Honestly, i don't remember what topic we were discussing, but i remember bringing up an issue with my friend where the torah and science disagree. He kept asking something along the lines of "how do we know that science is correct?" Sure, I don't KNOW that science is correct, but at least it follows guidelines, allows for peer review, and admits to changes in light of changing facts. In short, science starts out with a theory on why or how something is what it is and then goes about looking for evidence that back up or disprove the claims.
Compare that to the fundamental torah approach where the torah is assumed correct regardless of mounting evidence against a specific item within it. It is always he evidence that is viewed as flawed.
Clearly, this just isn't a fair or intellectually honest way of looking at things. While I personally, do not believe in the Torah from God model (TMS), i think if someone treated it as a scientific model and came to that conclusion, it would be a fair fight.
Along the same lines, my wife once asked me what level of proof i would need to satisfy me that God exists and that the torah is true. I responded that just as we wouldn't believe in the tooth fairy without evidence, why would we believe in God, the Torah etc without reasonable evidence. Of course, i made it sound a bit nicer so she didn't get too upset with my utter lack of reverence for Ortho Judaism and its tenents :)
I just don't see how fundies don't see the hypocrisy in bashing science for any possible error (which even scientist admit only they then update their conclusion's), but then giving the Torah a complete pass.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Are we allowed to ever change?
On another skeptic blog, JA made the comment "Why is it always the less religious parent who has to hide his beliefs and practices?". I thought about his comments through the lens of my situation and that of my fellow skeptics. Since most of us were ostensibly religious at the time we got married, it is us who is changing the dynamics of the relationship. In this light, I believe it is reasonable for the still religious spouse to be bothered by this change in our beliefs/actions. Likewise, I don't think it is fair for a spouse to become religious when both partners were irreligious at the onset of their relationship. Of course, from an OJ point of view, this is obviously seen as a positive move and it is the non-religious spouse that needs to get with the program.
This is not just true when someone undergoes a religious transformation. I think the same thing would hold true for anyone who significantly changes the dynamic of a relationship from the understanding they had at the onset. Such cases like someone who suddenly decided they wanted to quick their white collar job and live the life of an artist or someone who decided they no longer wanted to have any children. There are no right or wrong side of these issues. Rather, if they deviate from the understanding that one spouse has initially, then it is reasonable for them to be bothered when a change occurs.
So does this mean that nobody is allowed to change anything from the time they get married until they die or risk divorce? In short; no, they really aren't. Well, at least not in a significant manner without the buy-in of their spouse. Whenever we look for a partner, we are looking for personality, intellectual, religious, physical traits among others that appeal to us. So it should not be hard to fathom that by changing one of our core traits, out partner will have to adjust accordingly. Sometimes these changes can be accepted, other times they are just too big of a change to accept.
In a nutshell, I feel that this is the basis behind my fear of coming out fully to my wife about my religious views and practices. I love my wife dearly, but realize that some changes are just to great for a partner to accept and fear that this may be a deal breaker for my wife. My marriage isn't based solely on our common religious views that we shared, but it is certainly was one of our common views initially and one that my wife considers important. .
This is not just true when someone undergoes a religious transformation. I think the same thing would hold true for anyone who significantly changes the dynamic of a relationship from the understanding they had at the onset. Such cases like someone who suddenly decided they wanted to quick their white collar job and live the life of an artist or someone who decided they no longer wanted to have any children. There are no right or wrong side of these issues. Rather, if they deviate from the understanding that one spouse has initially, then it is reasonable for them to be bothered when a change occurs.
So does this mean that nobody is allowed to change anything from the time they get married until they die or risk divorce? In short; no, they really aren't. Well, at least not in a significant manner without the buy-in of their spouse. Whenever we look for a partner, we are looking for personality, intellectual, religious, physical traits among others that appeal to us. So it should not be hard to fathom that by changing one of our core traits, out partner will have to adjust accordingly. Sometimes these changes can be accepted, other times they are just too big of a change to accept.
In a nutshell, I feel that this is the basis behind my fear of coming out fully to my wife about my religious views and practices. I love my wife dearly, but realize that some changes are just to great for a partner to accept and fear that this may be a deal breaker for my wife. My marriage isn't based solely on our common religious views that we shared, but it is certainly was one of our common views initially and one that my wife considers important. .
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The "reason" for keeping kosher
One thing that has always troubled me about the torah is that Jews are expected to keep slews of commandments that have no clear reason. Yes, I know that the OJ view is that God doesn't need to give me a reason. Since He knows best, I should just take it at face value and do as I am told. However, i think even the most fundamentalist OJ would agree that it would be easier to follow the torah if we had reasons for the commandments.
A few weeks back, I was on a business trip in European city where there where next to no Jews. Subsequently, there was no kosher restaurant or take-out available. So I went ahead and ate with my co-workers in whatever places they ate for lunch/dinner. While I don't really care about keeping kosher, if I am in a place where it is readily available I will usually go for it. I think this comes back to my general fear of being found out that I am not really religious. So I would rather just place it safe even if it isn't the most convenient thing to do.
After being in this city for about a week & a half and eating with my co-workers, I have to admit I loved every minute of it. For once, I actually felt like one of the guys and not this pariah that always has to separate himself at meal time.
And that is when it dawned on me. This is probably why Judaism has the laws of kosher. What better way to make sure you don't hang out with non-Jews than to take away the opportunity for meals and parties with them? It makes a lot more sense than the tired reasoning that kosher is healthier or that non-kosher animals are somehow dirtier than kosher ones (let's be honest cows aren't the cleanest animals either).
Even skeptics and non-believers like me have to admit that this is an ingenious way to keep your own culture going and to keep your followers away from people with opposing views.
A few weeks back, I was on a business trip in European city where there where next to no Jews. Subsequently, there was no kosher restaurant or take-out available. So I went ahead and ate with my co-workers in whatever places they ate for lunch/dinner. While I don't really care about keeping kosher, if I am in a place where it is readily available I will usually go for it. I think this comes back to my general fear of being found out that I am not really religious. So I would rather just place it safe even if it isn't the most convenient thing to do.
After being in this city for about a week & a half and eating with my co-workers, I have to admit I loved every minute of it. For once, I actually felt like one of the guys and not this pariah that always has to separate himself at meal time.
And that is when it dawned on me. This is probably why Judaism has the laws of kosher. What better way to make sure you don't hang out with non-Jews than to take away the opportunity for meals and parties with them? It makes a lot more sense than the tired reasoning that kosher is healthier or that non-kosher animals are somehow dirtier than kosher ones (let's be honest cows aren't the cleanest animals either).
Even skeptics and non-believers like me have to admit that this is an ingenious way to keep your own culture going and to keep your followers away from people with opposing views.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Did Rachel Imeinu help the IDF in Gaza??
I am not going to rehash the whole story here, but, in short, there have been stories going around the country that Rachel Imeinu appeared to soldiers in Gaza during the recent operation and steered them clear of booby traps.
Yes, I admit I am a HUGE skeptic and would not readily accept miracles like the believing crowd would. However, I just have one question for those that believe it without questioning it at all:
Would you believe the same story if it was told about US soldiers and that it was Jesus that saved them? Of course, most believers in Judaism would say no without thinking twice. And I think this points out the err in their ways. They are so anxious to believe ANYTHING that puts God in a good light that they don't stop to think that maybe the story isn't true.
I was not in Gaza and have no idea if this happened or not. But to automatically accept it wholeheartedly or discount the opposite scenario of US soldiers and Jesus immediately is ridiculous.
I just wish EVERYONE (myself included) would actually take the time to look at the issues, listen to what others have to say, realize we may be wrong in our thinking, and then come to a conclusion. To jump to immediate conclusions in either direction doesn't help any of us.
btw, for some further reading, DovBear had 2 good posts on this as well:
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-rochel-imaynu-fable.html
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2009/01/did-rachel-imeinu-appear-or-not.html
**Update
2 additional posts on this topic, both from Rav Aviner
http://www.ravaviner.com/2009/01/rachel-imenu-our-foremother-rachel-in.html
http://www.ravaviner.com/2009/01/more-on-rachel-imenu.html
In short, he basically says that without better proof, we should assume it is not true.
Yes, I admit I am a HUGE skeptic and would not readily accept miracles like the believing crowd would. However, I just have one question for those that believe it without questioning it at all:
Would you believe the same story if it was told about US soldiers and that it was Jesus that saved them? Of course, most believers in Judaism would say no without thinking twice. And I think this points out the err in their ways. They are so anxious to believe ANYTHING that puts God in a good light that they don't stop to think that maybe the story isn't true.
I was not in Gaza and have no idea if this happened or not. But to automatically accept it wholeheartedly or discount the opposite scenario of US soldiers and Jesus immediately is ridiculous.
I just wish EVERYONE (myself included) would actually take the time to look at the issues, listen to what others have to say, realize we may be wrong in our thinking, and then come to a conclusion. To jump to immediate conclusions in either direction doesn't help any of us.
btw, for some further reading, DovBear had 2 good posts on this as well:
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-rochel-imaynu-fable.html
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2009/01/did-rachel-imeinu-appear-or-not.html
**Update
2 additional posts on this topic, both from Rav Aviner
http://www.ravaviner.com/2009/01/rachel-imenu-our-foremother-rachel-in.html
http://www.ravaviner.com/2009/01/more-on-rachel-imenu.html
In short, he basically says that without better proof, we should assume it is not true.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Is it only a package deal?
The more I think about my issues with Orthodox Judaism, Torah, and God, the more I realize that I really have no problem with God at all. Or Gods. Or some other supernatural being that made/started the universe as we know it. Regardless of the answer science comes up with, I feel like we are still left with the question of what created that first thing regardless of how primitive it may have been. Maybe I like the idea of putting it on a God that I don't have to explain. It just seems convenient since I don't think we can ever know the real answer with total certainty (even if it was God as described in the Torah). We all can look at the different theories and just put our faith into one that works best for us.
That said, my issues with OJ and the Torah are ones that bother me constantly. The laws, the historical/scientific issues etc. are on my mind all the time.
So I was wondering if it makes sense to anyone else that I have no problem believing a God figure could have created the earth, but that this God did not give the torah and doesn't really care much about us humans. That is, can you believe in an initial God, but not an everlasting one?
That said, my issues with OJ and the Torah are ones that bother me constantly. The laws, the historical/scientific issues etc. are on my mind all the time.
So I was wondering if it makes sense to anyone else that I have no problem believing a God figure could have created the earth, but that this God did not give the torah and doesn't really care much about us humans. That is, can you believe in an initial God, but not an everlasting one?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Moshiach sources
Can someone please give me some Torah sources for why Jews believe in the the coming of Moshiach (Messiah)? I would prefer the sources be from the Chumash (five books of Moses) as I just don't believe the Navi to be divine.
I don't have time to write now, but this will be part of a longer, more in-depth post.
I don't have time to write now, but this will be part of a longer, more in-depth post.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
When there are no satisfactory answers
When i started to move away from OJ, it was because I just didn't like it. It didn't speak to me at all and I did not get any spiritual uplifted from it. The minutia of halacha was incredibly annoying to me. And, unlike JP would like everyone to believe, it had NOTHING to do with wanting sex, drugs, or the like.
After a while like this, my wife encouraged me to seek out answers to my questions and to deal with my feelings instead of just giving up on it. I told her that I would honestly look for answers, but that she has to also understand that the conclusions I reach may not be the ones she desires. So I started to pay attention to the torah reading and actually read through it on Shabbat afternoon. I also began reading books that dealt with questions on Judaism or science/torah issues. I critically read some of the skeptic blogs and tried to look at the issues from a fair vantage point. Similarly, I read blogs from a traditional OJ vantage point.
Yet, what happens in the end of the day when the answers just don't satisfy one's need? Does that give one "permission" to leave the fold and follow the answers they have found? certainly not according to traditional OJ. Seems to me that people like me are really left in a bind because of this.
On one hand Judaism likes to state that, unlike Christianity, we are allowed to ask questions and think critically about our religion. On the other hand, if you are only allowed to come up with answers that lead you back to "proper" OJ, then you really aren't allowed to question after all.
After a while like this, my wife encouraged me to seek out answers to my questions and to deal with my feelings instead of just giving up on it. I told her that I would honestly look for answers, but that she has to also understand that the conclusions I reach may not be the ones she desires. So I started to pay attention to the torah reading and actually read through it on Shabbat afternoon. I also began reading books that dealt with questions on Judaism or science/torah issues. I critically read some of the skeptic blogs and tried to look at the issues from a fair vantage point. Similarly, I read blogs from a traditional OJ vantage point.
Yet, what happens in the end of the day when the answers just don't satisfy one's need? Does that give one "permission" to leave the fold and follow the answers they have found? certainly not according to traditional OJ. Seems to me that people like me are really left in a bind because of this.
On one hand Judaism likes to state that, unlike Christianity, we are allowed to ask questions and think critically about our religion. On the other hand, if you are only allowed to come up with answers that lead you back to "proper" OJ, then you really aren't allowed to question after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
