation to report on an insignificant event, even if the event occurred to their own nation. But the revelation of the Torah was a great event, so we could assume that another nation or nations kept some written record of it. For example, if we entertain the notion that Jewish hands, and not God wrote the Torah, we should note that there is no reference to birth or death dates or what type of food people ate. From its absence we can conclude that this information was irrelevant.
  
• The Relevance of the Event to the Reporting Nation

  Even if the Sinai event was great, according to their own understanding, it might not have made a great impact on other nations. Why would neighboring nations put the effort in creating a written record of an event that in their estimation did not affect them? To contrast, the only other people we can expect to have kept their own records of the Sinai event are the Egyptians. Although disagreement exists among Egyptologists, the Ipuwer Papryus records "some suggested parallels with the Book of Exodus." The Huffington Post ran an article titled Passover in Egypt: Did the Exodus Really Happen? - that addresses the following points:
  

  • The Ipuwer Papyrus
  • The Israelites' Travel Itinerary and the Egyptian Maps
  • Aper-el's Tomb
  • The Shiphra Papyrus

  We are not interested in providing absolute evidence, which does not exist, but only sufficient evidence for the Sinai event.
  
• Commonality of Reporting

  Not yet written
  

Back to Top


Related Posts

• Does God Exist? (Part 1 - Definition of Proof)
• Does God Exist? (Part 2 - Evidence for God's Existence)

Counterfeit Judaism

Christian Evolution

It’s important to know that one of the main pillars, perhaps the main pillar after belief in Jesus, is the attempt to bring others, especially Jews, into the fold of Christian faith. The reason for this is clear (although open to discussion) that without the Jewish involvement in Christianity, Christianity itself becomes essentially null and void. Why is this? For for the very fact that Christianity started off as a movement within the Jewish theology and that Jesus was a Jew, for the Christian necessitates that a Jew coalesce, conform, and confirm his faith. Although the question means something different to Jews and to Christians, that question is, "What is purpose of Christianity without the Jews?" To a Christian this question means, "Jews, your rightful place is within the ranks of Christianity," and is therefore a rhetorical question of sorts aimed at converting a Jew. To a Jew this question means, "You’re right, Christianity means very little without the Jews."

At the end of day, and for Christians at the End of Days, Christianity suffers an existential threat as long as Jews do not agree to it. This forces Christianity to grapple with the possibility that without its key players, it lacks confirmation. The Rambam opines in his work the Mishna Torah that the purpose of Christianity is to inform the nations of the concept of the Messiah, which is also the way it views Islam. In that, there is a purpose for Christianity (and Islam) without the involvement of the Jews.

The bank of Christianity, which operates in Jewish souls and not dollar bills, has within the last few decades opened up a new branch. This branch boasts Stars of Davids (Magen David), Jewish paraphernalia, symbolism, terminology, and charming Yiddishisms, such as shlep, (to drag) bubby (grandmother), and not to mention the cornerstone of Jewish theology - bagels and lox. Regarding physical appearance, Messianic Jews tend to depict pictures, either which they like or of themselves, with overtly and often exaggerated Jewish content; the point here is that there is often a feeling of insecurity about their Jewish identity (if they are indeed Jewish) which has to be mediated by overly-colorful and essential Jewish content. Some examples which I’ve seen are the insistence on showing a shofar, menorah, tefillin, or showing themselves wearing a tallis- some sort of external visual display, including support of the State of Israel.

There is a strange phenomenon at work here, for not only do the missionaries face the challenge of involving Jews with little or no spirituality, they also face the dual challenge of getting them past that first difficult juncture and then into an excited emotional state. Anyone who has sojourned into the world of spirituality will tell you that it, like a muscle, grows slowly and must be nurtured; these movements attempt to bypass that juncture by offering the person a quick-in, a pass into the back door. This is accomplished by effectively shutting off the thought process and by instigating (a false sense of) spirituality, which bypasses the need for a period of incubation and self-introspection before making a life-changing decision. And so the reality must be seen for what it is - this is the same exact process used on Gentiles as well. With a simple tweaking, adding in a few Jewish words, ideas, and emotional hot spots (such as love of Israel), and some good old fashioned Jewish guilt (what is that anyway?), Jews, not just Gentiles can be turned into robots. What is presented as a deeply theological and philosophical forum is nothing more than the minor and superficial adjustment of a preconstructed template. Rabbi’s like Rabbi Tovia Singer do an excellent job of deconstructing that preconstruction and therefore saving a Jew’s soul from utter destruction.

According to Wikipedia, the Jews for Jesus movement "was founded under the name Hineni Ministries in 1973 by Moishe Rosen, an ordained Baptist minister who was born Jewish and converted to Christianity at the age of 17. Rosen remained its executive director until May of 1996 when he was replaced by David Brickner, who, though having some Jewish ancestry, is not Jewish according to Jewish Law."

Jews for Jesus is funded by donations from Christians. At the time that I wrote this post it had full-time staff of 150 employees running branch offices in nine cities across the United States. There are also branch offices in Australia, Brazil, Canada (Montreal, Toronto), France, Germany (Essen), Israel, Russia, South Africa, United Kingdom, Ukraine (Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Kiev, Odessa). In addition to English language, the group runs websites in Hungarian, Persian, Italian, Spanish, and Korean languages." The most recent and disturbing developments has been its foray onto Israeli soil, although proselytization is illegal in Israel.

Concerning Christian-Jewish reconciliation and Christian missions to the Jews, Emil Fackenheim wrote:

... Except in relations with Christians, the Christ of Christianity is not a Jewish issue. There simply can be no dialogue worthy of the name unless Christians accept — nay, treasure — the fact that Jews through the two millennia of Christianity have had an agenda of their own. There can be no Jewish-Christian dialogue worthy of the name unless one Christian activity is abandoned, missions to the Jews. It must be abandoned, moreover, not as a temporary strategy but in principle, as a bimillennial theological mistake. The cost of that mistake in Christian love and Jewish blood one hesitates to contemplate. ... A post-Holocaust Jew can still view Christian attempts to convert Jews as sincere and well intended. But even as such they are no longer acceptable: They have become attempts to do in one way what Hitler did in another.

Having inherited the legacy of Abraham, many Jews are drawn into transcendental pursuits of all kinds and is the factor which has led to the constantly re-appearing Jewish sin of idolatry described in the Tanakh. The Jewish acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah is one of the oldest Biblical sins smeared on countless pages of the Torah. Christians might think they are helping the Jews, but they in fact are doing them a great disservice. Christians who missionize Jews are buying them(selves) tickets to Hell.

However, this Jewish perception of non-comparative value is also the factor that has led many Jews to embrace authentic Jewish lives, referred to as Orthodoxy, to become ba’alei teshuva, meaning Jews who have become observant.

The New Christianity

In some capacity the movement has gone grassroots, detaching from any formal institution and simply involves people who claim and profess these types of faith. For the most part there is no specific agreement on what it means to be a Jew who believes in Jesus, so most adherents advance their own definition, selecting and intersecting their own specific brew of verses, ideas, and theological points; at the end of the day they have each, to a degree, created their own one-man religion.

In the earlier days of missionizing, when it was endorsed by the Catholic Church, the main textual missionary focus was the Tanakh; the newest form of missionizing, has ironically adopted the Talmud itself as a missionary tool. This is incredibly foolish and telling of the movement's incompetence given that Christianity has traditionally set Jesus apart from the Pharisees, his enemies. Pharisaic Judaism, as it is sometimes referred, is the spiritual ancestor of today’s Orthodox Judaism, places a central focus on the Talmud. If Jesus vociferously resented the Pharisees it makes not one shred of sense to say that the Talmud itself, composed by the Pharisees, contains mention of him as the Messiah, and not just the Messiah, but the passed Messiah. This is precisely what the more intelligent of this new sect attempt to demonstrate. Their solution, however, is specifically that the Christian Bible presents Jesus falsely, having robbed him of his Jewishness and turning him into a Christian Anglo - the attempt then is to re-inject him into Judaism by finding needle-in-the-haystack selections from the Talmud, often very brief, which one without a solid background in Talmud study can only find to be obscure. Obscurity, however, is in fact the key word here, for without obscurity such an endeavor would be impossible.

Words

There are tell-tale signs of a Messianic Jew, several of which are actually Jews, such as the Hebraicifation of certain words and names, such as Yeshua instead of Jesus and the attempted Hebrew or Aramaic forms of the names of the four Gospels: such as the Hebrew Matisyahu instead of the Anglican Matthew, and Yochanan instead of "John. There is also Sha’ul instead of Paul, and a series of other words, such as Brit Chadasha, which literally means New Covenant, a stand-in for New Testament. There is also the term Netzari or Notzri, which means "a person from Nazareth" and is the modern Hebrew word for a Christian.

With regards to Messianic synagogues, they can be told usually by the name they bear, (see above) an invented name that no other authentic Orthodox synagogue has, usually something flowery, such as Beth Chayim, which means House of Life. Most Orthodox synagogues have names which they have had for decades, such as Chofetz Chayim and Young Israel.

There is no need for Messianic Judaism because Judaism is inherently Messianic. The best way to fend off these movements and people is simply to educate ourselves in Judaism.

Comment below.

Related Posts
Was Jesus a Pharisee?

A Different Kind of Nuclear Power

How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel! (Numbers 24:5)

In Parshas Balak (Numbers 22:2-25:9), the appointed Moabite king, Balak, joins forces with the Midianite powerhouse of prophetic impurity, Bilaam, to hatch an evil plot against the Jews. The goal? To somehow bring a Divine curse upon the Jews. The reason? Fear of annihilation after their defeat of Og and Sichon, two nations of whom Moav was a protectorate. The method? Hit 'em where it hurts, their purity.

Let us focus, if we may, on a practical application of Bilaam's maxim in a way that can pertain to our daily lives.

After the Moabite king relentlessly and unsuccessfully sends Bilaam to place a curse on the Jews, his final failure occurs when the Midianite prophet utters these words - "How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel!" Rashi explains Bilaam's comment as:

"He saw each tribe dwelling by itself, not intermingling [with other tribes], and he saw that the openings of their tents did not face each other, so that they should not peer into each others' tents." (Bava Basra 60a, Midrash Aggadah)

I propose that we can extract and use lesson in a way that can improve our interactions with others. Not "peering into each others' homes" can be applied in our own lives as "giving each other privacy," on the interpersonal level, but specifically on the familial level.

That privacy is a holy abode that resides within each of our homes, and if preserved, can produce fantastic results in the lives of our spouses and children. It helps us turn our nuclear family into a "nuclear generator" of the safety and creativity required for healthy development.

As has been pointed out by many in the past and present, nuclear power can be a source of great curse, but of great blessing as well.

This is ever relevant as well on the technological front, where "windows" permit "virtual peering," i.e., "following" people and keeping track of their mundane activities. Obviously technology as well can promise much good, but the "how goodly" doctrine helps ensure that its capabilities doesn't overextend its designed reach into the most important private sector aside from our hearts, i.e., our homes.

See the following chilling social media experiment:

The Relationship between Personal Morals and Social Values

There is an inherent difference between personal morals and external values, with the main difference, as I see it, being the internal nature of personal morals and the external nature of social values. A person's morals, as far as is popular to consider it today, are nobody's business but the individual's. For example, a person's sexual viewpoints and behavior are his or hers alone, for he or she is the master of his or her own destiny. Social values, on the other hand, are external, and should be everybody's business because the world is truly affected by the maintenance (or dissolution) of ethical social and political mechanics. What is not realized from time to time is that, what to one is an attack on corrupted social values, to another is a rescue from corrupted personal morals.

For example, to us living in America, the attempt to end the genocide occuring in Sudan as we speak is an expression of the desire to bring social justice, but to them, to the people living (and dying) through it, those who are personally experiencing it, their own extermination is indicative of people that don't care, which signifies the hatred between one person and another. It is easy to believe that a problem occuring overseas is political, stripped of personal content, but the people living it are inescapably aware of the individualistic nature of that hatred.

To offer another example, it is easy for someone fighting against the genocide in Sudan to believe that rape is a political tool, but the victim does not rationalize the political nature of the act, nor does the perpetuaor, for their experience tells them that they are being violated, or are violating another, in one of the worst ways that a person can. What is one person's public war is another person's personal war.

Both of these concepts are inherent to the Torah, and indeed, the entire Torah stands on them. For example, the commandments are both personal and communal in nature, and in fact, they are delivered with the distinguishing lines already removed; it is truly wondrous that no distinction is made between their importance to both the individual and to the community, and to another degree, the entire world.

The prophets directed their potent words towards the corrupted. "Hear this, you who devour the needy, decimating the poor of the land, saying, 'When will the month pass, so that we can sell grain; the Sabbatical Year, so we can open the stores of grain; reduce the ephah (a unit of measurement) and increase the shekel (the monetary unit), and distort the scales of deceit, to purchase the poor with silver and the destitute for shoes; and we will sell the refuse of grain?'"(Amos 8:4-7)

When the Torah was given, long before the time of the prophets, the commandments referring to communal civility were set down. "If your brother becomes impoverished and his means falter in your proximity, you shall strengthen him, proselyte or resident, so that he can live with you. Do not take from him interest and increase; and you shall fear your God, and let your brother live with you. Do not give your money for interest, and do not give your food for increase." (Leviticus 25:35-38)

The prophets also criticized people for their personal short-comings, "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and in their own view, understanding. Woe to those who are mighty in drinking wine and are men of accomplishment in pouring liquor. The acquit the wicked one because of a bribe, and strip the righteous one of his innocence." (Isaiah 5:21-23)

So what am I trying to say? As human beings, it is not enough to be inspired by a desire for social justice but to be lacking in personal morals. Conversely, it is also not enough to be personally moral but to lack a desire for social justice. Both are necessary components for a holistic understanding of what it means to be good, to be Godly.

If we peer accurately enough into society, past the layers, we see the breakdown of the borders that separate private and public morality, and we see just how strongly the two are interwoven. At a certain point the distinguishing lines between public morality (i.e., social justice) and private morality (i.e., drug use) become the same thing. In reality, there is no particular difference between morality or immorality in regards to what sphere of society that particular thing is relegated to; compassion is compassion across the board, whether it is directed towards the self, another person, or an entire group of people. In the same exact way, hatred is also hatred across the board, whether it's directed at the self, another, or a whole group of people. Morality is transcendent, affecting all of society simultaneously wherever it exists, and so is immorality.

If we are people that are truly dedicated to improvement of the human condition, known in the Torah as "Tikkun Olam," repair of the world, it can only be accomplished through simultaneous personal and public maintenance.

The most important thing to realize is that the Torah and the prophets do not make these bold assertions simply out of the kindness of their hearts, but rather, personal and public morality and ethics are expressions of Godliness. Amos describes that there will be a day where people will desire Godliness more than they desire food, "Behold, days are coming, the word of the Lord Hashem/Elokim, when I will send hunger into the land; not a hunger for bread nor a thirst for water, but to hear the words of Hashem." (Amos 8:11-12)

The verse from Leviticus previously quoted finishes off by saying, "I am Hashem, your God, Who took you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be God unto you." (Leviticus 25:38)

Isaiah also says, "Woe to those who arise early in the morning to pursue liquor, who stay up late at night while wine inflames them. There are harp and lyre and drum and flute, and wine at their drinking parties; but they would not contemplate the deed of Hashem, and would not look at the work of His hands." (Isaiah 5:11-13)

Morality is not divorced from Godliness, in fact, it is His command.

Related Posts

• Morality

Comment below.

All of the Families of the Earth

Introduction
"I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I will curse, and all of the families of the earth shall be blessed by you." (Genesis 12:3)

If look more closely at this verse we can break it down into three parts:

• Phrase A - I shall bless those who bless you
• Phrase B - and those who curse you I shall curse
• Phrase C - and all of the families of the earth shall be blessed by you

The above verse is one of the promises that God gave to Abraham upon calling him to leave his household and to settle in Canaan.

At a glance, the message of the verse is simple and straightforward – those who bless Abraham will be blessed and those curse him will be cursed. A valid assumption can be that since Abraham is a source of blessing for the families (nations) of the earth, that those who bless him will be blessed and vice-versa. While that is true, a deeper glance shows an added dimension of complexity.

The verse clearly tells us that “all of the families of the earth shall be blessed by” Abraham , which has to include those who curse him as well. How can it be that those who curse Abraham will be blessed? If this is true, it seems that Phrases A and B are independent of Phrase C; Phrases A and B, which are particular, are true in and of themselves and have nothing to do with the information in Phrase C, which is universal in scope. In other words, the reward for blessing Abraham is a blessing and the consequence for cursing him is a curse – nothing more needs to be said. Phrase C is there to convey an additional piece of information, that all of the families of the earth will be blessed by Abraham regardless of their attitude or behavior towards him.

Further, for the people in Group A (those who bless Abraham ), the blessing of Phrase C simply heaps on an element of blessing in addition to the one they already receive for blessing him on their own accord. For the people in Group B (those who curse Abraham ), the blessing of Phrase C simply acts as a mitigating factor for the curse they receive for cursing Abraham . They too benefit from the universal blessing that Abraham has on the world even though as individuals they have cursed him.

A Useful Metaphor

The following metaphor can be used to explain this concept:

Imagine 20 people standing in a room full of cigarette smoke. Half of the people in the room are healthy individuals who eat, exercise and sleep well. The other half doesn’t take good care of its health. Now imagine that an individual enters and clears all of the smoke out of the room. The new presence of fresh air has a positive effect on everybody in the room, whether they take care of their health or don’t. His action benefits everybody in the room regardless of their individual decisions.[1]

The same is true of Abraham, who strived in and succeeded in embodying the attribute of giving, or chessed. The place that Abraham contributed in turning the world into benefits everybody, whether they bless him or curse him.

What is also interesting is the alternating order of the subjects mentioned in each phrase. The verse says, "I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I will curse…" In Phrase A, the active verb "bless" appears at the beginning of the phrase, while in Phrase B, the active verb "curse" appears at the end. If we keep in mind that God Himself is the speaker of these verses, we can suspect that the order indicates God's eagerness to bless rather than curse. Indeed, the Kli Yakar on this verse states the following:

An appreciative person feels and thinks about something in his heart and mind before expressing it with his mouth. This is because he expresses appreciation first in his heart and mind. In the same manner, God juxtaposes thought to deed only for the sake of good, but not for the sake of evil (Kiddushin 40a)…

This is the reason the verse says, “I will bless those who bless you,” because he who blesses you thinks in his heart before saying the blessing with this mouth, and a beneficent thought is considered equal to a deed, therefore, I will bless him before he even utters the blessing with his mouth. But such is not true with curses, rather, I will curse you only after you utter the curse with your mouth – only then will I curse him, and not before he utters the curse, because God doesn’t juxtapose an evil through to His deed.

In other words, a blessing comes to those who bless Abraham as if without delay. The placement of "I will curse" at the end seems to allow those who curse Abraham some time to change their ways.

The Kli Yakar also offers another explanation, as follows:

Emptying out a heaping container isn’t the same as emptying out an almost empty container. During Birkas Cohanim, the shaliach tzibur says the words before the Cohanim say them, which brings down inspiration to the Cohen, who then distributes it to the Jewish People. A person has to be blessed himself if he is to bless, which is why the verse says, “I will bless those who bless you.” Before they bless Abraham they themselves have to be blessed, so God blesses them first. The same is not true with curses, which is the reason the verse says, “and those who curse you I shall curse,” and not the other way around.

Conclusion
The larger picture comes together to suggest that God uses Abraham as an instrument of blessing in the world, which is supported by Abraham association with the attribute of giving. In order for Abraham to be able to bless others, he must first be blessed by them, hence completing this happy circle of blessing. This extremely intimate and unique relationship between God and Abraham is also conveyed in our praying, which says, "But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, My beloved." (Isaiah 41:8) It also seems that this type of intimate language is seldom used in the Torah as a way to describe the relationship between God and a human being. A similar usage is used with regards to Moshe - "And God spoke to Moses face-to-face, as a man speaks to his friend." (Exodus 33:11)

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

[1] The Kli Yakar notices that the subject of Phrase A is written in the plural and the subject of Phase B is written in the singular, which renders the verse as follows, “I shall bless those who bless you, and he who curses you I shall curse…” According to his explanation this means that, “Many will bless you, but those who curse will not be large groups, but rather marginal and scant individuals, such as Nimrod and his companions, and nobody cared what they believed.”

Morality

The notion that a disinterested God created the world and does not care about the affairs of man can be alluring. It also seems to be the basis of the view that a dispassionate and uninterested evolutionary force gave birth to life. It is rather freeing to believe that nothing “up there,” or anywhere, cares about what you think, say, or do; you are able to do whatever you want. This means, of course, that anybody can do whatever they want to you as well. Those who speak of universal morality fail to realize that there is no universal morality if there is no God. They try to replace universal and absolute morality with other social systems that might prove temporarily useful, but once the current situation ends, then the need for that specific social system also ends. The result is perpetual return to relativism and the ensuing, silent chaos.

On the other hand, some people want to believe in God as a means to safeguarding humanity by establishing universal and absolute notions of morality. However, they realize that "this God's" existence places a restriction on their pursuit of pleasure, While providing them with the safety of an unchanging notion of morality, they are not prepared for this exchange and in the end, many people choose fun over morality.

Most people do not consciously realize the philosophical, theological, and ethical implications of evolution, but subconsciously they realize that it is a philosophy of agnostic freedom, and even though they may speak highly of morality and justice, a world of agnostic freedom can never achieve those things, it can never achieve peace. This is double talk. Some people want their cake and to eat it too. They want morality, but not such a complete system of morality that would affect all sectors of life. In other words, give God a corner to sit in and tell Him to stay put. This is one way of understanding the verse, "The heavens are heavens of the Lord, but the earth He gave to the children of men." (Psalms 115:16)

It is hypocritical to want morality and justice while saying that God does not exist, which is to accept morality and justice just as long as they sound romantic. Morality and justice ricochet and suggest that these same concepts must curb some of their sensual tendencies. If values limit people of their freedom, some will abandon their values for freedom. Some preach morality loudly, but only so that it defends their rights to do as they please. This is selfish morality, it is a corruption of morality. It is the right thing for the wrong reason, which turns it into the wrong thing. It is not based on a concern for the whole of mankind; it does not defend the rights of homosexual union, for example, from a belief that homosexuality is a right, but it defends it to claim their own right to engage in any sexual behavior that they desire. As long as homosexuality is acceptable they might rationalize that any sort of sexual pleasure is justified so long as it is heterosexual. And yet heterosexuals are not off the hook by any means. Plenty of heterosexual wrongs are committed and cannot be ignored simply because there is something less acceptable.

It is a society of rights then, and not a society of obligation; it is my right to be free and therefore to do anything that I want, which is more important than my obligation. In fact, even intelligent people who understand and proclaim that the world functions as a whole refrain from criticizing certain behaviors lest they appear bigoted and intolerant. They are more influenced by the times than by an unchanging notion of morality; they care more about what the times dictate is proper than what they know to be proper.

When society rots, it rots from the inside out like a bowl of fruit. It is hard to conceive that there is an inherent relationship between all evil things. Even things that seem distant and unrelated to other are intimately connected. For example, while lying and violence do not seem to be related to each other in any way, what they have in common is desensitization to moral perception. This concept can be applied to all areas of society, which is it is important to understand that all sectors of society can be damaged by an evil committed in one area. It is untrue that acts of injustice and corruption are isolated. It is harsh, but if there is no remedial activity, either the molded piece must be cut from the fruit, or the molded fruit must be removed from the whole. A type of mold gives spread to a more aggressive type of mold. Unfortunately, we cannot see the mold but only its effect, it is everywhere and closely linked to our most positive desires; evil is not personified as a person – we must see that the person acts wrongly but that the wrongness is separate from his or her being. Luckily, thank God, a human can be rehabilitated, unlike a molding fruit, and unlike the fruit, we have free will; we can resist the mold for we were molded in God’s image.

This type of morality is like lust compared to love: lust commands no regulations and no limits, but true love does. Lust is holy in the context of love, while love is trash in the context of lust. Lust is romantic, and many people who love someone find that lust is a part of their relationship more than actual love, and lust has a short half-life, but when one finds true love, the notion of romance is entirely altered; love becomes the pillar of the relationship and lust becomes an added bonus in the context of that love. In the end, lust falls apart and love remains strong; a lust with the world will cause the world to break apart, but a love for the world will cause it to remain together. Love is mature and discerning and daring, lust is foolish and silly and cowardly. The commandment is to “love your neighbor as (you love) yourself” and not “lust after your neighbor as you lust after yourself.” In both cases the latter is easy (or easier) to do once the first is accomplished. Once the latter is accomplished (love/lust yourself), the former (love/lust your neighbor) is almost hard to stop. That is why love is the relationship between God and humanity; any relationship between God and humanity that frees humanity in any way is not love, it is lust, and it is not Godly.

Related Posts

• The Relationship between Personal Morals and Social Values

Comment below.

Repentance is Hypocritical

Venturing into the world of Jewish observance or self-improvement in general can be an awkward experience, potentially fraught with criticism from others and temptations to overcome. Some of these pitfalls are related to the sojourner’s awareness of his own paradoxes, such as, “How can I become an observant Jew when I am still involved in sin?” Such a question has the potential to decimate a person’s plan on increasing his observance, and in some cases preventing one from even considering it. When confronted with this question he tells himself, “Given my less than ideal state, which, by the way, I enjoy, increasing my observance would be hypocritical. Observance is something better left to those who are ready, able, or desire to completely abandon such behavior.”

What is important to understand is that transforming from an imperfect person to an immaculate angel overnight is not the stated goal of Torah observance. While it would be ideal to completely abandon inappropriate behavior, it is more realistic to wean off of it over a period of time. Judaism does not consider it realistic, nor does it demand, that a person who seeks to improve his character do so in one fell sweep. Rather, the Torah and its sages are well aware that improvement is something which takes time and effort. Jewish Law recognizes that an individual goes through a process of refinement and renewal, and that such a process necessarily reflects the individual’s ambition and capability to improve.

Further, Jewish wisdom and law understand that behavioral tendencies are deeply entrenched within a person’s psyche – some of which are positive and some of which are negative. It is the negative aspects which must be weakened while the positive are reinforced, exercised, and eventually fine-tuned.

Therefore, in no way is incremental increase in observance hypocritical or frowned upon. Much worst is when a spark of renewal bursts asunder within a person, which he then squelches with anxiety, hesitation, and in some cases fear and laziness. Regarding the attraction towards observance, one should feel comfortable knowing that expressing that desire to any degree is justified and encouraged.

What about when a person fails time and time again and falls into sin? Does sin make repentance and observance useless? To the contrary, repentance is encouraged, not mitigated, by a past splotched with sins. The strong desire to sin is as well not a sign that one has failed. Rather, the fact that a person is agitated by sinful desires proves that he has already begun improving.

One great thing about religion is that is institutionalizes morality in a way that secular idealism, some of which is noble, cannot. Then the critic might ask, “What about the famous criticism stating that religion is the opiate of the masses?” Doesn’t the inexistence of God undermine whatever good is to be apprehended by believing in an absolute conscience? In other words, believing in God might help you to behave well, but if God doesn’t exist, then it’s just a form of control.

This requires two responses.

The first is the following possibility; even if God didn’t exist, the God-driven desire to be a genuinely good person can work wonders in self-improvement and enrichment. If we accept for the moment that the existence of God is just an idea, it is an idea that fundamentally changes the way people think and act. However, just because it makes things better, does it make it true?

And this line of questioning took years to develop into a more mature understanding of religion. While truth is an ultimatum that an individual can never abandon, eventually one expands his understanding of truth to include within it peace. For example, while a younger man might fight to the end for the sake of defending truth, creating conflict with family and friends and even ending relationships, the same person in a more mature state might seek a path of peacemaking as a means to establish that same truth that years ago he would have killed for. The fight for truth can never end, and I do not agree that replacing a yearning for it in the external world with the internal world is correct, for then it becomes only an idea. The truth can be illustrated more accurately as follows:

Suppose that your wife comes to you with the classic "how do I look" question? The aim of Truth cannot be a mere delivery of facts, but rather a set of actions or words that arrives one at the necessary goal. In the case of marriage, peace between husband and wife is the ultimate goal. If so, the correct answer to the question of "how do I look" is anything that will bring you and your wife together.

This is demonstrated most aptly by a short section of narrative in the Book of Genesis. A careful reading of the following verses in Genesis (18:11-1) teaches us a great lesson about the relationship between truth and peacemaking:

Now Abraham and Sarah were old, coming on in years; Sarah had ceased to have the way of the women. And Sarah laughed within herself, saying, "After I have become worn out, will I have smooth flesh? And also, my husband is old." And the Lord said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, 'Is it really true that I will give birth, although I am old?'"

Note that Sarah says that her husband is old, yet when God relates to Abraham what Sarah had said, His words are that Sarah said that she was old. In other words, God uses other words to relate Sarah's message. His purpose for doing so was to act as a peacemaker between this every-holy couple who loved each other so dearly and who together brought so many souls to God. He was operating with a description of truth that goes beyond the mere delivery of facts and definition of words, but focused on the desired outcome of the words themselves. The desired outcome of words is peace, and therefore it is truth. This does not provide one with an open ticket to say whatever he wants and manipulate words until they are unrecognizable for the Torah also says that one should not bear false witness, or lie. Words must operate within a specific framework that does not violate the simple meaning. Perhaps it can be understood that Sarah's statement that her husband is old indicates their closeness in years. If Abraham is old, then so is Sarah, and so God's statement operates within these parameters.

The resistance to forms of control is rooted in rejection of doing things for the wrong reason. While control (and fear, for example) is not the ideal reason to worship God, inexperience and immaturity sometimes require it. The ideal motivation to worship God is love for God, but sometimes a person must start with a more basic and perhaps easier concept, which is fear of sin. Fear of sin is the safety net that protects a person from engaging inappropriate behavior. With time and practice, fear of sin can be replaced with love of God, but is virtually impossible to arrive at love of God without first fearing sin.

Applying this concept to the larger search for Truth, a person might one day realize that this very search must include within it aspirations for peace with his neighbors, his friends, his family, with himself, and ultimately with God. Peace not as an indifferent settlement or abandonment of his ideals, but as an integration of a broader, more complete picture of more sharply focused ideals.

How great are Your works, Hashem! Your thoughts are very deep. A brutish man does not know, and a fool does not understand this. (Psalm 92: 6-7)

Comment below.

Was Jesus a Pharisee?

• Introduction
• What Makes a Pharisee?
• Jesus Violated the Sabbath
• Conclusion

Introduction

The question in the title of this post is an important one to Christians. In the last few decades many Christians have come decidedly closer to the conclusion that Jesus was a Pharisee.

It seems that there are two main reasons for this conclusion:

• Internal - to establish Christianity's identity by defining its relationship with Judaism viz-a-viz Jesus
• External - to demonstrate Jesus' Jewish nature as a way of persuading Jews to embrace Christianity

In other words, Christianity's developing self identity is defined by its conceptualization of Jesus. However Christians understand Jesus is how they are able to define Christianity. One of the movements within Christianity seems to be a desire to move closer to Jesus' being a Jew, part of an attempt to see him in his original context. There are many reasons for this desire and most are beyond the scope of this post. To briefly illustrate those points, however, some Christians are interested in Jesus' Jewishness for one or both of the following reasons:

• To infuse Christianity with the Jewish vitality lost as Christianity spread among Gentiles
• To reinterpret Christianity in light of the growing trend of liberalism in modern democratic secular societies

Regarding the external aspects, some Christians seek to revive his Jewish character as attempt to streamline him with Judaism. The purpose of this particular movement is an attempt to bring him into the purview of Jewish consciousness, or in other words, for the sake of proselytization. It is to this end that they seek to associate him with the Pharisaic movement, for most people know that the Pharisees are the only significant remnant of the Jewish People since the Second Temple era. The Pharisees are those Jews who accepted the Divine authority of the Oral Law, embodied in the Talmud. The modern expression of the Pharisees are the Orthodox Jews. The common wisdom is to streamline Jesus with Orthodoxy to draw on its legitimacy. In other words, they want to give Jesus a piggy back ride on Orthodox Judaism.

Back to the Table of Contents

What Makes a Pharisee?

So let us examine if Jesus was a Pharisee. Certain statements in the Christian Scripture seem to indicate that Jesus held Pharisaic-type thoughts and opinions. In a somewhat cryptic statement in the Christian Scriptures, Jesus says, "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18) This statement seems to be a confirmation of and support for the Law, which refers to the commandments of the Torah. It even seems scrupulously attentive to the minute details of the Law consistent with Pharisaic scholarship. However, the statement also implies that there will be a point in time when parts of the Law will disappear as a means to accomplishing something greater. This second concept puts it at odds with Pharisaic thought and cannot be reconciled with the first concept.

Let us consider what the Book of Jeremiah says: 

And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying: "So said the Lord: 'If you break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, and not to have day and night in their time. Also My covenant with David shall be broken, that he should not have a son reigning on his throne, and with the Levitic priests, My ministers.'" (Jeremiah 33:19-21)

Jeremiah goes on to say more about this topic:

And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying:"Have you not seen what this people has spoken saying: The two families that God chose, He has rejected, and they make My people despise being a nation any longer before them. So said the Lord: If not My covenant with the day and the night, that the statutes of heaven and earth I did not place..." (Jeremiah 33:23-25)

Both of these sets of verses seem be exploring two concepts. One is that the kingship of David will be preserved as long as Earth's physical laws are in place. The second concept is that the physical laws governing Earth and the spiritual laws based in Heaven are irrevocably interlocked, and that the destruction of one axiomatically suggest the destruction of the other. In other words, as the long as the sun rises and sets, the laws of the Torah are in place. Of this can it be said that "A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth endures forever"? (Ecclesiastes 1:4) And "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. There is a thing of which [someone] will say, 'See this, it is new.' It has already been for ages which were before us." (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

So let us consider another of Jesus' statements, "...The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." (Matthew 23:1-3)

Later in chapter 23 Jesus goes on to say the following:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." (Matthew 23:23-28)

We can derive three ideas from Jesus' diatribe:

1. Jesus accepts the Divine authority of the Talmud (... the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat).
2. Although they are the rightly appointed arbiters of God's Divine Law via the Talmud, the Pharisees failed in behaving appropriately (But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach).
3. The Pharisees' inappropriate behavior did not undermine the validity of the Law, which would be an absurdity (You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former).

It is certainly true that Judaism has oft produced statements such as those seen here, even to this day. The concern with following the commandments, which we already established are of prime importance, cannot overshadow the observance of moral and ethical practices.

Part of the reason for this, although the Christian Scriptures overlook it, is that moral and ethical practices are themselves commandments. They are not extralegal elements unrelated to the corpus of Jewish Law. It is true that one must strive to always have in mind the spirit of the Law, but if he neglects the letter of the Law, the spirit of the Law goes with it. The diatribe above does not seem to contradict Judaism in any particular way. But if true, it also doesn't bring anything new to the table either.

Back to the Table of Contents

Jesus Violated the Sabbath

Although there may be more examples, there is one more brief example that I will share to demonstrate that Jesus in fact contradicted Jewish Law and the Pharisaic spirit.

The first is that Jesus violated the Sabbath. Before demonstrating how, it is important to read a few verses from the Torah. Exodus states the following:

So he said to them, That is what the Lord spoke, Tomorrow is a rest day, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. Bake whatever you wish to bake, and cook whatever you wish to cook, and all the rest leave over to keep until morning. So they left it over until morning, as Moses had commanded, and it did not become putrid, and not a worm was in it. And Moses said, "Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day [which is the] Sabbath on it there will be none." It came about that on the seventh day, [some] of the people went out to gather [manna], but they did not find [any]. The Lord said to Moses, "How long will you refuse to observe My commandments and My teachings? See that the Lord has given you the Sabbath. Therefore, on the sixth day, He gives you bread for two days. Let each man remain in his place; let no man leave his place on the seventh day. So the people rested on the seventh day." (Exodus 15:23-30)

This description bears a striking resemblance to an incident recorded in the Christian Scriptures. Matthew 12:1 states that, "At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” The fact that Jesus and his disciples directly violated God's command to Moses of "Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day [which is the] Sabbath on it there will be none." The Torah then tells us that "[some] of the people went out to gather." We can imagine this anonymous party of Jews who did not heed God's command and His teachings as Jesus and his disciples. What Matthew describes seems like a deliberate and brazen violation of the teachings of the Torah. Audaciously enough, Jesus himself does not violate the Sabbath, but only sees to it that his disciples do.

The violation of Jesus' disciples of the Sabbath was technically subject to capital punishment. As expected in accordance with Jewish Law, a Sabbath violator can only be put to death if two valid witnesses observe him committing the violation, they warn him of the penalty of death as to detract him, and he responds by continuing to partake in the prohibited act. What Matthew records as the Pharisees snootily meddling in Jesus' affairs might actually be their warning to detract him, and thus to save his life.

The Book of Matthew's exact words are, "When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, 'Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.'" His response to them was the following: 

"He answered, 'Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’a you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.'"

In Mark 2:27-28, Jesus says to the Pharisees, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Even if it is true that the "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," it doesn't seem to justify violating it, but rather to focus properly on its meaning! What Jesus says here seems like a direct contradiction of "See that the Lord has given you the Sabbath."

In accordance with Jewish Law, the above statement might possibly justify the death penalty.

As long as we are trying to see Jesus in light of Pharisaic thought and practice, let us analyze his response in terms of Jewish Law as well. The event that Jesus referred to is found in the Book of Samuel I. The event describes David fleeing for his life from the hand of King Saul and relates the following:

And David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest, and Ahimelech came trembling toward David, and said, "Why are you alone, and no one with you And David said to Ahimelech the priest, "The king charged me with a matter, and said to me, 'Let no man know anything concerning the matter upon which I am sending you, and with which I have charged you.' And I troubled the young men (to advance) to a hidden, secret place. And now, what is there in your possession? Five loaves of bread? Give them into my hand, or whatever is found." And the priest answered David, and said, "There is no ordinary bread in my possession, but there is holy bread, if the young men have but kept themselves from women." And David answered the priest, and said to him, "But, women are withheld from us as of yesterday and the day before yesterday when I left, and the young men's garments are hallowed, and that is in a manner common, and even if today it would be hallowed in the vessel." And the priest gave him hallowed (bread), for there was no bread there, except the showbread, which was removed from before the Lord, to place warm bread on the day it was taken." (Samuel I 21:2-7)

What we can glean from these verses is that David was hungry, perhaps to the point of danger. Built in to Jewish Law is the permission to do what would otherwise be a violation of Jewish Law in order to survive (which a man shall do and live by them - Leviticus 18:5). For example, one must periodically eat during Yom Kippur under certain conditions, such as diabetes, which makes it life-threatening to go without food for an extended period of time. Another example is that one must violate the Sabbath in order to save his life as well. 

The Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 2:3) describes this as an imperative that if not followed is in fact heretical:

Furthermore, it is forbidden to delay such violation of the Sabbath for the sake of a person who is dangerously ill, for Scripture says: “Which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), that is to say, he shall not die by them (Sanhedrin 74b). Hence you learn that the ordinances of the Law were meant to bring upon the world not vengeance, but mercy, lovingkindness, and peace. It is of heretics – who assert that this is nevertheless a violation of the Sabbath and therefore prohibited – that Scripture says, “Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and ordinances whereby they should not live” (Yechezkel 20:25).[1]

For the entire source article of the passage above, see Rav Twersky: V’Chai Bohem (“You shall live by them”).

Perhaps this very idea is what Jesus alluded to when the Pharisees told him that his disciples were violating the Sabbath. However, what is also likely is that there were other Jews in the area observing the Sabbath. As is customary on the Sabbath, Jews engage in three festive meals during the course of the day. It is difficult to understand why Jesus and his disciples couldn't visit somebody for a Sabbath meal instead of resorting to violating the Sabbath. Jewish Law makes it clear that violation of the Sabbath for survival is a last resort that should be avoided if possible. Yet Jesus seems to take a rebellious, brazen tone with the Pharisees. Further, David's response to Ahimelech was that he and the people were with him were ritually clean, which is an irrelevant point for Jesus and his disciples in the field. All in all, this event seems to suggest that Jesus was at odds with the Pharisees.

In short, it is difficult to understand why Jesus and his disciples couldn't visit somebody for a Sabbath meal instead of resorting to violating it. They seem to have put themselves in a very easily avoidable situation.

Jesus' second reference is to the Priestly duties being carried out on the Sabbath, which require activities that are otherwise forbidden on the Sabbath. Again, Jesus' statement here implies a knowing nod at the observance of Jewish Law. Indeed, he uses a mechanism in Jewish Law to prove his case, which is a clear implication that he believes in its Divine authority. That mechanism is that the exception where the holiness of the Priestly service overrides the holiness of the Sabbath even in a case when lives are not in danger. If so, it is hard to see how Jesus' application of this exception has anything to do with his point; picking grain on the Sabbath is a mundane act not on par with the holiness of the Priestly service and so, as the Pharisees warned him, is unlawful.

Back to the Table of Contents

Conclusion

When considering statements made by Jesus to determine whether he was a Pharisee, and thus in line with Orthodox Judaism, we come to the following conclusions:

• Jesus made cryptic statements that, while partially in line with Pharisaic thought, ultimately contradicted them
• Jesus acknowledged the Divine authority of the Pharisees as representatives of the Mosaic Law
• Jesus made statements that emphasized observance of the spirit of the Law without indicating that the letter of the Law should be discarded
• Jesus led other Jews to violate the Sabbath and defended his behavior with incorrect arguments

In short, it is hard to consider him a Pharisee, which means that Christianity must acknowledge that he either unknowingly or deliberately violated Torah Judaism.

Back to the Table of Contents

Why Should a Person be Religious?

The question as to why an individual should give any credence to such a proposition is under heavy scrutiny in the Western world. Compelled by pushing the envelope of modernism to new and uncharted frontiers, what really seems to be happening is a constant rehashing of the same message; rejection of traditional thought. And not without cause, for newness and innovation seem to be the light at the end of the tunnel of a despair borne out of social unrest, anome, injustice, and vicious intolerance of intolerance itself.

Notwithstanding the complexity of navigating and making sense out of domestic and global affairs, a simple answer lies at the kernel of the human experience; the existence of the soul is enough reason in and of itself for the consideration and pursuit of religiosity. The human experience attests to the existence of this element, entity, force, thing, we call a soul. Essentially and seemingly independent of the affairs that govern the external world of event and counter-event lies a quietly screaming voice deep inside that begs to be recognized and expressed.

Despite the importance of such things, the first and foremost consideration relevant to religiosity is not concern with proofs of Divine revelation, arguing that religion improves society, or even demonstrating that God exists. The primary consideration for the validity of religion is the existence of the soul. The mind is given expression in intellectual verification and activity. The heart is given expression in providing love and compassion to other individuals and to the self. The body is given expression in physical activity, nutrition, rest, and shelter. It is the simple yet profound realization that nowhere else can the soul be given expression than in the realm of religion. Religious formulation and sensitivity is the very environment where the soul is allowed to exercise itself, it is the only platform of spiritual activity. These other operating systems do not support spiritual software.

For the sake of clarity and for the focal point of this post, I am not associating the word religion with any particular one, although I do have a choice when it comes to religion. It is my point only that religion itself, without getting into particulars, is a necessary element in the lives of modern human beings.

And the cynic might say that the soul is a byproduct of neurological and biological functions. It is the mirage that occurs at the cross section of a several mechanisms; the instinct to survive, physical orientation in a three dimensional world, the ability to perceive the future and other intangibles, and social constructs. The previously mentioned cannot answer for the overwhelming inundation with the soul's omnipresence in personal experience. Neither in isolation nor combined can they produce the experience of the soul's attendance in all that we do.

The most convincing is social construct. Anybody with children knows how aptly a parent can create realities for his child. And yet simple observation of a child reveals that a deeply real inner world exists within him. A parent can only hope to affect and influence this inner sanctum, but he has no way of creating it. It comes with the territory of life, it is an immutable element of existence that owes nothing to the parent's nurturing and acculturation.

Comment below.

?למה זה טוב לאדם להיות דתי

קורא יקר,

כתבתי את הגרסה המקורית של הפוסט הזה באנגלית. אני מקווה שהתרגום (ת רגום של גוגל) הוא מדויק ובדקתי אותו קו אחר קו לוודא.

תודה

השאלה מדוע אדם צריך לתת כל אמון בהצעה כזו היא תחת בדיקה כבדה בעולם המערבי.

Do People Who Believe in God Know How To Think?

Human beings should be incapable of believing in God. They should be, but they are not.

This is as well true for the belief in anything that exists beyond what the human senses can readily and easily perceive and integrate into their everyday world. Yet, the very ability to believe in God implies an awareness of things that cannot be observed. The very fact that virtually all human beings are capable of such a belief indicates the existence of a "tool" capable of measuring spiritual activity. That tool, of course, is the human soul and the "object" of observation is God Himself.

Contrary to some opinions, it is not the human intellect that makes it impossible to believe in God (although that is what some people want you to believe), because there are many, many intelligent people in the world who subscribe to the belief in God. This in-and-of-itself of course does not mean that God exists, rather it challenges the assumption that if only people were analytical and exercised rational thought that they would become atheists. It only means that it is possible to be a human being with an active intellect who believes in the existence of God. If a person is genuinely analytical and still believes that God exists, it is a false assumption that intelligence leads to atheism. Atheists do not have a monopoly on intellect -- nobody does. All one can have is a right to intellect, and that right is granted to those who exercise it, whether believers or atheists.

In short, atheists need to stop acting as if knowledge of the mechanisms that govern our physical world disqualifies the possibility of God's existence. For every apparent coincidence of unfathomably low probability exists an equal and opposite miraculous and otherwise unexplainable phenomenon, become unexciting due to its frequency and perpetuity. Is it not then a choice, rather than a compulsion, to interpret the "facts on the ground" as either pointing to or away from God, bereft of any natural way of verifying one's decision?

And let us not forget that with most atheistic conceptualities of religion in general come many fallacies. Many atheists seem to think that religion is a primitive form of the human attempt to apply meaning to natural disasters and other scientifically-explainable phenomenon. Religious beliefs about sin and punishment in this world stem from scientific ignorance basic to Bronze Age peasants and shepherds. This is a rather ignorant belief. Speaking more for Judaism, but perhaps for the other monotheistic religions as well, the attempt to attribute scientifically-explainable phenomenon to the Will of God is almost completely unfounded. In the Torah, for example, there is very little reference to natural disasters in general, much less to in terms of worldly punishment for sin. It is true that the Torah sets forth worldly punishment for sin, but the punishments detailed in the Torah are hardly what one would consider to be natural phenomenon.

For example, chapters 13 and 14 of Leviticus describe something in Hebrew known as tzara'at. While tzara'at is often translated into English as "leprosy," it is actually a form of skin lesion that appears somewhere on the body. Here's the kicker: the Torah's purported cause for this skin lesion is derogatory speech, or lashon hara (literally evil tongue) in Hebrew and Jewish parlance. There is no obvious scientific connection between gossip and other forms of disparaging speech and skin blemishes. Why would the Torah care to make such a connection given the dubious relationship between gossip and bad skin (although the life of most teenagers would seem to support this connection)?

Here's where the critic might say, "This Bible-thumping Jew made a mistake." Skin lesions are by all means natural phenomenon, so there is no reason to assume that they were caused by lashon hara. If so, then consider Leviticus 13:13, which says, "...then the Priest shall look [at it, the lesion]. And, behold! the tzara'ath has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce [the person with] the lesion clean. He has turned completely white; he is clean (uninfected)." If tzara'at is a natural skin condition caused by bacteria, virus, or some other quantifiable natural entity, the verse I just quoted is completely irrational. If the skin condition has covered "all of his flesh" the afflicted should be anything but clean, yet that is what the verse states! The answer is that tzara'at is a spiritual affliction rather than a physical one, which is why although in parts of Leviticus 13 and 14 it seems to function according to physical rules, ultimately it does not.

Let us also consider verses 10 and 11 for good measure:

The Priest shall look [at it]. And, behold! there is a white se'eith (different form or lesion on the skin), and either it has turned the hair white, or there is healthy, live flesh in the se'eith, it is old tzara'ath on the skin of his flesh, and the Priest shall pronounce him unclean; he need not quarantine him because he is unclean (infected).

There are two problems with the above verses. The first is that verse 10 mentions that if there is any "healthy, live flesh in the se'eith... he need not quarantine him because he is unclean." One would normally think that the emergence of "healthy, life flesh" indicates that the healing process has begun, but the Torah tells us that, to the contrary that it signals his being unclean. The second is that if he unclean, why does the Torah say "he need not quarantine him because he is unclean." Would that not be a very good reason to quarantine him?! The answer to both questions is that tzara'at, as mentioned before, is not a physical affliction, but a spiritual one. Likewise, it does not function according to physical laws, which is why it seems so bizarre.

To summarize, while religion may contain reference to physical phenomenon, its point is not to provide explanations for as-of-yet undiscovered scientific anomalies. The explicit purpose of religion, and absolutely of the Torah, is to establish a connection between (im)moral behavior and spiritual consequence. If any of these punishments bleed over into the physical realm it is because (again, according to Judaism), the spiritual and physical world are intimately interlocked.

Comment below.