Ohr Chadash

What's in a Name?

2009-01-20T11:01:00.004-05:00

e-kvetcher points out in the comments of my previous post:

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...

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.

The Impending Crisis

2008-12-06T19:21:00.003-05:00

I 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.

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.

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.

Best of luck and warm regards to all

Kiss your Ego Goodbye

2008-07-15T10:26:00.003-04:00

Today 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. Now I exist, now I don't

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."

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."

Music (almost) Monday

2008-07-06T22:58:00.002-04:00

I can't embed the video, but have a look at Anna Ternheim's - Today is a Good Day. I've been playing it a lot lately. It's a bitter sweet song about being alone.

Atheist Shmatheist Questionnaire

2008-06-29T16:36:00.004-04:00

I was tagged by Mr. Hedyot

Q1. How would you define "atheism"?

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

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

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

Q3. How would you describe "Intelligent Design", using only one word?

confused

Q4. What scientific endeavor really excites you?

neuroscience - the study of the mind

Q5. If you could change one thing about the "atheist community", what would it be and why?

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 :)

Q6. If your child came up to you and said "I'm joining the clergy", what would be your first response?

Great. what's the question?

Q7. What's your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

arguments shmarguments

Q8. What's your most "controversial" (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

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 :)

Q9. Of the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favorite, and why?

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.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

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.

Now name three other atheist blogs that you'd like to see take up the Atheist Thirteen gauntlet:

Ben Avuyah,
David' Harp,
Big S Skeptic

Rambam and Circumcision

2008-05-20T14:35:00.004-04:00

For those of you who are interested in Rambam's ideas regarding circumcision you can find some of them listed at this website. It seems like he favors the idea that it decreases sexual pleasure as the primary reason

THE GUIDE OF THE PERPLEXED by Moses Maimonides, translated by Shlomo Pines. University of Chicago, 1963.

Part III, Chapter 49

Page 609:

Similarly with regard to circumcision, 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 commandment 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 Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

Prepare to be Amazed

2008-05-16T10:36:00.000-04:00

MUTO a wall-painted animation by BLU from blu on Vimeo.

Music Monday

2008-05-12T00:11:00.002-04:00

following in the footsteps of e-kvetcher, i wanted to share this music video

The Moldy Peaches - Lucky Number Nine

Two Tribes in Conflict

2007-07-15T14:44:00.000-04:00

From the [18th century] Rabbi Mordechai Yosef of Ishbitz
(translated by Gershon Winkler)

[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).·

Dilemma

2007-06-17T10:18:00.000-04:00

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?

Any thoughts?

A Memorable Fancy

2007-01-01T15:38:00.000-05:00

A Memorable Fancy by William Blake

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.

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.'

Then I asked: `Does a firm persuasion that a thing is so, make it so?'

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.'

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.'

`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?'

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.

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.'

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?'

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.

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.

This will come to pass by an improvement of sensual enjoyment.

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.

If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.

For man has closed himself up till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.

Rosh Hashana Musings

2006-09-22T12:10:00.000-04:00

I 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?

1) We realize that we are not in complete control of our own destiny. This relieves some unnecessary pressure we put on ourselves.
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
3) We should stop worrying about the results of our actions and focus on the actions themselves since the results are beyond our control
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.
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.

I hope these musings are helpful. Have a happy year to all.

The Mystical Experience

2006-09-21T23:59:00.000-04:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

From LSD - My Problem Child by Albert Hofmann

XGH: My rebuttal

2006-09-16T20:38:00.000-04:00

I feel so honored that the world famous XGH (formally known as GH) mentioned little me in one of his posts:

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 reallyÃƒ‚…errrÃƒ‚…what the heck is lulav? A kind of spiritual light saber I guess.

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.

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.

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.

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. QED

Judaism, Who Needs It? Part 2

2006-07-30T20:24:00.000-04:00

Contined from Part 1:

3. Ancient versus Modern Judaism

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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].

4. The Need for Reconstruction

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.

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].

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?''

The success of such a project means no less than an intellectual and a cultural revolution!

Judaism, Who Needs It? Part 1

2006-07-23T13:10:00.000-04:00

I 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 Atzor Kan Choshvim

1. Religion and Particularly Judaism Serving Ethics

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

To cite a few examples:
- The Jewish god's name is Being –the absolute- not a power within existence.
- The Jewish god's claim to allegiance and obedience is based on his having redeemed his people from bondage to a tyrant.
- 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.
- Judaism has elevated the value of intensive Torah [its ideology and constitution] study for all age, gender and class groups.
- In Judaism, self-criticism came to be an ethical requirement or expectation.
- 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.
- 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.

2. Judaism Serving Ethics versus Philosophy

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

God explained in 30 Seconds

2006-06-11T19:26:00.000-04:00

Sometimes 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 short clip from the Simpsons, I think it may be possible to get a little understanding. Or maybe not.

All About Mormons

2006-03-27T16:29:00.000-05:00

I 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 All About Mormons.

I am a Maskil

2006-03-25T20:18:00.000-05:00

I like that GH is trying to revive the term maskil. 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.

Onto-Religion

2006-02-26T19:33:00.000-05:00

I 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 Religion and Respect from Simon Blackburn. 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:

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.

Most people, I think, would call this Orthodox religion or fundamentalist. He goes on to explain its counterpart, expressive religion:

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.

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).

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.

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.

What is Religion?

2006-02-20T19:40:00.000-05:00

What is Religion?

1. The word "religion" is an indefinite word with no fixed meaning.
2. It is one word with many meanings.
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.
4. The conception of religion was never fixed.
5. It has varied from time to time.
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.
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.
8. But this conception of religion is derivative.
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.
10. This power was originally malevolent. But later it was felt that it could also be benevolent.
11. Beliefs, rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices were necessary both to propitiate a benevolent power, and also to conciliate an angry power.
12. Later that power was called God or the Creator.
13. Then came the third stage: that it is this God who created this world and also man.
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.
15. This is, in short, the evolution of the concept of Religion.
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.

Why Judaism?

2006-02-18T20:14:00.001-05:00

It should be fairly obvious that my Gratetful Dead post was a parody of Godol Hador's post, The Science of Judaism. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So in the end, I'm still left with more questions than answers. How very Jewish of me! :)

Jesus Christ!

2006-02-18T20:14:00.000-05:00

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:

"Jesus H. Christ my excel won't open, again!"

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.

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:

1) Holy Moses! [ed - maybe Moses H. Rabbeinu]
2) Ben Dovid, Christ!
3) Shomer Fucking Shabbos!
4) Jeshua ben Nun!

Which one do you like? Let's pick one and help me spread it around

May the blessed name of the One true God be blessed. Amen.

The Grateful Dead is `divinely Inspired`!

2006-02-18T11:54:00.000-05:00

Sometimes The lights all shining on me,
Other times I can barely see
Lately it occurs to me
What a long strange trip it's been

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Trust me, rabbosai, It's all about experience That's the secret.

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.

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.

Now excuse me while I go and experience some of that divine grooviness for myself

Israeli Anti-Semetic Cartoon Contest!

2006-02-14T23:44:00.000-05:00

Amitai Sandy (29), graphic artist and publisher of Dimona Comix 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!

“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!

Those Jews are so clever. Here's the link

Memories from the past

2006-02-12T08:10:00.000-05:00

I think I was around 14 at the time when someone approached me with his theological question. I don't know exactly why he asked me of all people, because I wasn't particularly pious at the time, but for some reason he thought I could help him answer his problem.

The question he had was regarding the rabbinic idea of yetzar harah (evil inclination). He told me that he understood that there was no outside entity that tricked people into doing bad, rather we did bad things due to our own natural inclination. His problem was that he understood that chazal (the Talmudic rabbis) seemed to understand it as some outside agent such as an angel and not some thing which is innate in us. This seemed to bother him greatly.

My response was that you should take the Rabbis words allegorically (although, I probably didn't use such fancy language at the time) and not literally. And it doesn't even matter if the rabbis themselves actually took it literally, all that mattered was what wisdom we can take from them and apply to our lives to make it better. You have to look beyond the surface and try to see the truth and wisdom of their words if you want to remain in their spiritual tradition. I didn't mean to say that we should interpret their words in a way that contradicted their intended meaning. Rather I meant to say that whether or not the evil inclination is an external or internal force, there may be still value in their words in how best to overcome it.

I still think this is the best approach a person should take if he wants to think rationally and at the same time remain within the tradition of the Rabbis. I think it was Rambam who said that any one who takes the words of the Jewish sages as literal is a fool. Now I don't think Rambam was a fool either, so I think he probably understood that the sages believed in some irrational things too, but I think his intention was that we should try to take the essence of their spiritual message and not dwell on the superficial aspect of their words. This, of course, depends on if the words of the Jewish sages contained any real truth. I don't have as much faith in them as Rambam did, I'm sure, but I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt when possible.

My friend agreed that this was a wise approach, but he still had a problem with the sages way of expressing their words. His problem was that when they talk about the yetzar harah as an external cause that takes away our moral responsibility. If we are the cause of our own actions then we are responsible, but if the cause is from outside then some of the responsibility is taken away from us. He felt the Rabbis expressed themselves in a misleading way that would hinder rather than help a person spiritually. At the time I had to admit he had a valid point.

But the fact is I think that our passions (yetzar Harah) is nothing more than external causes acting upon us. No, I don't understand it as an angel sitting on our shoulder whispering to us to do wicked thing. But when we see or experience something which we think will benefit us we automatically desire it unless there is another thing which has a stronger attraction on us. We really don't have a choice in whether we are attracted to something or not. It's not like we directly create or control our own desires. So I guess there is something to be said for the way the Rabbis expressed themselves after all.

Shomer Shabbos

2006-01-31T21:27:00.000-05:00

What does shabbos mean to me? It means that I don't roll on Shabbos (wear headphones if you are at work)

Update: And also for your listening pleasure, I have a new song, Steady As She Goes by the Raconteurs.

Defining God

2006-01-15T19:04:00.000-05:00

Before we can say anything meaningful about God we must first describe what we are talking about. So that means we must define the concept God.

Before I define it I want to lay down some ground rules. First of all any concept of God that I define must make sense. It should not break the rules of logic. Because if it doesn't make sense then we can't talk about it in a meaningful way, so what would be the point?

I would also like the definition to closely resemble the name that it has been associated with religious concept as closely as possible without breaking the first rule. In other words I don't want to define God as my toaster, and then say that because my toaster does exist, therefore God exists. This as you would agree would serve no purpose and would be just a waste of time.

Now that I have laid down the rules, let's begin. The concept of God as I understand it is thus: God is cause of all that exists. All that exists is within God. It can also be called Reality or Existence, either of these terms are fine. I do not mean to distinguish between the cause and the effect, because I view them as one and the same thing. It's therefore impossible to conceive of the individual things that exist without God.

A good analogy that helps me think about it is The Matrix. The Matrix is a complex virtual reality which is an exact replica of our Universe. If you pulled the plug on the Matrix, everything that existed in the Matrix would cease to exist, because the matrix is the cause of all the things within the Matrix. Now, the Matrix is just a virtual reality so it's not the ultimate reality, it's just a sub reality that resides within a greater reality. The ultimate reality that "holds" all other realities is what I refer to as God.

Talking About God

2006-01-05T22:21:00.000-05:00

If you look around the Jewish blogs you'll notice something strange. You'll notice that the blogs whose main topic is religion and theology hardly mention the topic of God. They will talk about Torah and they will talk about how to interpret the Bible, but they rarely mention God. This, on face value, is peculiar. How could a religious blog not mention the most important concept in religion?

It's not just the blogs that you notice this, but the religion itself. I remember when I was orthodox, I really didn't think too much about God. Sure, we acknowledged God in theory, but when push comes to shove we loved the Torah more than anything else, and since God supposedly was the author, we loved God by extension. Now that I am no longer focused primarily on Judaism I find myself thinking about the concept of God more frequently.

The very concept of God is very fuzzy for most religious people. God is some great unknown that none can clearly define. It's hard to talk about something if you don't even know what it is. That is one reason why God isn't spoken about directly. In Christianity, Jesus is the place holder for God. That's why Christians talk more about Jesus than God himself. In Judaism, the Torah is the place holder for God.

I my coming posts I would like to talk about God directly with no intermediaries. I would like to do this because it is the most fundamental religious idea. Some believe that it is impossible to do, because God is completely unknowable. But I learned from one of the most wise Jew, Baruch Spinoza, that not only is this possible, but it is the highest good that a human mind can achieve. So, if you don't mind, let's try to discuss this most high spiritual concept together. Hopefully we can gain some real insight if we do it together.

Was Spinoza an Atheist?

2005-12-25T10:21:00.000-05:00

When ever discussing the philosopher Spinoza, and his beliefs in God the question that always comes up is was he an atheist or not? In his letters he out right denied being an atheist, and his book on ethics is all about God, so much so, that he has been called a "God intoxicated man". So, on the face value the answer would be no, that he was not an atheist.

But not so fast, many claim that he only used the term God because atheism was frowned upon by the religious authorities, and he didn't want to make them upset. But in fact his views were really atheistic. If Spinoza believed everything is God, they claim, then doesn't that mean that nothing is God?

I've been reading a Yahoo group dedicated to Spinoza recently, and I saw an interesting point about this topic in one of the threads:

If a person was brought up in an environment, or by any
other means, has arrived at a point where they favor, lean toward, or
in any way take pleasure in something that might be termed Theism or
Theology or Religion or Faith or etc. The term Atheism might be used
to refer to anything that does not seem to also favor or lean toward
or that in any way seems to be negatively disposed toward what they
term Theism etc. On the other hand a person who's life experiences
cause them to associate the terms Theology or Religion, etc. with
oppression, exclusivity, etc. might come to favor, lean toward, or in
some way take pleasure in something that might be termed Atheism. The
first person has a negative association (a pain for them) while the
second person has a positive association (a pleasure) with the same
term; Atheism. Other might just say; Huh?

His point being that there are certain ideas which may have negative emotional connotations, that we wish to avoid even though the substance we may largely agree with. I speculate that in Spinoza's time the term atheism was associated with a certain kind of hedonistic connotation which he wanted to avoid, which is why he wanted to distance himself from the word atheism. He probably saw himself in the spiritual tradition of philosophers who believed in God and spiritual ideas rather than the pure materialists.

I have a similar issue. In modern times the term atheism is generally associated with the philosophies of materialism and scientism. I myself am not attracted to this philosophy so I tend to avoid being characterized as an atheist. On the other hand, God is usually associated with the religious view of life, and a conscious, willful, and personal idea of God. This is not something I agree with either. So it looks like I'm stuck in the middle. I'm not really comfortable with either term.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the terms we use to describe our views aren't as important as the views themselves, so I'm not so bothered by the fact that neither term really fits me. However, it makes it difficult for me to give a straight answer to the question "are you an atheist?", which is a little annoying.

The True Meaning of Chanukah by Mis-nagid

2005-12-23T09:50:00.000-05:00

I found this interesting post by Mis-nagid explaining the origin of Chanukah. I asked him if I could repost it here, and he agreed. Of course, it was written by Mis-nagid, so it goes without saying that if you are charedi and easily insulted, you may want to skip this post.

Thus spoke Mis-nagid:

Frum Fantasy or How a Legend Spawned an Industry

The frum world is thoroughly suffused with fantasy and ignorance. Frum people know pathetically little about their own history and practices, and what they do know is usually wrong. In general, frum institutions never teach any history at all, or at least nothing that deserves the name. Most yeshiva bochurim have no idea what was going on in the world at the same time as any Jewish event. All "history" is seen through the gauze of fantasy. The frum view of the history of world revolves around Jews and includes lots of myths, which makes for a witch's brew that has little to do with real history.

The root cause of this lack of rigor in understanding the past is the need for ignorance. After all, if you ask "What was going on in the rest of the world during Noach's Great Flood?" you may be surprised to find out that great (undisturbed) civilizations in Egypt and China were already writing stuff down, and never mentioned any flood. As the frum dogmas are not grounded in reality, so too the history must be kept floating above the ground, never attached to anything of substance, lest it come tumbling down to earth.

Chanukah, one of the few Jewish holidays based on a true historical event, is, ironically, no exception to this. Grab a frum person and quiz him or her: In what year was Chanukah? Who was Antiochus? Who were the Yevonim? Who were the Chasmonoyim? How long did the war last? You'll get the most pathetic answers (if you get any), because frum people have no sense of history. Shoot, most frum people don't know what the word "frum" means, or where it comes from! [*]

There is one aspect of frum Chanukah that truly brings this sense of ahistory into sharp relief. Case in point: the Bais Yosef's Kasha. To those of you lucky enough to be uninitiated in the frum cult, this peculiar obsession of frum Chanukah takes the form of a question. The Bais Yosef asked, "If the oil could have lasted for one day, but lasted for eight, only seven of them can be termed miracles. So why celebrate eight (rather than seven) days?"

This "difficulty" occupies a special place in the frum universe; it's a "true" classic. Gallons of ink were poured to answer this stupid question. Virtually every frum commentator since his time has had a crack at it. There's even a very large sefer consisting of nothing but answers to this one question. However, every single one of those answers is wrong -- completely, utterly, and totally wrong.

Before I get to the correct answer, let's understand why they're wrong. Don't worry, I don't have to refute them all, one at a time. The reason they're off-base is simple: it's a legend. The story of the miraculous oil was made up approximately six hundred years after the events of Chanukah. Of course the rabbinical legend has inconsistencies -- it's fiction. There's no point in trying to "fix" them. It's like reading Curious George and trying to explain how so few balloons could lift a monkey of George's heft.

Now, to the real answer to the Bais Yosef's Kasha.

Due to their aforementioned lack of history sense, most frum people have no idea that there are books written from the era of the Maccabees. Nor do they know that these books make no mention of any miracles. Ask a frum person what is says in the two[**] Books of Maccabees, and they'll say "Books of Maccabees?" I'll not get into why those books are invisible from the frum world, but I'll note one piece of irony. Virtually every frum child knows the Chanukah story of Channah and her seven sons. Where's the story from? The Book of Maccabees 2.

Were you to read the actual history of Chanukah, when you get to the part about the rededication [chanukah] of the Temple, you'd find the following:

10:5 Now upon the same day that the strangers profaned the temple, on the very same day it was cleansed again, even the five and twentieth day of the same month, which is Casleu [Kislev].
10:6 And they kept the eight days with gladness, as in the feast of the tabernacles [Sukkot], remembering that not long afore they had held the feast of the tabernacles [Sukkot], when as they wandered in the mountains and dens like beasts.
10:7 Therefore they bare branches, and fair boughs, and palms also [lulavim, hadassos, aravos], and sang psalms [Hallel] unto him that had given them good success in cleansing his place.
10:8 They ordained also by a common statute and decree, That every year those days should be kept of the whole nation of the Jews.

That's right, the very first Chanukah was a delayed Sukkot. Sukkot traditionally required going to the Temple, but on the correct date for Sukkot, the Temple was still under Seleucid control, so it was not celebrated properly. The Maccabees cleverly scheduled the Temple's grand reopening on the anniversary of its sacking, and celebrated Sukkot like it's supposed to be. It was especially poignant due to the fact that the transient and ephemeral living embodied in the story of Sukkot was so resonant with them, having just spent so long hiding in mountains and caves.

Furthermore, the book opens with a letter to the Jews in Alexandria, telling them to celebrate this new holiday:

1:9 And now see that ye keep the feast of tabernacles [Sukkot] in the month Casleu [Kislev].

That is the correct answer to the Bais Yosef's Kasha. The reason Chanukah is eight days (instead of seven) is because it was a delayed Sukkot, which has eight days. It was always eight days, and the rabbis made their legend match the extant practice, leading to the slight inconsistency noted by the Bais Yosef.

Before I close this post, I'd like to add a piece of speculation. The Mishna nevers discusses Chanukah, even going so far as to give a grave warning against reading the Books of Maccabees (Sanhedrin 10:1). In the only Gemara to discuss Chanukah, history gets three lines, while ritual minutaie get more than three pages. However, there is one interesting link in this rabbinified version of Chanukah that may hint at their knowledge of its true origins.

In the discourse on how to light the Chanukah candles, two opinions are proffered. One says to start with one candle on the first night and add one each night, until you are lighting eight on the final night. The other says to start with eight and remove one each night. Where it gets interesting is the reason offered for the latter position. The justification given is that the candles represent "parei hechag," the bulls of the holiday. By this he means the bulls offered on Sukkot. As recounted in the Torah, those bulls were offered in decreasing number each successive day.

The commentators struggle to explain why that Sukkot practice is relevant to Chanukah lights. Some of them are almost amusing in their tortured logic. I'd like to offer a possibility; that this could be a partial remnant of the earlier explanations for the custom of the Chanukah lights.

email me: [mis-nagid_AT_hush_DOT_com]

[*] It's a Yiddishization of the German "fromm," meaning pious. Admit it, you didn't know that.
[**] The other Books of Maccabee aren't about Chanukah, and are somewhat misnamed

Ok, so now that you are feeling warm and fuzzy and in the Holiday spirit, I wish you all a Happy Holiday.

The God of my Childhood

2005-12-22T22:57:00.000-05:00

My concept of God through the years have changed a lot. One early memory I have thinking about God was as a child, watching a bubble gum commercial about this blond girl in tight jeans who started chewing gum and blowing large bubbles. And as the bubbles grew in size, she also grew, until she grew so tall that she was walking on top of the earth. And I remember thinking to myself "oh, so that must be what God is like", a blond haired girl in tight jeans blowing big bubbles while walking on top of the earth. It all made sense to me at the time. I wonder if this is how most people think of God as a child, or is it just me?

I've Always Been a Little Odd

2005-12-20T23:44:00.000-05:00

It's true, I never was like most people. There was always something different about me. For a long time I resented it. But I have since grown to appreciate the differences that make me who I am.

An example of this that sticks out in my mind is the time when I went to sleep away camp. If you've ever been there you know that at the end of the summer they each camper gets an award for something they excelled at. Most campers got awards in a sport of some kind. But for those of us who didn't care for sports, and weren't very good at it, they had to give us something lame to make up for it. Most of the time, I got the "Best in Middos" consolation award, which basically means best in character.

But one year I got something different. They announced that I got the "Most profound camper" award. At the time I didn't even know the meaning of the word profound. I thought it was a joke, or even worse, an insult. I was pissed off at my counselors for giving me such a lame award. What could they be thinking? Was I that lame?

But when I got older and realized what it meant, and I learned the value of thinking, I was real proud of myself for receiving that award. Hell, I still am. I'd much rather be "the most profound", than "the best in basketball". Especially in a Jewish camp; Let's face it Jews are known more for their mind, than their athletic ability :)

So thank you counselors (I don't even remember their names anymore) for being so kind and thoughtful. I will always remember that lame-ass award.

I have no idea why I even mention this story. But I hope you found it somewhat interesting.

Am I Really an Atheist?

2005-12-18T22:54:00.000-05:00

I've been rethinking the notion of calling myself an atheist. While it is true that I no longer believe in the primitive religious notion of God i.e. a willful conscious being outside nature; perhaps the real great philosophers and thinkers didn't use the term God in that way. Perhaps the ancient thinkers meant by God as the Ultimate Existence, or Being. Spinoza explicitly stated this, and perhaps others, such as Maimonides also meant this. I'd rather think of my self in the tradition of the great spiritual and philosophical thinkers rather than the materialist atheists. Of course, in the end, how we define ourselves doesn't really matter that much. What matters more is what we think, feel, and believe.

What was up with Ezekiel?

2005-12-17T23:45:00.000-05:00

26 And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire;^e and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form. ²⁷Upward from what appeared like the loins I saw something like gleaming amber, something that looked like fire enclosed all around; and downward from what looked like the loins I saw something that looked like fire, and there was a splendor all around. ²⁸Like the bow in a cloud on a rainy day, such was the appearance of the splendor all around. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.
When I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of someone speaking.

Ezekiel, chapter 1, The Vision of the Chariot

After reading Ezekiel's vision of the chariot recently, the obvious question occurred to me: How are we to understand his vision? I can think of a few reasonable choices:

He didn't really see these visions, rather he was being metaphorical. He was using the common religious symbols of his time to make a point.
He actually saw the images of the glory of God in his mind. Perhaps he consumed psychedelic drugs to achieve this.
He was seeing an extraterrestrial UFO (some people actually believe this).
He was insane.

It's hard to know exactly what the answer is, although, I have to admit the descriptions in his visions do creep me out a little. I wonder if the people living in his time thought it was perfectly normal? Maybe they were used to such descriptions. I'm not sure, because I don't see any of the other prophets being so descriptive of "God's glory".

Thank God for the Atheist World!*

2005-12-13T21:29:00.000-05:00

I grew up in a Orthodox Jewish home. I was taught at an early age that the world was created by God, and that the most important thing in the world is to serve Him. I later went to doubt everything I was taught was holy. Eventually, I just flat out denied it. There are many reasons I had at the time for going this way. But the most important thing, I think, is that my mind is not compatible with this belief. Being free minded is one of the things I most hold dear. Some people cherish money, others sex, but I cherish freedom of mind and spirit above all else. How could I live my whole life without questioning my beliefs? I was taught that to merely question certain fundamentals in my religion was off limits and not permitted by God Himself. On the one hand, I was devoted to my religion, but on the other hand, it was impossible not to question. It was a difficult situation to be in.

One day, while in Yeshivah, I was learning the Kuzari by Rabbi Yehudah Halevi. The book starts off telling a story about the king of the pagan kingdom of Khazar who wanted to adopt a new religion. He decided to call on three representatives from the major religions in Europe to argue in favor of their respective religions. First he heard from a Muslim cleric, then a Christian, and lastly a Rabbi. The Rabbi's arguments so impressed him, that he decided to convert his kingdom into Judaism. The book is used to bolster a Jews faith in Judaism, but for me it had the opposite affect. I was impressed with king that he was so open minded. I thought to my self, shouldn't I be so open minded? Do I believe because I think it has validity or do I believe because I was born into it? I looked around my yeshiva from the heads of the yeshiva to the students and I wondered if any of them ever honestly examined this religion that they spend so much time and effort on?

Unfortunately for me I didn't see a lot of people there that seriously examined their faith. I concluded that most people don't really give it much thought. The answers they give in yeshiva are very weak, and will only convince a person who wants to believe, not a person who wants to objectively judge it. I couldn't live like that. Besides, what did I have to lose? I mean it's not like Judaism is false, right? So I went on with my questioning, but I never really found any answers that satisfied me.

I kept on asking myself one simple question: if I wasn't born into this religion, would I think it was true if I had examined it objectively? The answer that I couldn't deny was, no, I wouldn't have believed in it. The only real reason that I did believe in it was because I happened to be taught this way. It was this simple point that brought me to where I am today. I just couldn't honestly say I believed in it anymore.

For a while I was confused, angry, and sad. But as I got more used to my beliefs and ideas, I was happy. I finally was able to believe what I felt was true and good, and not just what I was expected to believe. This was liberating for me, and even though it wasn't a easy way to go by any means, I am still glad I did it. The road less traveled is sometimes the right choice.

*Sorry GH, but I just couldn't resist.

Follow Up Questions

2005-12-11T22:25:00.000-05:00

In my previous post I asked whether there is value in studying the ancient Hebrew Bible. My follow up question is assuming that there is value in it, and that we can learn and be inspired from it, does that mean that the Hebrew bible is unique? I mean, if the Hebrew bible is just inspired writings of ancient humans, what makes us think that other civilizations didn't also have inspired writings?

What about the ancient Sumerians, Greeks, Babylonians, Asians etc.? Didn't they also have inspired writings that we can learn from? Why should we give the Hebrew prophets special treatment?

We should look for wisdom where ever we can find it. Wouldn't we be doing our selves a disservice by ignoring other cultures just because it's not our direct heritage? I don't think sentimentality for its own sake is a good thing.

I guess what I'm really getting at is that it's one thing to study and appreciate your own heritage and be proud of it, but it's another thing to ignore other cultures just because it's not your own

The Torah: Who wrote it? Who cares?

2005-12-11T17:42:00.000-05:00

I'd like to say a little bit about the authorship of the Torah. My general understanding is that the Torah (5 books of Moses) was not written by the person who it's named after i.e. Moses. Although it is likely that a person named Moses existed and he did write a book of law (the Torah of God), which was similar to the Hammurabi code in structure. This book of law was lost to us, but parts of it were saved and incorporated into the Pentateuch. After the original law book was lost, the Pentateuch came to be known as the Torah because it contained parts of the original law written by Moses. This, contrary to Jewish tradition, is my basic understanding.

There are many theories as to exactly who wrote the Torah and why. It is commonly believed that it is comprised of multiple documents and oral sources. The reason why it is believed that there were multiple sources instead of it being written by one person or persons is because there seems to be sections of the Torah which are repeated often with contradictory details. This view was first stated by Baruch Spinoza in his Theologico-Political Treatise, published in 1670 CE. Later, scholars tried to identify who the authors were and what there motivations were. The most common view in academia is known as the Documentary Hypothesis, which states that there were 4 different sources which were combined into one book by an editor (maybe Ezra) much later. I won't get into the details because it is complicated, and I am by no means an expert.

The question now is does it really matter? Of course to fundamentalist who believe that the torah is the word of God and that one is required to follow it, the question is more urgent. If you have a tradition that says that God dictated the Torah to Moses, then it goes with out saying that you will be reluctant to believe otherwise. But to us who are not of this opinion, the question is it that important to know who wrote it? To be honest, other than for intellectual curiosity, I'm not sure how important the question is. The Torah was written as a book of moral instruction and inspiration for the Jewish people, it really doesn't matter who wrote which parts or if it. Sure it would be nice to know, after all it is one of the most influential books of all time, but it really wouldn't add or subtract from the religious or moral value of the book itself.

The more important question is whether the book still has any value for modern readers or if it just a relic of the distant past? Can we still gain moral instruction and inspiration from it? That, to me, is a more pressing issue.

Guess Who's back

2005-12-09T13:28:00.000-05:00

No, it's not Slim Shady, it's the original Hasidic Rebel. He's back from an extended blogging vacation. HR was the first Jewish blog that I visited. I'm glad he never deleted his blog, because It's fun to go back and read my old comments (I blogged under the handle "skeptic") and see how my views have changed since then. Back then I was less secure in my views and I was still coming to terms with my doubts. After he shut his blog down, I kissed the Jewish blog world goodbye, until I chanced (or was divinely guided, depending on your POV) upon Godol's blog. It's good to seeHR return. I doubt it's going to be the same as before when everyone was there non-stop, because, unlike before, there are just so many different blogs that exist, and not just one place to go

Shout Outs

2005-12-08T23:24:00.000-05:00

To the mysterious commentator Smoo,
I like some of your comments that you have left on this blog. I think we have some similar ideas. Why don't you get a blog of your own?

To Mississippi Fred,
I find your blog and comments around the jsphere to be very knowledgeable and erudite. My challenge to you is to write a post which is not scholarly or detached, but that is pure religious passion and fervor. Do you accept this challenge? :)

To Mis-nagid,
You are always sharp and bold (and usually on the mark). You do not mince words. I have a question and a challenge for you. My question is why do you have a hyphen in your name? My challenge is for you to write a post (you can send it to me or some place else) that is not critical or negative, but positive about Judaism. I know you feel positive in some ways, but your comments are usually negative or detached and scholarly. So I would very much like to read something different from you.

The Universe: Accident, Intentional or None of the Above?

2005-12-08T22:44:00.000-05:00

Orthoprax is having a debate with a fellow skeptic about whether the origin of the Universe is accidental or Intentional. I was planning on posting about this sooner or later. Here is a brief summary of my current views. Perhaps I will go into more detail later.

The truth is I don't think it's really coherent to talk about the origin of the Universe. Ex nilo doesn't make any sense to me, and therefore there had to always be something which existed. If that's the case then the Universe always existed and we can not speak of a real origin. All we can say that the universe in the form that we currently know it began at some time (call this the Big bang, if you like).

But there are more choices than accidental and intentional. There is also the possibility of unintentional, but necessary. So it's not an "accident" because it had to happen in exactly the way that it did, but at the same time it's not "intentional" i.e. there isn't a force which created it with a purpose (intent) or function in mind. I would choose this option if I had to make a choice.

There may be more ways to look at it. I would be interested in hearing more perspectives

Aphorisms and Interludes

2005-12-07T23:02:00.001-05:00

If everything is holy, then nothing is holy.
If everything is an illusion, then nothing is an illusion.
Without its opposite, nothing can be.

Everything changes while staying the same.

Who Am I? Why Am I Here?

2005-12-06T23:58:00.000-05:00

Let me give you a little background information about myself so you know where I'm coming from. I grew up in a typical middle of the road Orthodox Jewish home. I had a normal Jewish education, and I was very good at learning Talmud. I never really had too many problems with Judaism. I wasn't the most frum guy in the world, but I believed in God and I kept the torah without complaint. After High school, I went on to study in Yeshiva in Israel.

In Israel, my level of observance increased greatly. I began to take my Judaism much more seriously. I stopped watching movies. I stopped watching TV In fact, I didn't do much but study Torah. I also started to adapt the standard yeshivish garb of white shirt and black pants.

Eventually, I went back to study Torah in America. All was well and good for a while until something strange began to happen. I started to question how Torah was studied. I noticed that the main focus was Talmud and nothing else. I also began to lose interest in Talmud. But what really began to bother me was the lack of intellectual honesty I sensed in the Yeshiva world regarding the foundations of Orthodox Judaism. Was it really as clear cut as I was taught to believe? The answer soon dawned on me was that most of the things I took for granted didn't have a firm foundation in reality.

My doubts continued for a while. I didn't give up Judaism right away. I continued to struggle with my doubts and think about these issues. Eventually, my thinking lead me to give up Orthodoxy for good. I was completely disgusted with the yeshiva system and Orthodoxy. I felt bitter and deceived. I gave up my observances in secret, but I continued on the outside to keep my Orthodox appearance.

For a while I didn't even think about Judaism. I had enough. I wasn't too concerned about my Jewish identity, because I was taught that serving God and studying Torah was what was really important, and since I didn't believe in those things any more, what was the point of being Jewish?

A funny thing happened, though. I discovered the Jblogosphere. I stumbled one day onto this blog and I got very interested in it. I wondered why I kept on coming back and arguing everyday. I thought I was passed caring, but I realized that I wasn't. I still cared about Judaism in some way or form. I realized that I was judging Judaism based on the OJ understanding of Judaism and perhaps there is a better and more authentic way of understanding of it. I'm not really planning on going back to Orthodoxy or to try out any of the other popular versions of Judaism, because I quite frankly don't see much good there. I don't want to start a new religion or recreate the old one in my own image, either. But I am looking to see if I can find something within the Jewish tradition that's worth keeping for myself. And that's why I created this blog to explore the possibility of finding a Judaism that I can relate to.

The Belief in Jesus is a Neth!

2005-12-06T21:45:00.000-05:00

The Godol ponders:

So how and why did this incredible reverence for the Bible develop? And why was it so convincing both to the Roman Empire and subsequently to Islam? And it's a reverence that has lasted for at least 2000 years, and maybe even more than 3000 (for the less skeptical).

Of course this is no absolute 'proof' of anything, but it does make you think.

The implication is that its popularity indicates that there must be some divine origin involved. Good point. But then again don't you ever wonder about how the belief in Jesus got so popular? I mean it sounds very wacky doesn't it? Yet people all around the world believe in him. Amazing, isn't it? The truth is that its popularity doesn't indicate anything about it being divine. All it indicates is that it contains something which many different people really liked.

Another good question is if the Hebrew Bible is such a good book, why is it that most people ignore it today. The Christians mainly study the "New testament". The Muslims mainly study the Koran. Even Orthodox Jews spend more time studying Talmud and Jewish Law than studying the Hebrew Bible. Why is that? Is the Hebrew Bible outdated?

Tanach Seriously Revisited

2005-12-05T10:31:00.000-05:00

Joinoson schrieber asked me in the comment section what I mean by taking tanach seriously, so I thought I would elaborate.

Tanach is the source of Judaism in my opinion, so in order to understand Judaism we have to understand Tanach. As I mentioned before, I for one felt that the education that I got in Yeshivah was very pitiful in this regard. I never studied the whole Tanach from top to bottom. I also was never educated in modern scholarship. All I learned was a little part here and a little part there, there was no focus on Tanach as a whole. I felt the whole study of Tanach was through the eyes of the Babylonian rabbis and not as the prophets or the authors of the works had in mind. Tanach is the source of all Western religion and morality it is in our self interest to take it seriously as the prophets intended, and also to understand how and why it had so great impact on Western civilization. What was the essential message of the prophets? Can we look at it as a unified whole or did the message change over the years? Is it still relevant?

There are so many questions; it's hard to know where to start.

The Jewish Ecosystem

2005-12-05T09:41:00.000-05:00

Judaism is not a thing, like a toaster, which has one purpose. When someone talks about a toaster you generally know what he means: a mechanical machine which burns toast. Judaism, however, means many different things to many different people, so it's hard to define it. Judaism is more like an ecosystem which contains a lot of very different things under one name. I will try to give a brief descriptions of some of the different animals that go under the Judaism name:

Orthodox Judaism - Lithuanian Ghetto Judaism, they are more concerned with trivial ritualistic observances such as microscopic bugs in lettuce.
Reform Judaism - wish they were Christianity, but unfortunately they aren't, so they try their best to pretend
Conservative Judaism - a little bit of Orthodox, a little bit of Reform. Generally too scholarly for their own good.
Secular Judaism - your basic liberal secular humanistic philosophy with a touch of Jewish traditions and nostalgia.
Something new called "Open Source" Judaism - The anything goes form of Judaism? Beats me what this means.

what do all these things have in common so they can fall under one name? They all share as their source the inspirational message of the ancient Jewish prophets. Whether the prophets would approve of any of the above mentioned Judaisms is anyone's guess. My guess is that they wouldn't have gotten 4 cubits width near any of them, but that's just my opinion. What I do know for certain is that none of these branches of Judaism satisfies me personally.

Taking Tanach Seriously

2005-12-04T23:20:00.000-05:00

I found a good free online resource for understanding Tanach using modern scholarship techniques. I haven't read it fully yet, but it looks promising.

One of my goals is to study Tanach seriously. I did not have a real opportunity to study it while I was learning in Yeshivah. If you're not familiar with the modern Yeshivah system, it may come as a surprise to you that they don't do a very good job at studying Tanach. The focus is almost completely on Talmud. You are expected to learn Tanach on your own. And it goes with out saying that modern biblical scholarship is off limits in the Orthodox Yeshivah system.

Myths, what are they good for?

2005-12-03T23:14:00.000-05:00

While science does an excellent job in explaining the natural world, it doesn't explain the moral world or the world of "human existence". The old mythologies, in addition to explaining how the world got here, tried explaining, among other things, the origin of good and evil and the purpose of man in this world. In other words, besides explaining how the world works, it also explained why the world is the way it is, and how we ought to behave in the world. Clearly science comes up short in this department. In my opinion we need a companion to science in order to explain the moral world (philosophy/religion). It is an emotional human need that will not die.

In reality, myths have never really gone away, they just evolved into what we call religion or philosophy (for the non believers). The question is for a person like myself who doesn't believe in the religious notion of god, is it possible reinterpret the myths of old in a modern light or do I need to create a personal myth/philosophy to satisfy my existential needs? Perhaps there are existing philosophies that would satisfy me? Is it even possible to find or create a modern mythology that I will find satisfying? Is it a futile mission? These are some of the questions I want to explore in this blog

Where Have All the Myths Gone?

2005-12-03T02:11:00.000-05:00

Have you ever wondered why there are no modern myths? In ancient times society would tell myths and pass it on from generation to generation. Why have we stopped doing this? And are we better off with out them?

The obvious answer is that we living in modern societies are much more literate and educated then the ancient societies. It is also obvious that our modern techniques of gaining knowledge is far superior than the ancient way. We base our world view on scientific facts, and not tall tales or mere figment of the imagination. We therefore have a greater understanding of how the natural world works, and there is no need for these mythical stories anymore.

While I largely agree with this opinion, I wonder if it is the complete story? Is there another purpose to myths other than to explain the natural world? Can we really do with out them?

What's Next?

2005-11-30T23:28:00.000-05:00

What does life mean without God? This is the most important question for modern man. In fact, this maybe the only question. We have been so conditioned to seek meaning and purpose from religion and God that we don't know what to do with ourselves without it. In a sense we are lost without it. The result is often a life of suffering from anxiety and boredom. And this is a shame.

So what do we do about it? That is the burning question. I don't have the answer, and maybe there is no one size fits all answer, but one thing I do know is that we should live life with Joy and passion and not with despair or by rote.

Do not settle for a life of shallow materialism and superficiality. Make your life mean something to you. Don't just let it go by like a cloud in the sky. Take your religious passion and seize it for yourself. Why let your religion feelings go to waste? We should use it for our own ends instead of using it to serve God.

God as Metaphor

2005-11-30T10:31:00.000-05:00

In the past I have flirted with the idea of interpreting the concept of God as a metaphor for existence in totality. The obvious advantage of this is that unlike other concepts of God, this God obviously exists without question.

The problem with it, however, is that it really doesn't explain anything. Everyone knows existence exists, it's impossible to deny. So there is no reason to affirm or to deny it. It just doesn't add any new information

Another disadvantage of it is that this definition of God is not what most people refer to when they refer to God, so it actually confuses things rather than clear things up as a good definition should.

The reason, I think, why some non-believers in traditional religious God will choose to define God as Existence is because it allows them to not define themselves as atheists, which is still a little taboo in the USA. I prefer the term non-theist if I need to identify my metaphysical beliefs, because it asserts that I don't believe in the traditional religious God, but it doesn't have the materialistic connotation as the term atheist has

Ohr Chadash

What's in a Name?

The Impending Crisis

Kiss your Ego Goodbye

Music (almost) Monday

Atheist Shmatheist Questionnaire

Rambam and Circumcision

For those of you who are interested in Rambam's ideas regarding circumcision you can find some of them listed at this website. It seems like he favors the idea that it decreases sexual pleasure as the primary reason

THE GUIDE OF THE PERPLEXED by Moses Maimonides, translated by Shlomo Pines. University of Chicago, 1963.

Part III, Chapter 49

Prepare to be Amazed

Music Monday

Two Tribes in Conflict

From the [18th century] Rabbi Mordechai Yosef of Ishbitz (translated by Gershon Winkler)

Dilemma

A Memorable Fancy

Rosh Hashana Musings

The Mystical Experience

XGH: My rebuttal

Judaism, Who Needs It? Part 2

Judaism, Who Needs It? Part 1

God explained in 30 Seconds

All About Mormons

I am a Maskil

Onto-Religion

What is Religion?

Why Judaism?

Jesus Christ!

The Grateful Dead is `divinely Inspired`!

Israeli Anti-Semetic Cartoon Contest!

Memories from the past

Shomer Shabbos

Defining God

Talking About God

Was Spinoza an Atheist?

The True Meaning of Chanukah by Mis-nagid

The God of my Childhood

I've Always Been a Little Odd

Am I Really an Atheist?

What was up with Ezekiel?

Thank God for the Atheist World!*

Follow Up Questions

The Torah: Who wrote it? Who cares?

Guess Who's back

Shout Outs

The Universe: Accident, Intentional or None of the Above?

Aphorisms and Interludes

Who Am I? Why Am I Here?

The Belief in Jesus is a Neth!

Tanach Seriously Revisited

The Jewish Ecosystem

Taking Tanach Seriously

Myths, what are they good for?

Where Have All the Myths Gone?

What's Next?

God as Metaphor

From the [18th century] Rabbi Mordechai Yosef of Ishbitz
(translated by Gershon Winkler)