tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-194486752024-03-21T15:20:24.582-04:00Ohr ChadashB. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-82470037947660023242009-01-20T11:01:00.004-05:002009-01-20T11:14:37.845-05:00What's in a Name?e-kvetcher points out in the comments of my <a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19448675&postID=17419181158833794">previous post</a>:<blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>It's funny that the term "depression" was invented by Hoover to try to find a more uplifting term for what was happening in 1929...</blockquote>he points out that before calling it a depression they used to call it a bank panic. After the Great Depression, the government and the media stopped using the term depression and started using the term recession, since depression had a too negative connotation. This got me thinking what they will start calling it now. I don't think they will revert to calling our current situation a depression again, even if it goes on to equal the financial damage of the Great Depression. Instead, I imagine Obama and the media to begin referring to it a a global Boo Boo. The public has high hopes that the newly elected President will kiss it and make it all better. I have my doubts. We shall see.B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-174191811588337942008-12-06T19:21:00.003-05:002008-12-06T19:40:52.926-05:00The Impending CrisisI see a crisis coming from each and everyone of us in the near future. It will be like none other that we have experienced in our life. It will be worse than the Great depression. We will lose it all. This I can guarantee to a certainty.<br /><br />No, I'm not taking about the credit/mortgage crisis, I'm talking about death. The day when we lose everything. Nobody can take their gold or silver with them. Certainly not our dollars (which may be worthless soon anyhow.) I just wanted to put things into perspective. We tend to lose sight of the overall trajectory of our lives and obsess about the current events, such as the the financial crisis. In the end, like kohelet said, this is unwise. All the money we accumulate, in the end is worthless.<br /><br />The reason I came out of my blogging slumber to post about this is because I've been focusing on the current crisis too much. I don't think it nearly over. I think we've only begun to see the financial destruction. But whatever happens, we must take advantage of the situation. Not by trying to profit materially, but by refocusing our goals and striving for what is greater than silver and gold. Our peace of mind and our virtue.<br /><br />Best of luck and warm regards to allB. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-42344763001753020482008-07-15T10:26:00.003-04:002008-07-15T11:07:11.437-04:00Kiss your Ego GoodbyeToday is my birthday and just like Bilbo Baggins in the Lord of the Rings, I will disapear. But unlike him I won't do it with a magic ring. I will do this amazing feat with logic and science. <a href="http://www.foundalis.com/phi/WhyTimeFlows.htm">Now I exist, now I don't</a><br /><br /><p>Bilbo: "I, uh, I h-have things to do." [fidgets with the Ring behind his back. Whispers to himself] "I've put this off for far too long."</p> <p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ0vrk7aldTLgfIFRhFROH1wN3in25iPwY5-IUc6Wy522gLrDAuySzBOsFv9zUkZ5YAnJI_q5nzdPqhn3LPRqZ1t-tSt088SdSfhoOtICutKshs59J_5iPidImlKTKcXZuGcsh/s1600-h/bilbo.gif"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ0vrk7aldTLgfIFRhFROH1wN3in25iPwY5-IUc6Wy522gLrDAuySzBOsFv9zUkZ5YAnJI_q5nzdPqhn3LPRqZ1t-tSt088SdSfhoOtICutKshs59J_5iPidImlKTKcXZuGcsh/s320/bilbo.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5223257435671950098" border="0" /></a></p> <p>Bilbo: [to the crowd] "I regret to announce — this is The End. I am going now. I bid you all a very fond farewell." [whispers to Frodo] "Goodbye."</p>B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-89854111004044084382008-07-06T22:58:00.002-04:002008-07-06T23:02:36.211-04:00Music (almost) MondayI can't embed the video, but have a look at Anna Ternheim's - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFjAq2k5Ksg">Today is a Good Day</a>. I've been playing it a lot lately. It's a bitter sweet song about being alone.B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-5042736875375546812008-06-29T16:36:00.004-04:002008-06-29T19:16:30.368-04:00Atheist Shmatheist Questionnaire<span>I was tagged by <a href="http://daashedyot.blogspot.com/">Mr. Hedyot</a></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br />Q1. How would you define "atheism"?</span><br /><br />Interesting question. I don't know, how about people who follow their heart desires and are immoral? I kid, I kid. The simplest answer is one who doesn't believe in a God. But then you have to answer what a God is, which gets complicated because different people have different ideas about that. I'd say that an atheist is someone who takes the world from a human perspective as a given and nothing else, while a theist believes in a higher existence outside of the human framework<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?</span><br /><br />I was brought up in Orthodox Judaism. Somewhere in between modern orthodox and yeshivish. I don't believe that exists so much in Brooklyn any more. It seems like a dying breed<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Q3. How would you describe "Intelligent Design", using only one word?</span><br /><br />confused<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Q4. What scientific endeavor really excites you?</span><br /><br />neuroscience - the study of the mind<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Q5. If you could change one thing about the "atheist community", what would it be and why?</span><br /><br />I agree with Daas Hedyot's take. I think the basis of conversation should be to try to bridge gaps and see the similarities between people instead of creating more divisions and strife. That doesn't mean we will agree with everything, but I believe that having respect for the other person's opinion is a good way to create good will and maybe even convince a few to switch sides :)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Q6. If your child came up to you and said "I'm joining the clergy", what would be your first response?</span><br /><br />Great. what's the question?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Q7. What's your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?</span><br /><br />arguments shmarguments<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Q8. What's your most "controversial" (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?</span><br /><br />The idea that I have existence that is separate from God is a myth. The question isn't whether God exists, rather the question is do I. I never claimed to be an atheist :)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Q9. Of the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favorite, and why?</span><br /><br />I haven't read much of any of them. Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris come of as pretty unsophisticated. It's atheism for the masses . I don't recall reading anything from Dennett, so I can't comment.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?<br /><br /></span>I don't really want to convince anyone to change their views. I would like to try to convince everybody to be more accepting of the other's point of view in regards to religion. Also, I wish that people would try to look past their individual religious traditions and try to understand their own nature and the connection to God from an objective point of view instead of just following what they are taught at an early age.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Now name three other atheist blogs that you'd like to see take up the Atheist Thirteen gauntlet:</span><br /><br /><a href="http://benavuyah.blogspot.com/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Ben Avuyah</span></a>,<br /><a href="http://daasdiybur.blogspot.com/">David' Harp,</a><br /><a href="http://daasdiybur.blogspot.com/"></a><a href="http://www.knowledgeproblems.blogspot.com/">Big S Skeptic</a><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><br /></span></strong>B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-27296253423052985042008-05-20T14:35:00.004-04:002008-05-20T14:48:24.203-04:00Rambam and Circumcision<h4 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">For those of you who are interested in Rambam's ideas regarding circumcision you can find some of them listed at this <a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/">website</a>. It seems like he favors the idea that it decreases sexual pleasure as the primary reason</span><br /></h4><hr size="1" width="30%" color="black"> <h3>THE GUIDE OF THE PERPLEXED by Moses Maimonides, translated by Shlomo Pines. University of Chicago, 1963.</h3><h4 align="center">Part III, Chapter 49</h4> <p><i>Page 609:</i></p> <p>Similarly with regard to <i>circumcision</i>, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this <i>commandment</i> has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The <i>Sages, may their memory be blessed</i>, have explicitly stated: <i><a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/">It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him.</a></i> In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.</p>B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-71046614021115590992008-05-16T10:36:00.000-04:002008-05-16T10:37:42.971-04:00Prepare to be Amazed<object width="400" height="300"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=993998&server=www.vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1"> <embed src="http://www.vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=993998&server=www.vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="300"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://www.vimeo.com/993998?pg=embed&sec=993998">MUTO a wall-painted animation by BLU</a> from <a href="http://www.vimeo.com/blu?pg=embed&sec=993998">blu</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com?pg=embed&sec=993998">Vimeo</a>.B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-53887925093050873712008-05-12T00:11:00.002-04:002008-05-12T00:14:29.987-04:00Music Mondayfollowing in the footsteps of e-kvetcher, i wanted to share this music video<br /><br />The Moldy Peaches - Lucky Number Nine<br /><br /><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dj_Fuu8TwvY&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dj_Fuu8TwvY&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-32395262466216441562007-07-15T14:44:00.000-04:002007-07-15T14:45:35.098-04:00Two Tribes in Conflict<h3 align="left"><span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:+2;">From the [18th century] Rabbi Mordechai Yosef of Ishbitz<br /> </span><span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(translated by Gershon Winkler)</span></h3> <p><span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[The Jewish people is comprised of] two tribes who are constantly in conflict with one another. The life objective of Ephraim, as inspired by the Creator, is to concentrate on the halachah regarding every matter, and not to budge from obeying its every letter... And the root of the life of Yehudah is to focus on the Creator and to be connected to the Creator in every situation. And even though Yehudah perceives how the halachah inclines on an issue, he nevertheless looks to the Creator to show him the core of the truth behind the matter at hand... [Yehudah] looks to the Creator for guidance in all matters rather than engage in the rote practice of religious observances, nor is he content to merely repeat today what he did yesterday...but that the Creator enlighten him anew each day as to what is the God Will in the moment. This sometimes compels Yehudah to act contrary to established halachah... But in the time to come, we have been promised that Ephraim and Yehudah will no longer be at odds with one another (Isaiah 11:13). This means that Ephraim will no longer have any complaints against Yehudah regarding his deviation from halachah, because the Creator will demonstrate to Ephraim the intention of Yehudah, that his intentions are for the sake of the Creator's will, and not for any selfish motive. Then will there be harmony between the two (Mei HaShiloach, Vol. 1, Vayeishev, 14b-15a).·</span></p>B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-4415322254919333622007-06-17T10:18:00.000-04:002007-06-17T11:49:43.059-04:00Dilemma<span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >This is a classic moral dilemma: Suppose two people were starving and had some food, but it wasn’t enough for both of them to survive. What should they do?<br /><br />Any thoughts?<br /></span>B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1167684058348420142007-01-01T15:38:00.000-05:002007-01-01T15:42:57.696-05:00A Memorable Fancy<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/2691/1836/1600/107100/blake_7.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/2691/1836/320/384431/blake_7.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br /><br />A Memorable Fancy by William Blake<br /><br />The Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel dined with me, and I asked them how they dared so roundly to assert that God spoke to them; and whether they did not think at the time that they would be misunderstood, and so be the cause of imposition.<br /><br />Isaiah answer'd: `I saw no God, nor heard any, in a finite organical perception; but my senses discover'd the infinite in everything, and as I was then persuaded, and remain confirm'd, that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God, I cared not for consequences, but wrote.'<br /><br />Then I asked: `Does a firm persuasion that a thing is so, make it so?'<br /><br />He replied: `All Poets believe that it does, and in ages of imagination this firm persuasion removed mountains; but many are not capable of a firm persuasion of anything.'<br /><br />Then Ezekiel said: `The philosophy of the East taught the first principles of human perception. Some nations held one principle for the origin, and some another: we of Israel taught that the Poetic Genius (as you now call it) was the first principle and all the others merely derivative, which was the cause of our despising the Priests and Philosophers of other countries, and prophesying that all Gods would at last be proved to originate in ours and to be the tributaries of the Poetic Genius. It was this that our great poet, King David, desired so fervently and invokes so pathetically, saying by this he conquers enemies and governs kingdoms; and we so loved our God, that we cursed in his name all the Deities of surrounding nations, and asserted that they had rebelled. From these opinions the vulgar came to think that all nations would at last be subject to the Jews.'<br /><br />`This,' said he, `like all firm persuasions, is come to pass; for all nations believe the Jews' code and worship the Jews' god, and what greater subjection can be?'<br /><br />I heard this with some wonder, and must confess my own conviction. After dinner I ask'd Isaiah to favour the world with his lost works; he said none of equal value was lost. Ezekiel said the same of his.<br /><br />I also asked Isaiah what made him go naked and barefoot three years. He answer'd: `The same that made our friend Diogenes, the Grecian.'<br /><br />I then asked Ezekiel why he ate dung, and lay so long on his right and left side. He answer'd, `The desire of raising other men into a perception of the infinite: this the North American tribes practise, and is he honest who resists his genius or conscience only for the sake of present ease or gratification?'<br /><br />The ancient tradition that the world will be consumed in fire at the end of six thousand years is true, as I have heard from Hell.<br /><br />For the cherub with his flaming sword is hereby commanded to leave his guard at tree of life; and when he does, the whole creation will be consumed and appear infinite and holy, whereas it now appears finite and corrupt.<br /><br />This will come to pass by an improvement of sensual enjoyment.<br /><br />But first the notion that man has a body distinct from his soul is to be expunged; this I shall do by printing in the infernal method, by corrosives, which in Hell are salutary and medicinal, melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid.<br /><br />If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.<br /><br />For man has closed himself up till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com34tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1158941723729405472006-09-22T12:10:00.000-04:002006-09-22T12:15:23.753-04:00Rosh Hashana MusingsI would like to say some brief points regarding Rosh Hashana. Rosh Hashana is the day in Judaism which is designated for proclaiming God's Kingship. The question one may ask is according to our philosophy is it accurate to portray God as a king? God, according to us, has no desires or will. He orders no edicts. So in what way is God king? Now obviously we don'’t want to think of God as a literal king. The idea of kingship represents power and control. When we say God is the king of kings, we mean there is nothing more powerful than God. This fits very well with our understanding that God is total existence/being. Since God is really all that exists and everything is merely an aspect of God'’s power and being then it is clear that nothing is more powerful. What lessons can we take from this insight that will perhaps make the Rosh Hashana service a little more beneficial?<br /><blockquote><br />1) We realize that we are not in complete control of our own destiny. This relieves some unnecessary pressure we put on ourselves.<br />2) We learn to accept things as they happen and as they are instead of trying to force reality to conform to our wishes and desires<br />3) We should stop worrying about the results of our actions and focus on the actions themselves since the results are beyond our control<br />4) We realize that nothing in existence is its own power and everything is connected and interdependent. Instead of focusing on ourselves we should try to focus on the bigger picture. Even to focus completely on humanity is a mistake since humanity is just an aspect of existence.<br />5) By properly understanding the relationship of all things we will no longer have irrational hatred for those things which we think are different than us, because we will realize that even what appears as separate than us are really part of the same being.</blockquote><br /><br />I hope these musings are helpful. Have a happy year to all.B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1158898085563963312006-09-21T23:59:00.000-04:002006-09-22T00:08:05.580-04:00The Mystical Experience<blockquote>There are experiences that most of us are hesitant to speak about, because they do not conform to everyday reality and defy rational explanation. These are not particular external occurrences, but rather events of our inner lives, which are generally dismissed as figments of the imagination and barred from our memory. Suddenly, the familiar view of our surroundings is transformed in a strange, delightful, or alarming way: it appears to us in a new light, takes on a special meaning. Such an experience can be as light and fleeting as a breath of air, or it can imprint itself deeply upon our minds.<br /><br />One enchantment of that kind, which I experienced in childhood, has remained remarkably vivid in my memory ever since. It happened on a May morning - I have forgotten the year - but I can still point to the exact spot where it occurred, on a forest path on Martinsberg above Baden, Switzerland. As I strolled through the freshly greened woods filled with bird song and lit up by the morning sun, all at once everything appeared in an uncommonly clear light. Was this something I had simply failed to notice before? Was I suddenly discovering the spring forest as it actually looked? It shone with the most beautiful radiance, speaking to the heart, as though it wanted to encompass me in its majesty. I was filled with an indescribable sensation of joy, oneness, and blissful security.<br /><br />I have no idea how long I stood there spellbound. But I recall the anxious concern I felt as the radiance slowly dissolved and I hiked on: how could a vision that was so real and convincing, so directly and deeply felt - how could it end so soon? And how could I tell anyone about it, as my overflowing joy compelled me to do, since I knew there were no words to describe what I had seen? It seemed strange that I, as a child, had seen something so marvelous, something that adults obviously did not perceive - for I had never heard them mention it.<br /><br />While still a child, I experienced several more of these deeply euphoric moments on my rambles through forest and meadow. It was these experiences that shaped the main outlines of my world view and convinced me of the existence of a miraculous, powerful, unfathomable reality that was hidden from everyday sight. </blockquote><br /><br />From <a href="http://www.flashback.se/archive/my_problem_child/foreword.html"> LSD - My Problem Child</a> by Albert HofmannB. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1158455233492284782006-09-16T20:38:00.000-04:002006-09-16T22:06:02.736-04:00XGH: My rebuttalI feel so honored that the world famous XGH (formally known as GH) mentioned little me in <a href="http://extremegh.blogspot.com/2006/09/which-type-of-god-do-you-believe-in-or.html">one of his posts</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>Reminds me of Spinoza (the blogger) who redefines God to mean existence and then claims he believes in God. Yeah sure, and Torah means ethics, Halachah means tradition, Sucah means a screened porch and Lulav is reallyÂ…errrÂ…what the heck is lulav? A kind of spiritual light saber I guess.</blockquote><br /><br />I don't think GH understands completely where I'm coming from. That's probably my fault since sometimes I'm not completely sure where I'm coming from myself. <br /><br />GH seems to think that I'm just playing cute word games to avoid being called an atheist. But the that's not it at all. When I state my belief that Existence or Reality is God, I am not trying to pretend I believe in something I don't. My concept of God may differ from the majority, but I think that the common denominator of all definitions of the term "God" is the ultimate and greatest being. Because no other being is worthy of our worship. The only question is what exactly is the ultimate and greatest Being? My answer is that the totality of existence or realty is, in fact, the greatest possible being. All other concepts of God are simply not true because they don't fit this description.<br /><br />The question then becomes how do I know existence is the greatest being? The answer is obvious. Let's try testing our theory out by picking a possible being that we might give the name "God" to. GH suggested a couple of choices in his post, I will choose one of them. I will start with his example of a hyper intelligent shade of blue from another dimension. Now let's ask ourselves if this hyper intelligent shade of blue is the greatest possible being. Well, if we postulate the existence of this other dimensional being then we must agree that it's part of existence otherwise it wouldn't exist. And if it's a part of existence then it can't be greater than existence itself. Hence we can conclude beyond any cause for doubt that it's not worthy of the name God. That's not to say that it doesn't exist and that it's not really groovy and worthy of admiration. It's just not worthy of the title God.<br /><br />You can try this test out on any other conceivable being and you will see the same result. Therefore we conclude that the only being worthy of the name God is the totality of existence. QEDB. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1154305568209128572006-07-30T20:24:00.000-04:002006-07-30T20:28:18.686-04:00Judaism, Who Needs It? Part 2Contined from <a href="http://ohrchadash.blogspot.com/2006/07/judaism-who-needs-it-part-1.html">Part 1</a>:<br /><br />3. Ancient versus Modern Judaism<br /><br />To assert, literally taken, that the Ten Commandments theophany occurred at Sinai is possible but conflicts with modern man's outlook. Thus, traditional Judaism's assumption that its laws were supernaturally revealed is for many no longer tenable. However, knowledge of how the ancient mind expresses its profoundest experience, teaches us to penetrate beneath tradition's surface to learn its message and its practical significance. We have to take into consideration the ways of expression of an ancient civilization untutored in philosophic speculation. Suppose it had the irresistible intuition [prophecy] that the ethical values stemmed from an absolute source other than that of individual expediency, how could they put that intuition into words other than those recorded in the Jewish tradition? Interpreted functionally, the message retains its importance in implying that all human laws must be compatible with the ethical ideal. Otherwise, they are only pretentious disguises for selfish exploitation of god's power and its antisocial use.<br /><br />Furthermore, the conception of the absolute source itself has evolved. The ancients had a conception of god as that of a common deity who holds power and who therefore has to be appealed and cozened in the hope that he grants power to the human wants. The modern recognize the concept of God as a mere personification of the absolute reality of Being [YHWH]. That recognition projects morality as man's adaptation to reality - Being.<br /><br />Judaism's affirmation of the objective difference between right-good and wrong-evil, does not yet determine the content of the ethical values. Judaism did not yet answer the question whether slavery and polygamy were right or wrong, but it established the certainty that a moral standard be set in all our relations with the rest of existence.<br /><br />Even if Judaism's laws and customs that originate from Israel's prehistoric days or from other civilizations and that were refined, still fall below the best standards of modern life, it does not affect the essentiality of Judaism's role in the ethical development of mankind. That development was not determined by the particular content of the law but by the spirit that permeated the law.<br /><br />It matters not that from a scientific viewpoint the Torah narratives are on the whole considered legendary. This may be all the more reason for its ethical significance, since it points to the narrative material as having been shaped or even created by the ethical ideas, rather than by extraterrestrial sounds.<br /><br />We might not be justified in interpreting religious phenomena as though the ancients were verbally aware of our discoveries. However, by penetrating into the religious consciousness of the ancients we are enabled to recapture their ways of thought and their emotional responses.<br /><br />We may use the same words as the ancients, but we will seldom speak the same explanatory language. Ancient concepts taken out of their original context are devitalized and must therefore be recaptured through modern formulas. For example, in order to recapture the ethical value and the significance of the conception 'divinely revealed' anchored in the original Torah setting, we have to find its expression in its modern analogy like in the conception 'back to nature' [compatibility].<br /><br /><br />4. The Need for Reconstruction<br /><br />In order for Judaism to maintain its unique atmosphere that motivates towards the ethical value, even in the modern world, it must reconstruct from within the ancient teachings' eternal values, the practical applications that are relevant and not damaging to the evolved modern mind.<br /><br />Indeed, many negative norms like slavery and polygamy have been abolished in Judaism, but with circumstantial pretexts without negating the idea of discrimination. Thus, intolerance of intellectual progress is still very much part of Jewish life. Also, the proportion of energy dedicated to outdated rituals, creates an unbearable burden to those who cannot accept absurd and meaningless customs and prevents from concentrating more on the ethical values, which are the goal of the rituals. Furthermore, in many instances, the rigidity with which such rituals are held onto, harms the ethical ideal by preventing people from leading a positive life [like many Shabbat prohibitions].<br /><br />At the core of this problem lies the discontinuation of the Torah's Oral Law as a flexible discussion platform. Publication and holyfication of the ancient's opinions and personal sensitivities, as the bible itself, have stopped Judaic evolution. The notion of orthodoxy that any ancient norm is infallible and its continuous enlargement of the Torah's outdated parts constantly dims and damages the Jewish spirit of enhancing the ethical value. On the other hand, the incoherent ideology of the non-orthodox has not presented any valid alternative. Thus, standard Judaism has lost the confidence of the neutral rational mind. However, since orthodoxy has succeeded in maintaining the unique dedication to Torah study, the ideal would therefore be to combine the dedication of the old with the openness of the new in reconstructing the deep, open and flexible Oral Torah.<br /><br />Practically speaking, the common distorted view of our Torah damages Jewish education across the whole spectrum of Judaism. Many ultra orthodox are frustrated from being led by ideologies and customs that defy their logical recognition of basic truths. As a result, many youngsters develop psychological problems and/or leave their religion altogether, loosing trust in any prescribed moral system. At the other end, the modern -among them many well-educated non-orthodox- fail to discover the richness of their moral heritage. They are not given the proper opportunity to develop a fine tuned sensitivity to the wide range of moral values pertaining to the minutest details of everyday life.<br /><br />Judaism has a long and documented history of a relentless pursuit of the truth based upon pure logical premises, which are evident in the bible. They were coupled with the intended integrity and dynamism evident in the oral Torah. However, the advocates of mysticism, irrationalities and dogmatism have marred them. This has limited the adult student's logic to very secluded boundaries. Numerous rich aspects of our great tradition turned into a one dimensional, sometimes dogmatic and outdated conceptual system. The oral Torah's becoming a written document, has decreased the dynamism of the Jewish ongoing tradition and has turned it into a quasi-stagnant dogma.<br /><br />The time has come to re-communicate some of the basic truths of Judaism, gained through the greatest intellectual journey in the history of mankind. It is time to claim back the road to ideal Judaism, and finally bring out that which Judaism has brought to this world: the relentless, uncompromising pursuit of the truth.<br /><br />Maimonides has already said that there can be no contradiction between logic and a Torah that emanates from the source of truth. It is obvious that a beginning student's first superficial impression of the Torah is that it contains many irrational notions. This comes from judging the Torah by its details that were applicable at the time it was given. But upon advanced study one comes to realize that the Torah's underlying principles are eternally valid. The oral Torah provides us with clear examples as to how those principles are adapted to the evolving human progress, by applying them in ways that totally differ from their original injunctions in the written Torah.<br /><br />A gradual program based on intellectual teachings, lectures and publications should convey refreshed philosophical and studying methods. Those are to be geared at building back the trust in one's faculty of reason as perfectly matching the moral directives signaled from every corner of the universe and found in the spirit of the Torah, the Scriptures and the whole of our Heritage. Since the educational/psychological effects of the mitzvoth are not the same for everybody, one should differentiate between essential-ethical mitzvoth [like being decent] and supportive-symbolic-disciplinary ones [like the rituals]. One should also distinguish between community and individual mitzvoth.<br /><br />By noting how the Torah pertains to the ethical value of man's adaptation to reality-Being either intrinsically or indirectly as a disciplinary ritualistic enhancer, we can get at the ethical purpose underlying virtually all the laws in the Torah.<br /><br />This reconstruction of Judaism in understanding the narratives and in interpreting the law, as it was done in the past Oral Torah, requires Reconstructionist houses of study to be set up. In these the ancient's sub-verbal ideas that serve the ethical value shall be verbally reinterpreted and systematically updated in order to fit the modern mind and the further development of mankind.<br /><br />Thus, the criteria for Torah Judaism should gradually change to be measured not by the question: ''Who am I imitating?'' but by ''Does it bring me closer or further from becoming a better person?''<br /><br />The success of such a project means no less than an intellectual and a cultural revolution!B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1153678983030775902006-07-23T13:10:00.000-04:002006-07-23T14:23:03.123-04:00Judaism, Who Needs It? Part 1I wanted to share an interesting article about Judaism that I found. I think this article is a good place to start for anyone who is interested in developing a rational and modern approach to Judaism. I will post the first part now and later I will post part two. You can find the original at <a href="http://hydepark.hevre.co.il/topic.asp?topic_id=533534">Atzor Kan Choshvim</a><br /><br /><br />1. Religion and Particularly Judaism Serving Ethics<br /><br />The ethical is the primary value that centers on that which is – Being. It is expressed in practicing the truth for its own sake. That value and its expression are the components of moral goodness.<br /><br />The ethical value pertains to the unity of a cosmic harmony of (1) the self, (2) the social group and (3) the totality of things insofar as human choice is concerned.<br /><br />Morality is prompted neither by fear, blind obedience and social brainwashing nor by seeking health, prosperity and social approval. A deed is ethical only to the extent that it is motivated by a choice to love truth in itself. In fact, the morality of any act is impugned as soon as it is motivated by the prospect of reward. In religion, the gain of comfort is considered a reward for the moral effort, but should not be its precondition.<br /><br />The highest principles of ethics are an integrate part of any religion, culture and ethical system. The gods are the ultimate guardians of moral behavior not enforceable by external authorities, since only a god's gaze penetrates the most secret recesses of the mind and heart.<br /><br />The Torah is the constitutive principle of Jewish peoplehood in contrast to the machinery of state. Therefore its primary authority does not stem from the collective force which the people bear upon the individual, but from the will of god, which the people mediates for the individual. The morally healthy do not view god's will, as one of a mighty potentate who intimidates into obedience, but as one that expresses the principle of righteousness conceived in terms of unity, which ideologically and practically guide human life.<br /><br />The Torah narrative unfolds the panorama of creation and the spread of mankind and indicates Israel's place in that panorama. Thus besides instructing its laws, The Torah conveys an orientation that ought to motivate man's loyalty to his people and love of his god, which shall arouse his eagerness to perform god's [Being's] universal ethical will as revealed in god's Toraic code.<br /><br />The Torah law expresses the basic idea of channelling [god-given] power into moral law [god's will] and not into human whims. This is the meaning of a 'holy people'.<br /><br />Judaism is unique in the high level philosophical basis and in the encompassing scope of its moral code, which create an atmosphere of constant furtherance of the ethical ideal.<br /><br />To cite a few examples:<br />- The Jewish god's name is Being –the absolute- not a power within existence.<br />- The Jewish god's claim to allegiance and obedience is based on his having redeemed his people from bondage to a tyrant.<br />- Judaism demands of its entire population to set aside one day out of seven in which production is banned and only consumption is allowed, as a testimony to its allegiance to its god.<br />- Judaism has elevated the value of intensive Torah [its ideology and constitution] study for all age, gender and class groups.<br />- In Judaism, self-criticism came to be an ethical requirement or expectation.<br />- Certain civilizations tend to regard the physical hungers as man's chief moral stumbling block. This has been especially true in relation to the entangled blinding sex hunger. Judaism [through its prophets] views the field of human relations as the area most in need of being brought within the dimension of moral law. Only to the extent that human relations are implicated in the physical hungers, do they become subject to moral law.<br />- Judaism has a better external credibility as it claims that its revelation has been witnessed by a whole nation not merely reported by an individual.<br /><br /><br /><br />2. Judaism Serving Ethics versus Philosophy<br /><br />The Jewish people clung desperately to its group life despite the cruelest blows it suffered. It managed to survive by virtue of its confidence in its way of life as the one to bring salvation to mankind. The Jewish people regarded themselves as bound together by a common destiny, despite the fact that they lived in dispersion far beyond the borders of their own land. Noting the inner sense of security that Judaism afforded its adherents, many Gentiles joined the Jewish people. At that stage of human development, philosophic thinking had destroyed the confidence in the human capability to differentiate between right and wrong. Only super-natural revelation could restore it. Judaism's ardent conviction that the only true god had revealed the only true way of life to the Jews restored that confidence. By affirming the oneness of its god and prohibiting the worship of him under any conceivable image, Judaism was able to hold its own against the philosophies of the day. This rendered its teachings acceptable to the sophisticated as well as to the unlettered.<br /><br />The Greek Stoics enunciated the concept of duty as stemming from the consciousness of 'ought', which reflects the ethical value. The Stoics became, however, private chaplains of the well-to-do, forgetting the underprivileged that constituted the bulk of the population. For the many rootless people, transported and sold into slavery, the intellectualized ethics of the philosophic schools had no message.<br /><br />Humans normally experience the moral law as being autonomous from gain, as an intuition. In order to withstand the loss of moral intuition to moral nihilism, an extraordinary reassertion of one's will to live rightly is required. Judaism has provided man and especially its adherents with the necessary reassertion to choose moral intuition over moral nihilism [whether the hedonist nihilism which declares pleasure as the only criterion of the good or the more dangerous fascist nihilism which declares power over other's lives as the only criterion of the good]. Thus, the fact that Judaism regarded the moral intuition as divinely revealed, accomplished for the Western civilization what no individual thinker or school of philosophers did.<br /><br />The brilliance with which the significant points of the Torah narratives are highlighted has probably done more to foster a rationale for ethical attitudes and conduct, than all the systematic thinking of the philosophers.<br /><br />Also, the Torah laws have provided the actual experiencing of the moral intuition in the give-and-take of human intercourse. It thus motivated the moral intuition and channelled out for it the proper laws, customs and moral standards, more than any intellectual speculation concerning the ethical ideal.B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1150070477023906502006-06-11T19:26:00.000-04:002006-06-11T20:01:17.233-04:00God explained in 30 SecondsSometimes I wonder if it pays at all to talk about God. How can the absolute infinite be explained? But after I was recently reminded of this <a href="http://www.cakeshop.tv/clientsection_site/jk/BestSimpsonsCouchGag.mov">short clip from the Simpsons</a>, I think it may be possible to get a little understanding. Or maybe not.B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1143495481697134622006-03-27T16:29:00.000-05:002006-03-27T16:38:01.730-05:00All About MormonsI was watching today the South Park in which a Mormon family moves into the neighborhood. I thought it was a riot. And interestingly enough, it's not as anti-Mormon as you might expect coming from South Park. It makes being a Mormon so much fun that even I would consider converting (Not). It's called <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn6ziT36lwA&search=south%20park">All About Mormons</a>.B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1143336803054023362006-03-25T20:18:00.000-05:002006-03-25T20:33:23.336-05:00I am a MaskilI like that GH is trying to <a href="http://godolhador.blogspot.com/2006/03/bes-medrash-vekehal-kodesh-vehamskilim.html">revive the term maskil</a>. I think the name fits me well. I can't think of calling myself Reform, Conservative or Reconstructionist (which sounds like back surgery, as GH also pointed out,) but maskil sounds right. You don't need to belong to any shul or organization to be a maskil (although, you could if you want to.) All you need is a passion for spirituality and truth and to have respect for the path that our spiritual fathers set.B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1141002495392699872006-02-26T19:33:00.000-05:002006-02-26T21:43:00.670-05:00Onto-ReligionI learned a new term, recently, from Mis-nagid. It's called Onto-religion. I wanted to learn more about this term, so I googled it. I found this article about <a href="http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/%7Eswb24/PAPERS/religion%20and%20respect.pdf">Religion and Respect</a> from <a href="http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/">Simon Blackburn</a>. The article is about his ethical dilemma he had after being invited to a Jewish colleague for a Friday night meal. It's an interesting dilemma for an atheist, but I don't want to get into his dilemma now, I just want to quote parts from it where he describes onto-religion and its opposite, which he calls expressive interpretation/religion:<br /><br /><blockquote> Onto-theology makes existence claims. It takes religious language in the same spirit in which people calling themselves scientific realists take science. It makes claims about what exists, and these claims are more or less reasonable and convincing, and when they are true they point to explanation of the way things are in one respect or another. Onto-theology believes that there is, literally, a three-decker universe, somehow governed by a unified intelligence akin to a person who has various plans and preferences, and rewards and punishments at his disposal. The objects of religious belief-god or the gods-make things happen. They are part of the causal order. Religious beliefs are among the kinds of thing they make happen. Onto-theologians see no real difference between the way a chair explains my perception of a chair and subsequent belief that there is a chair there in front of me, and the way in which God explains the production of fire in a bush and the appearance of a couple of stones with commandments written on them.</blockquote><br /><br />Most people, I think, would call this Orthodox religion or fundamentalist. He goes on to explain its counterpart, expressive religion:<br /><br /><blockquote>In more sophisticated circles, onto-theology is old hat. Instead we should see religion in the light of poetry, symbol, myth, practice, emotion and attitude, or in general a stance towards the ordinary world, the everyday world around us. Religion is not to be taken to describe other worlds, nor even past and future events in this world, but only to orientate us towards this world. Religious language is not representational, giving an account of disconnected parts of the cosmos, regions of space-time, or even of something like space and something like time, but in which all kinds of different things are going on. It is symbolic or expressive, orientating us towards each other, or towards our place in this world.</blockquote><br /><br />Being an atheist, Blackburn clearly dislikes onto-religion. But he has mixed feelings about the expressive kind. On the one hand he thinks it's not so bad since it isn't based on falsehood. On the other hand, he thinks it muddies the water a little and blurs the line between what he thinks is right (atheism) and what is wrong (theism).<br /><br />I think there are more than just these two ways of looking at religion. These are the two extremes, but there are many points in between the extremes which people may actually hold of.<br /><br />Personally, I am not looking for any symbolic system that merely expresses my subjective feelings. I am certainly not looking for what he calls onto-religion. That ship has long sailed by. What I am looking for is real wisdom regarding human existence and not mere expression. I really want objective truth and ethics that are based on these truths. Is this possible? I believe to some extent it is, but it is more of a subtle truth and it is hard to notice even when it is right in front of your face.B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1140482643935528392006-02-20T19:40:00.000-05:002006-02-20T19:46:17.523-05:00What is Religion?<span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_buddha/04_01.html">What is Religion?</a></span> <p> 1. The word "religion" is an indefinite word with no fixed meaning.<br /> 2. It is one word with many meanings.<br /> 3. This is because religion has passed through many stages. The concept at each stage is called Religion, though the concept at one stage has not had the same meaning which it had at the preceding stage, or is likely to have at the succeeding stage.<br /> 4. The conception of religion was never fixed.<br /> 5. It has varied from time to time.<br /> 6. Because most of the phenomena such as lightning, rain, and floods, the occurrence of which the primitive man could not explain, [were not understood], any weird performance done to control the phenomenon was called magic. Religion therefore came to be identified with magic.<br /> 7. Then came the second stage in the evolution of religion. In this stage religion came to be identified with beliefs, rituals, ceremonies, prayers, and sacrifices.<br /> 8. But this conception of religion is derivative.<br /> 9. The pivotal point in religion starts with the belief that there exists some power which causes these phenomena, which primitive man did not know and could not understand. Magic lost its place at this stage.<br /> 10. This power was originally malevolent. But later it was felt that it could also be benevolent.<br /> 11. Beliefs, rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices were necessary both to propitiate a benevolent power, and also to conciliate an angry power.<br /> 12. Later that power was called God or the Creator.<br /> 13. Then came the third stage: that it is this God who created this world and also man.<br /> 14. This was followed by the belief that man has a soul, and the soul is eternal and is answerable to God for man's actions in the world.<br /> 15. This is, in short, the evolution of the concept of Religion.<br /> 16. This is what Religion has come to be and this is what it connotes--belief in God, belief in [a] soul, worship of God, curing of the erring soul, propitiating God by prayers, ceremonies, sacrifices, etc.</p>B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1140311691386240402006-02-18T20:14:00.001-05:002006-02-19T19:18:01.913-05:00Why Judaism?It should be fairly obvious that my <a href="http://ohrchadash.blogspot.com/2006/02/grateful-dead-is-divinely-inspired.html">Gratetful Dead post</a> was a parody of Godol Hador's post, <a href="http://godolhador.blogspot.com/2006/02/science-of-judaism.html">The Science of Judaism</a>. While I had fun writing the parody (it was actually divinely inspired while listening to the Dead,) I would like now to address some points in a more serious manner.<br /><br />The essential question I have in my mind now is why practice Judaism. This is a very important question to me at this point. I've already come to the conclusion that Orthodox Judaism is not the answer for me. But the question still remains for me is there anything in Judaism that would add value to my life? Or should I just forget about it and focus my energies elsewhere. This is the main reason why I started the blog, but I have not really formulated an answer to the question yet.<br /><br />GH thinks he has come up with a good answer, but his answer doesn't work for me. The obvious reason is because he is trying to show that the source of the Jewish people and Judaism is supernatural. While I, as you know from reading my blog, do not believe in a supernatural deity or miracles. So obviously his approach will not work for me.<br /><br />But in addition to that, GH seems to think that in order to really appreciate Judaism you must believe that it is superior to all other religions. I, on the other hand hesitate to make such pronouncements. For one reason, I do appreciate the spiritual insights of other religions, such as Buddhism, Yoga, and Christianity. And there are problems I see in Judaism itself which makes me not so sure that it is superior to all other religions. And just like we give the benefit of the doubt to Judaism by using approaches such as Myth/Moshel, we should give other religions the same benefit of the doubt. It's the only fair and honest thing to do.<br /><br />But more importantly, I don't think it's necessary to believe that your religion is superior to all others for you to appreciate it. You can value your religion for yourself and still appreciate and learn from the other religions as well. This is a better approach because it leads to harmony and less discord. And we all know that the ways of the Torah are supposed to be darchei shalom (ways of peace).<br /><br />In addition, I don't think there is any real way to judge objectively between traditions. What works for some might not work for others.<br /><br />I believe that Judaism does contain truth, but so do other philosophies and religions. The question is why should I favor Judaism over the others? The answer may be because I feel I identify with the Jewish people and by extension, Judaism. So it is only natural that I should work within the spiritual tradition of the Jewish people as opposed to a foreign tradition. Would I feel as comfortable calling myself a Buddhist? Probably not. Would I feel comfortable calling myself a Christian? Certainly not. There is too much historic baggage to deal with.<br /><br />Choosing a new religious tradition would just lead to more internal distractions with myself and it would cause strife between me and my family. The very last thing I need from religion is more discord. That would defeat the whole purpose. So that would rule out for me adopting any other religion.<br /><br />So that just leaves me with the option of just living with my own personnel philosophy, or with adopting one of the non-supernatural branches of Judaism, such as Reconstructionist. Religion is a primarily a social institution. I, by nature, am a rather individualistic person. On the one hand, I crave intellectual independence. On the other hand, I would like to be a part of a larger conversation with others. This is what pulls me in both directions.<br /><br />It would be nice to view Judaism in a very broad way where people of different philosophical views who have been influenced by the Jewish heritage come together in one open dialog. So Judaism would contain people searching for truth from the extreme range of Observant to the other extreme of Non Observant and every thing in between. Where all these people can come together in respect and learn from each other. And no one particular ideology would have ownership of the title authentic Judaism.<br /><br />But even this I'm not sure of, because we are so used to thinking of Judaism with ideology that it's hard to get away from it.<br /><br />So in the end, I'm still left with more questions than answers. How very Jewish of me! :)B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1140312432102369642006-02-18T20:14:00.000-05:002006-02-18T20:51:03.150-05:00Jesus Christ!I notice that the heathen gentiles at work (that means you, Fred) shout "Jesus Christ!" or "Jesus H. Christ!" when something unexpected or annoying happens. For example:<br /><br />"Jesus H. Christ my excel won't open, again!"<br /><br />Well, I find this irritating to have to hear the name of this Avodah Zarah (false idol) everyday. And I have to admit that I find myself saying it sometimes also. I just can't help it. It has become so ingrained in me that I say it without thinking. But a good Hebrew should not be saying such things.<br /><br />So, I have decided to come up with a new phrase to replace it. Hopefully, the heathens will hear it and it will catch on with them too. Here are some possibilities:<br /><br />1) Holy Moses! [ed - maybe Moses H. Rabbeinu]<br />2) Ben Dovid, Christ!<br />3) <a href="http://www.logjammin.org/misc/ShomerShabbas.mp3">Shomer Fucking Shabbos</a>!<br />4) Jeshua ben Nun!<br /><br />Which one do you like? Let's pick one and help me spread it around<br /><br />May the blessed name of the <a href="http://ohrchadash.blogspot.com/2006/01/defining-god.html">One true God</a> be blessed. Amen.B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1140282502583031262006-02-18T11:54:00.000-05:002006-02-18T19:26:36.706-05:00The Grateful Dead is `divinely Inspired`!<div style="text-align: center;">Sometimes The lights all shining on me,<br />Other times I can barely see<br />Lately it occurs to me<br />What a long strange trip it's been<br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;">Before yeshiva turned me off the derech, I was a follower of the Grateful Dead. I loved their sweet sound, and it really lifted my spirit. But after being brain washed in yeshiva, I stopped listening to them. I was taught that everything that wasn't Torah was bad, especially rock and roll music. There was even a baal tshuva in my yeshiva who was a former dead head. He warned me what a bad influence the dead has on a person's spiritual path. I guess I took this all to heart and I gave up my beloved dead. Looking back I realize how stupid I was for buying in to all that nonsense. But what can you say? I was a young idealistic student who wanted to reach the highest level I could and I wasn't going to let anything stand in my way.<br /><br />I had almost completely gave up on the Dead. But recently I had an idea, which I can only call a revelation. I began to think about the enormous success that the Dead had. Here was this small band from nowhere, who gained a fanatic following for over thirty years. Thirty years in the rock and roll business is almost like 3000 years in any other business. What can account for this amazing success of this modest rag tag hippie band?<br /><br />The only answer I can think of is that Jerry Garcia and the rest of the band were divinely inspired. My personal experience that I feel from listening to their music and their enormous success points to the conclusion that their music contains some real divine truth.<br /><br />Now, I know there will be some skeptical types that will say that there is some simple natural explanations for their success. Maybe it's Jerry's sweet voice, or the way that the whole band seems to play as one in beautiful harmony. But all I can say to those skeptics is that you got to experience it for yourself to see the real truth and grooviness of the Dead. Once you let the sound enter your heart and soul, you will for sure see for yourself the divine inspiration of the band.<br /><br />And I know that some will point out that the Rolling Stones are still playing. But its clear to all the Stones are over the hill and are just doing it for money. I mean did you see Mick Jagger shake his wrinkly ass at the super bowl show? It was embarrassing, really. There is no comparison between the Dead and the Stones.<br /><br />Trust me, rabbosai, It's all about experience That's the secret.<br /><br />I even recall some Dead heads testify that they saw a huge eye above the band as they played in concert. Sure, they were probably tripping on acid at the time, but still there maybe something too it. You never know. It's not like you can disprove it.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Jerry has passed on now, so you can't experience it live anymore. That's too bad, but luckily we still have the live performances on tape, so we can pass it on to our children. Thank God for that.<br /><br />Now excuse me while I go and experience some of that divine grooviness for myself<br /></div></div>B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19448675.post-1139979237935942182006-02-14T23:44:00.000-05:002006-02-15T00:04:27.986-05:00Israeli Anti-Semetic Cartoon Contest!<div style="text-align: left;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2691/1836/1600/anti-semite.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2691/1836/320/anti-semite.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /></div><p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ></span></p><blockquote><p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >Amitai Sandy (29), graphic artist and publisher of <a href="http://www.dimonacomix.com/">Dimona Comix</a> Publishing, from Tel-Aviv, Israel, has followed the unfolding of the “Muhammad cartoon-gate” events in amazement, until finally he came up with the right answer to all this insanity - and so he announced today the launch of a new anti-Semitic cartoons contest - this time drawn by Jews themselves!</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" >“We’ll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published!” said Sandy “No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!</span></p></blockquote><p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><br />Those Jews are so clever. Here's the <a href="http://boomka.org/blog/?p=1">link</a><br /></span></p>B. Spinozahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07086206346767831626noreply@blogger.com0