Hi, I really like what you're doing here, it's a very good balance to what is coming out of the RJ blog. As someone who generally likes and appreciates what DRNS believes, but very much dislikes how he says it, I would like to assume the role of representing Slifkin and say here what I think he would write if he were not so scarred and bitter towards chareidim.
I think you guys do not truly appreciate the beauty of the struggle that he and many others are going through and what is what I consider the key driving force behind the rational Judaism hashkafa. And I hope to respectfully bring that out in your comments section with the goal of learning, educating, and hopefully bridging what currently seems like a huge gap between the two sides
As a spokesman for Natan, perhaps while we have some downtime, you can shed some light on Natan's view of learning Torah acts as a protection? Natan has not been able to explain his seemingly contradictory statements in the last week and a half yet claims that he is not flipflopping. Amongst many other things, Natan has written that:
1. Practically speaking, Torah does NOT protect.
2. Torah in fact does protect.
3. R' Zilberstein is silly for telling a guy not to buy a gun and to rely on Torah protection.
4. Chareidi yeshivos should not have fled the south and should have relied on Torah protection.
5. Saying Torah protects is like the silly old man who did nothing and 'just' prayed while his friends built a lifeboat.
It seems that Natan is so very confused, yet he claims that he is not. Can you shed some light here?
Just to be clear, I have no relationship with NS, I am just taking up the role as a pretend character - his fake brother who shares his hashkafa but is interested in shalom, not knocking down others.
It will be more of a spokesman for the general rationalist crowd from a respectful and chareidi perspective.
As far as NS flipflopping, to be honest, I haven't followed the complete back and forth on that, but my suspicion is that it is the result of his propensity to group all chareidim into one bucket despite the fact that we are a complex group. He then cherry-picks actions that he wants to criticize and acts like all chareidim do or think in this way.
From what I can tell, you guys did well to point out his contradictory criticisms and I wouldn't hold my breath for a meaningful clarification
I would like to start with a little background to what I think is an under-appreciated component of many "rationalists". I truly believe it boils down to where your starting point is.
I think we can all agree that there are at least appears to be tension between the things we learn in the Torah vs what we experience in "reality". Whether it's a conflict of Torah vs science (e.g. age of the universe, magic/no magic) or a conflict in terms of expected results vs what actually happens (e.g. tzaddik v'rah lo, babies dying from cancer etc).
If you are like most classic chareidim, you were raised with an unshakable belief that the Torah is from Hashem, Hashem is kulo tov, all those good things. And you have never moved from that unshakable belief. Because your emunah is so solid, none of these questions will bother you in the sense that it will affect your emunah. You are 100% sure everything is from Hashem. If you get decent answers to these conflicts, great. If not, not a big deal, you know at some point the truth will come out and the Torah will be proven true.
Then you have people who either were not raised with this unshakable belief, or they were, but started questioning things to such an extent that they are no longer comfortable believing just based on the fact that they were raised this way.
At this point, they are obviously in a much different position from the first group. They now have the challenge of proving the Torah is divine if they really want to believe in it. And guess what, it's almost impossible to prove. That, in my opinion, is the essence of a Torah rationalist.
Now conflicts between "reality" and Torah are much more than just a cute challenge. The Conflicts appear to point to an uncomfortable suspicion that the Torah is not Divine. (Kuzari for example says the Torah would never expect someone to believe something that goes against sense and reason.) And whereas the first group can answer conflicts from within the Torah itself since its authority is unquestioned, a rationalist must come up with answers from without. Without good answers, their faith in the Torah hangs uncomfortably loose.
Now take a couple examples and you'll see why the rationalist approach is so appealing for this group.
Let's say you read the Torah that says there's magic and witchcraft. You look around and see in "reality" it's non-existent and just a bunch of phonies. That's a problem, how can I believe in a Torah that believes in magic? If the Torah really believes that, it must not be Divine. Comes along some rishonim and they say, no, the Torah never meant there's real magic. Bam! my Torah is saved because I can keep to "reality" and it now shtims with the Torah.
I don't think you can have טענות on them for starting with their reality and working from there. What else should they do? And at that point, without the rationalist approach, they would not be able to shtim the Torah with their reality, and could not honestly feel that the Torah is Divine.
(I'll leave it at that, sorry for the length. I hope it added something and you can let me know if you are interested in continuing, I have more to say regarding your approach to atheist-adjacent)
You definitely hit the nail on the head with your clear and succinct explanation of the underlying issues. I mostly agree, with some reservations, and have much to say on the matter. When I have time, tonight or tomorrow, I will try to respond again with some of my thoughts.
Yesterday's post from Natan is a very good example of what you're talking about. "Why Judaism?" Why indeed? He's not satisfied by any of the standard arguments, the best he can come up with is some generic pop psychology stuff from liberal atheist Jonathan Haidt. Is his "atheist -adjacent" attitude any surprise?
But I think there is more than that (and I plan to IYH write a post on this). It's not just that he's conflicted about Judaism. If it was just that, he wouldn't have embarked on an 18 year crusade to persuade everybody else. I think he is a product of the early 2000s internet atheist culture. You can see that clearly from his language and arguments. Always making rhetorical demands for evidence, talking about "unfalsifiability", about "intellectual honesty", about how great science is and how it's so much better at truth than dogmatic religion, constantly making comparisons to Christianity and Islam. Yet he still wants to hold onto the parts of Judaism he likes, especially Zionism. I think the "rationalism" is not an attempt to save Judaism, but an attempt to show that his attitude has traditional precedent. He doesn't really care what the Rishonim held about magic or demons, he cares that they were willing to (he imagines) totally discard parts of the Torah that didn't make sense to them, so he can do the same.
Regarding your assertion that it's almost impossible to prove the truth of the Torah (maybe you were just talking from the POV of Natan and co?), we are also IYH planning posts on that. Briefly, I think the "Kuzari Proof" as commonly construed is a gross oversimplification, and a relic of the pre-internet age. The good arguments are considerably more sophisticated, engage with a full picture of what the Torah really is and the powerful historical tradition behind it, and involve a thorough debunking of many of the erroneous assumptions of anthropology, Biblical Criticism, and archaeology as applied to the Torah. In any case though, as you see in Natan's recent post, he has either not seen or has not been convinced by those arguments.
There is another aspect of our faith though, and that is the deepness of the Torah. As somebody who learned Torah deeply in Yeshiva, and continues to do so as a baal habos (no daf yomi!), I see first hand how amazingly deep the Torah is. That's also partially why so many questions, like Creation and hashgacha, don't bother me that much. I can't understand a simple line from Abbaye and Rava, yet I expect to understand the ways of Hashem??? That's part of why I find Natan's attitude so unbelievably arrogant. A lot of this is discussed in my post here
Getting back to this discussion, I have the feeling we are going to have to agree to disagree regarding the possibility of proving the truth of the Torah. I'm not saying only from Natan's POV, I'm including myself in there. A while back, I set out on a journey assuming I would be able to conclusively prove it, but everywhere I turned I hit a wall of disappointment. I've seen many attempts at proofs, but the common denominator for me was that they are very good proofs if you already believe and are just looking for confirmation, but lacking if you are starting from the POV of a non-believer looking for the truth.
Different people have different measures for what is considered a good enough proof, and that is why I suspect we may never see eye to eye, but as an example, this book was recently published with essays by some of Orthodox Jewry's smartest thinkers and none of them seemed to assume that Orthodoxy is provable (https://www.eichlers.com/strauss-spinoza-sinai-paperback-bke-ssspb.html).
I would just challenge you and ask, a) have you ever really ventured into this going all in, in the sense that if you found proofs unsatisfactory, you would no longer believe in the truth of the Torah? and b) if you heard these style proofs given by a different religion, would they convince you to jump ship based on their proofs?
If you answer no to these questions, I can't help but think that you haven't reached the mindset of the classic rationalist.
The main thing I gained from my journey (and admittedly it is a loss as well) was that I am extremely hesitant to judge and/or criticize people who have searched and have not been convinced that the Torah is emmes. And I value their struggle and I am impressed with their resolve to stick with Orthodoxy despite being so challenged by it intellectually.
The anti-chareidi side of Natan and his blog are annoying and deeply biased, and I have no sympathy for that stuff. But his religion blog I think is spot on with what many are struggling with and if you can at least appreciate that to some, the proofs are not good enough, then I think you'll have greater respect for what's going on in that search.
Interesting you posted a picture of Yaron Yadan, because Nosson's (sic) first books were specifically written to counter his claims, especially "The Camel, Hare, and The Hyrax" and "Mysterious Creatures", precisely those books which got banned.
I do not think even Natan supports Yadan's vile rhetoric or attitude towards Judaism.
I know right. According to the books my kids read, Yaakov Ovinu wore a spodik. Clearly those kravaten-juden of the early 1900's who stopped wearing them were evil perverters of ancient practices.
Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it any less wrong.
But I do find your obsession with Noson Slifkin, your use of language, and your evident desire to act as self-appointed policeman of various imagined boundaries, to be quite amusing, interesting and unusual. Worthy even of a psychological analysis.
Wrong again. You are making a whole lot of unwarranted assumptions. But even if it wasn't my community, so what? That doesn't seem to stop you from being so obsessed with R' Slifkin that you have created a whole blog devoted to attacking him.
We attack both Slifkin and others who usurp the name "Judaism" for their perversions. If he would just be a Yudkowskian rationalist who didn't claim to speak in the name of Judaism, we would have no interest in him.
"Perversions." LOL. You and your little crowd here are like a caricature of the Spanish Inquisition.
And yes, you are making all sorts of assumptions about me, based on my knowledge of, and interest in, things far beyond your bubble. And the fact that I have no patience for the narishkeit peddled by you and the others here.
"Every indication from chareidi behavior is that they believe it and practice it."
This would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Like everything else, some do, most emphatically do not. Many examples have been provided to date, such as running to the sealed rooms during the gulf war, the guards outside kiryat sefer and beitar (not to mention on the leil shimurim (1st night pesach) several years ago, it was a time of high alert, the town of beitar actually demanded additional security, causing those providing the extra security to miss their seider - so not only was there no faith in the torah protects, there was no faith in leil shimurim l'doros either!), the yeshivos that did flee, etc etc. All been 'answered' with silly word salads.
Sorry, all addressed. Not my fault you don't understand the most basic things. Again, you argue like a kindergartner. Go learn some Torah, and then we can have a discussion.
You are hilarious. The usual Charedi line has always been "everyone was frum in the heym" (which was always nonsense). But when that's not convenient now it's "Poland and Lithuania weren't far behind the 90% spiritually 'lost in Germany." (And, of course, who was to blame for that? Well Zionism of course, among others. Don't say the Rabbonim didn't point that out very clearly!)
But "You know nothing about history. Here, let me give you some anecdotes to replace the actual research done by people who spend their time checking things like population and marriage records, shul records, newspaper records." Because Ploni "knows." Hilarious. Because Avigdor "Better to be a murderer than to tolerate homosexuals" Miller was "there."
One of the "miracles" that pretty much everyone agrees on was the War of Independence. Oh, can't attribute that to Charedi Torah study? Then not a miracle at all! "Actually they lost that war! The country was in a shambles until Torah study picked up!"
So let's get this straight. Zionism is both partly responsible for the Holocaust and not at all responsible for the success of Israel. Whereas, if only everyone had listened to the Rabbonim there wouldn't have been a Holocaust. And Israel's success is due to Charedi Torah study. And those secular Jews (those shmucks who pay taxes and serve in the army) don't even deserve to live in Eretz Yisoel.
The depth of arrogance, the extent of delusion and the hatred and sickness involved in this is absolutely remarkable.
I read the title. What makes you think it's not for me? Because I find the arrogance and ignorance of my own community to be disappointing and extreme?
I never said that. If, when emancipation for the Jews came, 90% promptly dropped all pretense of fidelity to the mesorah, then clearly, they were "frum" not frum, no different than many people in communities today who do little more than go through the motions.
There is no point in discussing anything with you. As HGLP notes, this post is not for you.
What did I manufacture here? Jews had no choice to be part of the klal for most of the time we were in Europe. Whatever spiritual weaknesses we had, and they certainly existed, they were largely kept private. When r'shus came, by way of emancipation and the MODOX leaders of the day (aka the early Reformim), many couldn't abandon ancient practices fast enough.
Whereas now we're "winning" instead of "losing" in the merit of the same behavior by the same people? Why are the people who were being admonished now meriting the protection of the entire nation for exactly the same behavior as before?
Don't you think it's far more likely that we're "winning" as a reward for people who have chosen to do something a completely different way?
I don't get where you're going with this. The Torah says averios = tochacha. Torah and mitzvos = protection. What's so hard to understand?
But regardless, you seem to know almost nothing about Jewish history. In the times before the Holocaust, things were in spiritual freefall. Look in Toras Habayis from the Chofetz Chaim. What he describes happening in his time is terrible. If I recall correctly, he predicts that if things continue as they were, within a couple of years all Jews will be secular. R' Avigdor Miller was there at the time and says the same thing. So it's entirely consistent with the Torah that tremendous calamities will befall us in such a scenario.
Contrast that with today. B"H, limud HaTorah and Torah study is on the increase, not on the decline. So it's entirely reasonable to say that the nature defying success of Israel is in the merit of the Torah, entirely as the Torah describes.
I see. So according to you it wasn't mostly religious and traditional Jews murdered in the Holocaust, but actually it was the secular.
And the "nature-defying" success of the almost entirely secular Zionist enterprise was a reward for the massive amount of Torah study that was going on in 1940's Palestine (sarcasm).
You, my friend, are in the grip of a bizarre set of delusions that will endlessly shape-shift rather than accept logic or reality.
Huh? The Torah and Chazal are very clear that in times of retribution, EVERYONE is affected. Shomrei Torah and secular alike. Do me a favor, if you so obviously know absolutely nothing about the most basic Torah hashkafah, don't come here attacking people with ignorant questions and accusing them of being arrogant!
I didn't say anything to indicate that NOT EVERYONE is affected by the tochacha. But clearly the OP ascribed reward to the actions of specific parties.
Obviously logic isn't your strong suit. I challenged your silly notion of a general spiritual free fall pre-Holocaust. There is no identifiable connection in modern Jewish history between tragedy and actual spiritual free fall. The greatest spiritual free falls - Shabtai Zevi and the American Reform movement, have both actually come right after huge tragedies.
My, you know nothing about pre-war Europe or early Israeli history. I'll base my knowledge on Europe on what I heard from people who witnessed pre-war Europe, aside from my grandparents- not just books. The first half of the 20th century was the worst spiritual decline in the last millennia by far. Germany lost 90% by then, and Poland and Lithuania not too far behind. Hungary was much better (didn't they only start deportation there in 44?) but give it a few more years they were headed for the same. But you ask about the success of Israel in the 40's. False. Other than being awarded statehood and winning the 48 war after many failures, they lost half the territory including the old city, and was a country in shambles. They only became the successful country we see today after 67. Yes, by that time lots of learning was going on.
I'm not trying to play God, I could be totally wrong for that matter. But stop blaming chareidim for being inconsistent; they know how to think too. Every thing lines up.
Now let me ask you, since We can explain the holocaust, and you claim to believe in God as well, how do YOU explain it?
Poland, despite the shtetl reputation was already well on the path to total abandonment of Torah. R. Avigdor Miller, as mentioned by מכרכר בכל עוז, described European Jewry as in a state of outright rebellion against Hashem. He also explains why American Jewry at the time, despite being pretty much as frei as their European counterparts, were not rebellious like that. There are a small number today who qualify for that label, but IMHO most Jews today are too traumatized and/or retarded be labeled the same.
Once the maelstrom was let loose, everyone was affected. This is standard Jewish hashkafa. No one is immune from getting swept up in some way.
Only you are ascribing reward and punishment to specific parties.
Hashem is not going to destroy us entirely. After the tochacha comes the reprieve. But clearly, we are reaching a limit, as travails pile up.
Charedim hold that there is an obligation of Hakaras Hatov to the IDF as well as anyone else who provides assistance to someone, be it Charedi or anyone else. This is a lesson from the Torah that we learn from Moshe Rabeinu refraining from hitting the Nile. Practically speaking however, the IDF as a whole is probably treated with a degree of suspicion by the average random Charedi, being that they have the reputation of being hostile towards Charedim and the recurrent threat of a draft being hanging over Charedi society. But from my time in Israel, I've observed that most Charedim are appreciative and gracious towards individual soldiers who are protecting them.
We should definitely feel and express hakaras hatov to all who help us. Most nonreligious soldiers are tinok shenishba and we should only have good, warm, thankful feelings towards them, mixed with sadness that they don't (yet) get to experience Torah and Mitzvos.
On the other hand, we also need a hakaras hara, a recognition of the tremendous damage many of the anti-Torah leaders and intellectuals have caused.
I am assuming it should be pretty easy to differentiate between soldiers putting themselves on the line for us and the Guys sitting by desks marketing and regulating the army to be hostile to frum people.
What do mean involved? Deliberately inflicted cancer on babyX? For some unknown reason. maybe punishment, maybe a test, etc, etc.is that your theological position? I'm seriously trying to understand, thank you.
Absolutely, and that is the normative Torah theological position. There is also the possibility that He leaves some stuff to "chance". That is also normative. But even when He does that, it is part of His judgement, that is, He doesn't leave such stuff to chance for the righteous.
Fair enough. I asked, you answered. I completely reject such a revolting concept. and indeed would hate a god that did such a thing. Does that make me a heretic?
Or isn't it possible that your theological position is not nearly as universal as you believe it is?
Actually, I missed the last part of your answer before. it seems sometimes kids' cancer is in deliberately inflicted and sometimes it's random, like just bad luck from a natural world. But not for the righteous. Is that correct in your theological mindset?
Hi, I really like what you're doing here, it's a very good balance to what is coming out of the RJ blog. As someone who generally likes and appreciates what DRNS believes, but very much dislikes how he says it, I would like to assume the role of representing Slifkin and say here what I think he would write if he were not so scarred and bitter towards chareidim.
I think you guys do not truly appreciate the beauty of the struggle that he and many others are going through and what is what I consider the key driving force behind the rational Judaism hashkafa. And I hope to respectfully bring that out in your comments section with the goal of learning, educating, and hopefully bridging what currently seems like a huge gap between the two sides
Hi Shalom,
As a spokesman for Natan, perhaps while we have some downtime, you can shed some light on Natan's view of learning Torah acts as a protection? Natan has not been able to explain his seemingly contradictory statements in the last week and a half yet claims that he is not flipflopping. Amongst many other things, Natan has written that:
1. Practically speaking, Torah does NOT protect.
2. Torah in fact does protect.
3. R' Zilberstein is silly for telling a guy not to buy a gun and to rely on Torah protection.
4. Chareidi yeshivos should not have fled the south and should have relied on Torah protection.
5. Saying Torah protects is like the silly old man who did nothing and 'just' prayed while his friends built a lifeboat.
It seems that Natan is so very confused, yet he claims that he is not. Can you shed some light here?
Just to be clear, I have no relationship with NS, I am just taking up the role as a pretend character - his fake brother who shares his hashkafa but is interested in shalom, not knocking down others.
It will be more of a spokesman for the general rationalist crowd from a respectful and chareidi perspective.
As far as NS flipflopping, to be honest, I haven't followed the complete back and forth on that, but my suspicion is that it is the result of his propensity to group all chareidim into one bucket despite the fact that we are a complex group. He then cherry-picks actions that he wants to criticize and acts like all chareidim do or think in this way.
From what I can tell, you guys did well to point out his contradictory criticisms and I wouldn't hold my breath for a meaningful clarification
We welcome your comments!
I would like to start with a little background to what I think is an under-appreciated component of many "rationalists". I truly believe it boils down to where your starting point is.
I think we can all agree that there are at least appears to be tension between the things we learn in the Torah vs what we experience in "reality". Whether it's a conflict of Torah vs science (e.g. age of the universe, magic/no magic) or a conflict in terms of expected results vs what actually happens (e.g. tzaddik v'rah lo, babies dying from cancer etc).
If you are like most classic chareidim, you were raised with an unshakable belief that the Torah is from Hashem, Hashem is kulo tov, all those good things. And you have never moved from that unshakable belief. Because your emunah is so solid, none of these questions will bother you in the sense that it will affect your emunah. You are 100% sure everything is from Hashem. If you get decent answers to these conflicts, great. If not, not a big deal, you know at some point the truth will come out and the Torah will be proven true.
Then you have people who either were not raised with this unshakable belief, or they were, but started questioning things to such an extent that they are no longer comfortable believing just based on the fact that they were raised this way.
At this point, they are obviously in a much different position from the first group. They now have the challenge of proving the Torah is divine if they really want to believe in it. And guess what, it's almost impossible to prove. That, in my opinion, is the essence of a Torah rationalist.
Now conflicts between "reality" and Torah are much more than just a cute challenge. The Conflicts appear to point to an uncomfortable suspicion that the Torah is not Divine. (Kuzari for example says the Torah would never expect someone to believe something that goes against sense and reason.) And whereas the first group can answer conflicts from within the Torah itself since its authority is unquestioned, a rationalist must come up with answers from without. Without good answers, their faith in the Torah hangs uncomfortably loose.
Now take a couple examples and you'll see why the rationalist approach is so appealing for this group.
Let's say you read the Torah that says there's magic and witchcraft. You look around and see in "reality" it's non-existent and just a bunch of phonies. That's a problem, how can I believe in a Torah that believes in magic? If the Torah really believes that, it must not be Divine. Comes along some rishonim and they say, no, the Torah never meant there's real magic. Bam! my Torah is saved because I can keep to "reality" and it now shtims with the Torah.
I don't think you can have טענות on them for starting with their reality and working from there. What else should they do? And at that point, without the rationalist approach, they would not be able to shtim the Torah with their reality, and could not honestly feel that the Torah is Divine.
(I'll leave it at that, sorry for the length. I hope it added something and you can let me know if you are interested in continuing, I have more to say regarding your approach to atheist-adjacent)
You definitely hit the nail on the head with your clear and succinct explanation of the underlying issues. I mostly agree, with some reservations, and have much to say on the matter. When I have time, tonight or tomorrow, I will try to respond again with some of my thoughts.
Looking forward
Yesterday's post from Natan is a very good example of what you're talking about. "Why Judaism?" Why indeed? He's not satisfied by any of the standard arguments, the best he can come up with is some generic pop psychology stuff from liberal atheist Jonathan Haidt. Is his "atheist -adjacent" attitude any surprise?
But I think there is more than that (and I plan to IYH write a post on this). It's not just that he's conflicted about Judaism. If it was just that, he wouldn't have embarked on an 18 year crusade to persuade everybody else. I think he is a product of the early 2000s internet atheist culture. You can see that clearly from his language and arguments. Always making rhetorical demands for evidence, talking about "unfalsifiability", about "intellectual honesty", about how great science is and how it's so much better at truth than dogmatic religion, constantly making comparisons to Christianity and Islam. Yet he still wants to hold onto the parts of Judaism he likes, especially Zionism. I think the "rationalism" is not an attempt to save Judaism, but an attempt to show that his attitude has traditional precedent. He doesn't really care what the Rishonim held about magic or demons, he cares that they were willing to (he imagines) totally discard parts of the Torah that didn't make sense to them, so he can do the same.
Regarding your assertion that it's almost impossible to prove the truth of the Torah (maybe you were just talking from the POV of Natan and co?), we are also IYH planning posts on that. Briefly, I think the "Kuzari Proof" as commonly construed is a gross oversimplification, and a relic of the pre-internet age. The good arguments are considerably more sophisticated, engage with a full picture of what the Torah really is and the powerful historical tradition behind it, and involve a thorough debunking of many of the erroneous assumptions of anthropology, Biblical Criticism, and archaeology as applied to the Torah. In any case though, as you see in Natan's recent post, he has either not seen or has not been convinced by those arguments.
There is another aspect of our faith though, and that is the deepness of the Torah. As somebody who learned Torah deeply in Yeshiva, and continues to do so as a baal habos (no daf yomi!), I see first hand how amazingly deep the Torah is. That's also partially why so many questions, like Creation and hashgacha, don't bother me that much. I can't understand a simple line from Abbaye and Rava, yet I expect to understand the ways of Hashem??? That's part of why I find Natan's attitude so unbelievably arrogant. A lot of this is discussed in my post here
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/part-3-the-intellectually-challenged
See the section "Will this question kill you?"
Sorry for the delay in response
Getting back to this discussion, I have the feeling we are going to have to agree to disagree regarding the possibility of proving the truth of the Torah. I'm not saying only from Natan's POV, I'm including myself in there. A while back, I set out on a journey assuming I would be able to conclusively prove it, but everywhere I turned I hit a wall of disappointment. I've seen many attempts at proofs, but the common denominator for me was that they are very good proofs if you already believe and are just looking for confirmation, but lacking if you are starting from the POV of a non-believer looking for the truth.
Different people have different measures for what is considered a good enough proof, and that is why I suspect we may never see eye to eye, but as an example, this book was recently published with essays by some of Orthodox Jewry's smartest thinkers and none of them seemed to assume that Orthodoxy is provable (https://www.eichlers.com/strauss-spinoza-sinai-paperback-bke-ssspb.html).
I would just challenge you and ask, a) have you ever really ventured into this going all in, in the sense that if you found proofs unsatisfactory, you would no longer believe in the truth of the Torah? and b) if you heard these style proofs given by a different religion, would they convince you to jump ship based on their proofs?
If you answer no to these questions, I can't help but think that you haven't reached the mindset of the classic rationalist.
The main thing I gained from my journey (and admittedly it is a loss as well) was that I am extremely hesitant to judge and/or criticize people who have searched and have not been convinced that the Torah is emmes. And I value their struggle and I am impressed with their resolve to stick with Orthodoxy despite being so challenged by it intellectually.
The anti-chareidi side of Natan and his blog are annoying and deeply biased, and I have no sympathy for that stuff. But his religion blog I think is spot on with what many are struggling with and if you can at least appreciate that to some, the proofs are not good enough, then I think you'll have greater respect for what's going on in that search.
Interesting you posted a picture of Yaron Yadan, because Nosson's (sic) first books were specifically written to counter his claims, especially "The Camel, Hare, and The Hyrax" and "Mysterious Creatures", precisely those books which got banned.
I do not think even Natan supports Yadan's vile rhetoric or attitude towards Judaism.
Interestingly, didn't know that.
Gideon Slifkin's old blog: https://gadolhadorarchivemonth.blogspot.com/
Its in reverse order. Its a historical curiosity. (As an aaide, Natan was very upset about it.)
I know right. According to the books my kids read, Yaakov Ovinu wore a spodik. Clearly those kravaten-juden of the early 1900's who stopped wearing them were evil perverters of ancient practices.
Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it any less wrong.
But I do find your obsession with Noson Slifkin, your use of language, and your evident desire to act as self-appointed policeman of various imagined boundaries, to be quite amusing, interesting and unusual. Worthy even of a psychological analysis.
Denying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more right.
I only discovered Natan's (not Nosson. Should I call you Duvidel?) blog 2.5 years ago, and it was creepy to see how obsessed he was with my community.
The psychological analysis is already being done, by us, on this blog, about you guys. Hence the title of the post.
Wrong again. You are making a whole lot of unwarranted assumptions. But even if it wasn't my community, so what? That doesn't seem to stop you from being so obsessed with R' Slifkin that you have created a whole blog devoted to attacking him.
Not assumptions. Facts.
We attack both Slifkin and others who usurp the name "Judaism" for their perversions. If he would just be a Yudkowskian rationalist who didn't claim to speak in the name of Judaism, we would have no interest in him.
"Perversions." LOL. You and your little crowd here are like a caricature of the Spanish Inquisition.
And yes, you are making all sorts of assumptions about me, based on my knowledge of, and interest in, things far beyond your bubble. And the fact that I have no patience for the narishkeit peddled by you and the others here.
Clearly you feel threatened.
Not assumptions. Just facts. As I said, read the title. The post is obviously not for you. We have other posts for people like you.
"Every indication from chareidi behavior is that they believe it and practice it."
This would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Like everything else, some do, most emphatically do not. Many examples have been provided to date, such as running to the sealed rooms during the gulf war, the guards outside kiryat sefer and beitar (not to mention on the leil shimurim (1st night pesach) several years ago, it was a time of high alert, the town of beitar actually demanded additional security, causing those providing the extra security to miss their seider - so not only was there no faith in the torah protects, there was no faith in leil shimurim l'doros either!), the yeshivos that did flee, etc etc. All been 'answered' with silly word salads.
Sorry, all addressed. Not my fault you don't understand the most basic things. Again, you argue like a kindergartner. Go learn some Torah, and then we can have a discussion.
Er...yeah ok. Have fun policing your little online dreamworld.
You are hilarious. The usual Charedi line has always been "everyone was frum in the heym" (which was always nonsense). But when that's not convenient now it's "Poland and Lithuania weren't far behind the 90% spiritually 'lost in Germany." (And, of course, who was to blame for that? Well Zionism of course, among others. Don't say the Rabbonim didn't point that out very clearly!)
But "You know nothing about history. Here, let me give you some anecdotes to replace the actual research done by people who spend their time checking things like population and marriage records, shul records, newspaper records." Because Ploni "knows." Hilarious. Because Avigdor "Better to be a murderer than to tolerate homosexuals" Miller was "there."
One of the "miracles" that pretty much everyone agrees on was the War of Independence. Oh, can't attribute that to Charedi Torah study? Then not a miracle at all! "Actually they lost that war! The country was in a shambles until Torah study picked up!"
So let's get this straight. Zionism is both partly responsible for the Holocaust and not at all responsible for the success of Israel. Whereas, if only everyone had listened to the Rabbonim there wouldn't have been a Holocaust. And Israel's success is due to Charedi Torah study. And those secular Jews (those shmucks who pay taxes and serve in the army) don't even deserve to live in Eretz Yisoel.
The depth of arrogance, the extent of delusion and the hatred and sickness involved in this is absolutely remarkable.
Hey, calm down there buddy. Did you not read the title of this post? It's not meant for you.
I read the title. What makes you think it's not for me? Because I find the arrogance and ignorance of my own community to be disappointing and extreme?
Read it again. It's not your community.
I never said that. If, when emancipation for the Jews came, 90% promptly dropped all pretense of fidelity to the mesorah, then clearly, they were "frum" not frum, no different than many people in communities today who do little more than go through the motions.
There is no point in discussing anything with you. As HGLP notes, this post is not for you.
90% lol. Keep up with manufacturing lies - because for sure that's the only way to justify your stupid nonsense.
What did I manufacture here? Jews had no choice to be part of the klal for most of the time we were in Europe. Whatever spiritual weaknesses we had, and they certainly existed, they were largely kept private. When r'shus came, by way of emancipation and the MODOX leaders of the day (aka the early Reformim), many couldn't abandon ancient practices fast enough.
What a lot of weird nonsense. If you believe Hashem protects Israel in the merit of the Haredim, where was He in the Holocaust?
Allowing the tochacha to take its course? There are many stories of hashgacha pratit even then.
Why is it always about the Holocaust? Is not our history chock full of atrocities? Is your memory faulty?
Whereas now we're "winning" instead of "losing" in the merit of the same behavior by the same people? Why are the people who were being admonished now meriting the protection of the entire nation for exactly the same behavior as before?
Don't you think it's far more likely that we're "winning" as a reward for people who have chosen to do something a completely different way?
I don't get where you're going with this. The Torah says averios = tochacha. Torah and mitzvos = protection. What's so hard to understand?
But regardless, you seem to know almost nothing about Jewish history. In the times before the Holocaust, things were in spiritual freefall. Look in Toras Habayis from the Chofetz Chaim. What he describes happening in his time is terrible. If I recall correctly, he predicts that if things continue as they were, within a couple of years all Jews will be secular. R' Avigdor Miller was there at the time and says the same thing. So it's entirely consistent with the Torah that tremendous calamities will befall us in such a scenario.
Contrast that with today. B"H, limud HaTorah and Torah study is on the increase, not on the decline. So it's entirely reasonable to say that the nature defying success of Israel is in the merit of the Torah, entirely as the Torah describes.
I see. So according to you it wasn't mostly religious and traditional Jews murdered in the Holocaust, but actually it was the secular.
And the "nature-defying" success of the almost entirely secular Zionist enterprise was a reward for the massive amount of Torah study that was going on in 1940's Palestine (sarcasm).
You, my friend, are in the grip of a bizarre set of delusions that will endlessly shape-shift rather than accept logic or reality.
Huh? The Torah and Chazal are very clear that in times of retribution, EVERYONE is affected. Shomrei Torah and secular alike. Do me a favor, if you so obviously know absolutely nothing about the most basic Torah hashkafah, don't come here attacking people with ignorant questions and accusing them of being arrogant!
I didn't say anything to indicate that NOT EVERYONE is affected by the tochacha. But clearly the OP ascribed reward to the actions of specific parties.
Obviously logic isn't your strong suit. I challenged your silly notion of a general spiritual free fall pre-Holocaust. There is no identifiable connection in modern Jewish history between tragedy and actual spiritual free fall. The greatest spiritual free falls - Shabtai Zevi and the American Reform movement, have both actually come right after huge tragedies.
You just make stuff up to fit your theories.
My, you know nothing about pre-war Europe or early Israeli history. I'll base my knowledge on Europe on what I heard from people who witnessed pre-war Europe, aside from my grandparents- not just books. The first half of the 20th century was the worst spiritual decline in the last millennia by far. Germany lost 90% by then, and Poland and Lithuania not too far behind. Hungary was much better (didn't they only start deportation there in 44?) but give it a few more years they were headed for the same. But you ask about the success of Israel in the 40's. False. Other than being awarded statehood and winning the 48 war after many failures, they lost half the territory including the old city, and was a country in shambles. They only became the successful country we see today after 67. Yes, by that time lots of learning was going on.
I'm not trying to play God, I could be totally wrong for that matter. But stop blaming chareidim for being inconsistent; they know how to think too. Every thing lines up.
Now let me ask you, since We can explain the holocaust, and you claim to believe in God as well, how do YOU explain it?
Poland, despite the shtetl reputation was already well on the path to total abandonment of Torah. R. Avigdor Miller, as mentioned by מכרכר בכל עוז, described European Jewry as in a state of outright rebellion against Hashem. He also explains why American Jewry at the time, despite being pretty much as frei as their European counterparts, were not rebellious like that. There are a small number today who qualify for that label, but IMHO most Jews today are too traumatized and/or retarded be labeled the same.
Once the maelstrom was let loose, everyone was affected. This is standard Jewish hashkafa. No one is immune from getting swept up in some way.
Only you are ascribing reward and punishment to specific parties.
Hashem is not going to destroy us entirely. After the tochacha comes the reprieve. But clearly, we are reaching a limit, as travails pile up.
What is the Charedi approach towards Hakaras Hatov of:
1. The IDF?
2. Anyone who provides help and assistance to a Charedi for anything else?
Charedim hold that there is an obligation of Hakaras Hatov to the IDF as well as anyone else who provides assistance to someone, be it Charedi or anyone else. This is a lesson from the Torah that we learn from Moshe Rabeinu refraining from hitting the Nile. Practically speaking however, the IDF as a whole is probably treated with a degree of suspicion by the average random Charedi, being that they have the reputation of being hostile towards Charedim and the recurrent threat of a draft being hanging over Charedi society. But from my time in Israel, I've observed that most Charedim are appreciative and gracious towards individual soldiers who are protecting them.
We should definitely feel and express hakaras hatov to all who help us. Most nonreligious soldiers are tinok shenishba and we should only have good, warm, thankful feelings towards them, mixed with sadness that they don't (yet) get to experience Torah and Mitzvos.
On the other hand, we also need a hakaras hara, a recognition of the tremendous damage many of the anti-Torah leaders and intellectuals have caused.
I am assuming it should be pretty easy to differentiate between soldiers putting themselves on the line for us and the Guys sitting by desks marketing and regulating the army to be hostile to frum people.
I got what I was looking for, did you?
Cheers
So your God gives babies cancer?
He is certainly involved in that, yes.
What do mean involved? Deliberately inflicted cancer on babyX? For some unknown reason. maybe punishment, maybe a test, etc, etc.is that your theological position? I'm seriously trying to understand, thank you.
Absolutely, and that is the normative Torah theological position. There is also the possibility that He leaves some stuff to "chance". That is also normative. But even when He does that, it is part of His judgement, that is, He doesn't leave such stuff to chance for the righteous.
Leaves stuff to chance? Is everything ok with you? I think you've been reading too much of Slifkin's drivel.
Lol, yes I have!!!
Fair enough. I asked, you answered. I completely reject such a revolting concept. and indeed would hate a god that did such a thing. Does that make me a heretic?
Or isn't it possible that your theological position is not nearly as universal as you believe it is?
Yes. No.
It seems you are conflicted. Cheers
Actually, I missed the last part of your answer before. it seems sometimes kids' cancer is in deliberately inflicted and sometimes it's random, like just bad luck from a natural world. But not for the righteous. Is that correct in your theological mindset?
Yeshayahu 45:7 "Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord, Who makes all these."
He does much more, obviously.