Kid: "Rebbi what is our purpose in this world?"
Rabbi:Well we are here to gain schar (reward) for olam haba(the world to come). God is omnibenevolent therefore he created a situation where mankind kind can receive eternal reward."
Kid: But why do we have to work for our reward? Why can't God just give it to us for free?
Rabbi: "Excellent question! The Ramchal (Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzato) explains that God cannot just give us reward for free. God wants to give us the maximum possible reward. In life one gets more enjoyment from things that are earned as opposed to things granted for free. If God were to reward us undeservedly we would feel embarrassed at such utterly gratuitous kindness. This idea is called Nahama DeKisufa (Bread of Embarrassment)
Therefore God made olam hazeh (this world) as a place where we can work to obtain our Gan Eden and be satisfied with the knowledge that we have truly earned our place there."
Most, people are satisfied with this explanation and feel that they have just heard something very profound. But let's go a little further
Kid: Rabbi, I have another question, God is omnipotent right?
Rabbi: Of course!
Kid: Well, in that case why didn't God excersize his omnipotence and create humans who didn't feel embarassed at undeserved reward. Your entire argument essentially puts a limitation on God no?
Rabbi: Ermmm....
Disclaimer: This is a frequently used argument in the Yeshiva world. I have never heard anyone Modern Orthodox use this "argument" but maybe I've just been fortunate to be shielded from such stupidity from supposedly "Modern" people.
I'm not sure if the Ramchal was the first to formulate this argument. Does anybody know who originally came up with the idea of Nahama DeKisufa?
Have I misunderstood Nahama DeKisufa? The above was how it was presented to me (and I think it is how the Ramchal presents it)
The moral of the story is religious people have no idea what's going on anymore than non-religious people. It would be great if more religious people admitted to the limitations of their knowledge.
Posts
Restoring Religious Values into Our Schools
20 hours ago
50 comments:
When I was in 8th grade I came up with my favorite question about God, "can God destroy himself?". I asked that question to many Rabbis and they dodged the question by going on a five minute non-sense 'answer'.
So I came up with an answer to that question eventually. The answer is no. I did that by inventing an impossibility question. For example, can God win chess in a single move? No. Chess has certain fixed rules and if God was to abide by these rules he will no win in a single move. Or can God write the square root of two as a fraction? No, that is mathematically impossible. Thus, I realized that there are problems that God cannot do. And so the task of God destroying himself is not possible for him to do.
What follows next is surprisingly. I have been able to convince two Orthodox Jewish Rabbis of my answer! I have been able to make them concede that God cannot win chess in one move and likewise cannot destroy himself. I was so proud of myself.
What are you asking, if he coined the expression נהמא דכסופא? Or did he originate the suggestion that people enjoy more what they earned then what they're handed? Or its specific application toward the problem of why God doesn't bestow goodness for free?
BS, this idea you came up with is straight out in the Rambam, Ralbag, Meiri and many other Rabbis of the past. I am sorry if that bursts your bubble, but the idea that G-D can only do what is possible has been prevalent in Jewish thought. I am sorry you had an eighth grade rabbi that did not know, at the very least, Rambam.
The Ralbag, a great mathematician, actually gives the example that G-D can not make a triangle have the same laws of mathematics apply to it as does a square.
"The Ralbag, a great mathematician, actually gives the example that G-D can not make a triangle have the same laws of mathematics apply to it as does a square.":
I can assure you the Ralbag was not a great mathematician. I have heard this "great mathematician" and "great scientist" non-sense enough in yeshiva. The knowledge of these Rabbi's was embarrasing in what they could have known if they actually knew mathematics at a serious level. I always bring up Euclid. He probably lived more than a thousand years before the Ralbag and was hundreds of times superior to him in his mathematical understanding. How do I know this? How can I be so certain? Because of what I read by Euclid and what I read by the Rabbis. Show me a piece of work by the Rabbis that shows them to be "great mathematicians". What exactly did the Ralbag achieve that was so great? Just because he knows that a circle and a square is and uses them in his commentary does not automatically make him a mathematician. I am sure he was also a "great biologist" because he once wrote about insects and birds.
BS, apparently you know nothing about the Ralbag. He wrote a giant commentary on Euclid. He was hailed as a great mathematician of his time and was well respected by secular scholars. Why don't you read about him before you insult him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi_ben_Gerson. Here is a paper written on him that explains just how much of a genius in mathematics he was in his time. http://u.cs.biu.ac.il/~tsaban/Pdf/MathofLevi.pdf
E-MAN,
What you said is laughable---and I hate insulting people. Mathematics has set laws, and assuming the first law is true, we build on that with conjectures, after a conjecture is a formed we attempt to make it a theorem--an indisputable fact. God, if he exists, cannot form a right triangle in which the side of the hypotenuse will not be equal to the sum of the other two sides squared, because that is the DEFINITION OF A RIGHT TRIANGLE. Once God makes it in that the length of the hypotenuse is NOT the sum of the other two side's length squared, IT IS NO LONGER A RIGHT TRIANGLE, but either an obtuse triangle, or an acute triangle, or not even a triangle at all.
Let's say you are playing a game of Russian Roulette, but you pull out a knife and stab the guy in the middle of them game. The other guy is dead, you won Russian Roulette! But you didn't!
Haha Bento, I share your sentiments!
S,
>What are you asking, if he coined the expression נהמא דכסופא? Or did he originate the suggestion that people enjoy more what they earned then what they're handed? Or its specific application toward the problem of why God doesn't bestow goodness for free?
I'd love to know all these things can you give us the history
thanks!
Abe, THAT IS THE POINT! Why is that laughable? Anyway, this idea already existed and BS I would like you to respond to the fact that the Ralbag WAS a great mathematician recognized by MANY as such. You can;t just denigrate someone you know nothing about for no reason other than you dislike Rabbis. Or you can, but that is ridiculous. That is like me saying Einstein was not a great scientist because he was Jewish. How is his being Jewish relevant? How is Ralbag's being a Rabbi relevant to him being a great mathematician?
One Google further:
מקור הצירוף הוא בספר הזוהר (ספר היסוד של הקבלה). על פי הקבלה, יש בושה בכך שעם ישראל יקבל את הטוב האלוהי ללא תמורה והוא יכול להיות זכאי לכך רק אם יעבוד את ה'.
Hey I wasn't the one who dissed the Ralbag. I have not read a single work of his. Many clergy of all different types of religions have been great scientists and mathematicians and philosophers, George Lemaître for example.
Though I misread what you said, I thought you were suggesting there was a way for God to play with the laws of mathematics. Apologies.
As for how much math did the Rabbis know -
I don't know that any of the medieval Rabbis did anything particularly brilliant in math but the Rambam and the Ralbag definitely knew the math and science of their time (which was very limited but hey)So BS when it comes to them I wouldn't say their knowledge of mathematics was embarrassing but I don't know if I would call them more brilliant than the other scholars of their time. I can't think of any scientific or mathematical achievements from Rabbis so maybe brilliant is a bit of an exaggeration.
This is all semantics were they brilliant, smart, competent etc.
Let's just say the Judaeo-Arabic Jews for the most part knew their stuff.
(Of course what mathematics has to do with theology unless you're a Pythagorean or something is beyond me)
Abe, sorry, I was responding to BS starting from the second line. I don't understand how someone can disrespect a person without actually knowing who they are. Especially when a simple google search would show that the Ralbag was and is considered one of the greatest mathematicians of his time.
SH- I think you are wrong for grouping the Ralbag and Rambam together. The Rambam never knew math well. The Ralbag, on the other hand, was hailed by many people as very innovative for his time. He was and is considered a genius in math. Just look, for example, at those two websites I link to.
In case you guys are too lazy to go to either of the links here is just an outline of what Levi accomplished in math:
Highlights of Levi’s Mathematical and Scientific Work
We now outline Levi’s mathematical and scientific contributions, concentrating on his major
mathematical work Maaseh Hoshev, and concluding with a rare and interesting example of his mathematics
from his commentary on the Tanakh.
This list exhibits the diversity and scope of Levi’s work, while providing an overview of his
mathematical and scientific accomplishments.
1. The earliest rigorous use of mathematical induction.
2. Pioneer work in the field of combinatorics.
3. A commentary on Euclid including an attempted proof of the 5th postulate.
4. A treatise on trigonometry.
5. An elementary proof that the only pairs of harmonic numbers (numbers in the form 2n3m) that differ by
1 are the pairs (1, 2), (2, 3), (3, 4) and (8, 9).
6. Important astronomical observations and theories about the motions of the moon, earth and sun.
7. Invention of the Jacob’s Staff, a device to measure angles between heavenly bodies, which was used
for centuries by European sailors for navigation. Figure 1 depicts the use of the device, without
showing the detailed and complex measurement markings that were etched upon it.
8. Description of the principles of the camera obscura (dark chamber), the forerunner of our modern
camera.
E-man,
That may be so but knowing math has almost nothing to do with theology (which itself is a rather dubious subject)
Btw the Rambam says the same thing as the ralbag (God and four sided triangles etc.) somewhere in the Guide.
I just brought it in the name of the Ralbag because he explains it with a more mathematical view, but I was just trying to counter what BS said because he clearly did not know what he was talking about and was insulting the Ralbag's intelligence. I just wanted to show how he was a great mathematician and BS was clearly ignorant of that fact. I brought in his credentials for no real purpose. But once someone insults then I feel like I should defend, no?
Anyway, getting back to your point of the post:
What is the reason G-D made man. In order to reward him schar in the afterlife is what the Ramchal said. The next question then says why didn;t G-D just make us and give us the afterlife. This question is inherently flawed to me because it contradicts the first answer. If G-D created us in order to REWARD us and give us afterlife then if he just gave us the afterlife in the first place then there would be no reason to have created us in the first place. Or am I missing something?
I’ve had the conversation in your post almost word for word. Including the second part.
Though I don’t see any reason why it would be so, one could say that it is impossible to create people that would enjoy something they didn’t earn. Another answer I’ve heard is that this is the best possible world: God could have created people who would enjoy unearned rewards, but this way is better. Given how badly put together many things in the world are, it seems unlikely that this is the best possible world, but there’s really no way to know. You’ve got to love unfalsifiable claims.
What no one seems to realize is the implication of the statement that God made the world in order to reward people. We are supposed to be forever grateful to God because, in His infinite generosity, He created us and gave us an opportunity to earn schar for Olam Haboh. But before we were created, the only Being in existence was God. Therefore the only One who stood to benefit from our creation was Him! In this scenario, God was bored, so He made Himself some toys to play with: us. For that we should be eternally grateful?
E-man,
You missed a step, the Ramchal says that God wants to give us an afterlife but he can't give it to us for free or else we'd feel bad. Therefore he CAN'T give us a free pass and needs to set up this game where we EARN our afterlife.
Perhaps the mistake I'm making (and most people who invoke Nahama De'Kisufa) is treating a kabbalistic concept rationally. Kabbalah if I understand correctly is more of a mystical experience type of thing so maybe subjecting it to logic is the wrong approach. Either you get it or you don't you can't really explain it. OR its complete rubbish - take your pick.
All I know is all these dumb Chareidim run around invoking Nahama DeKisufa as the "answer" to everything when it clearly falls short of that task.
G*3
>Therefore the only One who stood to benefit from our creation was Him! In this scenario, God was bored
I think the Kabbalists understood the creation of the world not so much as a conscious decision but rather as a sort of side effect of God's existence, in other words God MUST let his bountiful goodness overflow from within himself and cause the creation. In other words God's goodness is sort of a cosmic force of nature. I dunno if any of that makes sense but I'm pretty sure that's how most of the kabbalists explained it.
Shilton, I am saying before you answer the second question, the first answer does not allow for the second question. You said:
Kid: "Rebbi what is our purpose in this world?"
Rabbi:Well we are here to gain schar (reward) for olam haba(the world to come). God is omnibenevolent therefore he created a situation where mankind kind can receive eternal reward."
Kid: But why do we have to work for our reward? Why can't God just give it to us for free?
(My answer would be, "Silly kid, I just told you, we are here to gain schar!" If G-D gave it to us for free it would not be earning it. DA. Now go zach some Gemora in a geshmack kinda way.) This, of course, is if I am a Rebbe at a day school and I approached Judaism through the path of the Ramchal.
Fine
Kid:"Rebbi what is our purpose in this world?"
Rabbi: To enjoy ourselves in the afterlife
Kid: But why do I have to work for it
Rabbi: Because otherwise you wouldn't enjoy it
Kid: But God sort of planned everything right? So why couldn't he have made things more efficient and left out that stupid Nahama De'Kisufa gene
Rabbi: Ermm....
This back and forth makes no sense. The purpose of our existence in this world is to enjoy ourselves in the afterlife? What is the connection if not to EARN the afterlife in this world, according to the Ramchal?
I would just like to intervene and try to make a short and embarrassingly obvious point. If there is a God, that does not mean your existence has any meaning.
ooops looks like it posted six times. If you can delete the extras, I would appreciate it Shilton.
Abe,
Lol you made your point very um ... repeatedly ;)
Yes I suppose the Kid's original question assumes we have some sort of purpose which is a bit hasty of him but most religious people believe, in addition to a belief in God, that we have some sort of purpose in this world.
Abe, true a belief in G-D does not necessarily lead to a belief in humans having a purpose. However, a belief in Judaism does, no?
Nu, so what is it?
As explained to me by my Rabbi in Shaalvim, there are basically two approaches. He labeled them the Mesilas Yesharim approach and the Kuzari approach. I would just label them the Mystic approach vs the rationalistic approach.
The Mesilas Yesharim says this world is a pruzdoor, a hallway, to the next world. So the whole point of this world is to rack up as many "points" as you can until you die. These points can be attained through righteous deeds like commandments or suffering like being beaten by gentiles or wicked Jews. Then you will go to heaven and spend eternity with G-D. The point of life is, therefore, to rack up as many points because the more points you rack up here the closer you are to G-D for eternity.
The Kuzari (which I would think is also probably the Rambam, Meiri, Ralbag, Ibn Kaspi, etc.) approach is different. It is that the purpose of life is to do good in this world to make THIS world a better place and help your fellow man. This is accomplished through doing the Mitzvos and such. But also, at the same time, by doing good deeds in this world you are acquiring the world to come.
So, basically, it is an argument if this world is worth wasting your time being a part of. The Ramchal and his school of thought basically would say study torah, don't go out into the world, stay as far away from other people as possible and just learn Torah and do the commandments in seclusion. The Kuzari approach would say, be a part of this world, donate to society and make this world a better place. Both approaches believe in the world to come, but one believes in the worth whileness of making this world a better place and one believes this world should be shunned if possible.
> in other words God MUST let his bountiful goodness overflow from within himself and cause the creation. In other words God's goodness is sort of a cosmic force of nature. I dunno if any of that makes sense
Not really. At least, not without completely redefining “God” from an omnipotent omniscient Being to a mechanistic guiding force. Then again, a lot of Jewish theology is mechanistic, and kabbalah even more so.
E-man,
Levi ben Gerson was a mathematician, I actually know who he is (I know him primarily for making proof by induction more formal). I did not know that was also the Ralbag. Yes you are correct he was a mathematician. And I was absolutely entirely wrong to call him a mathematical retard.
So why was I intellectually lazy to look up the Ralbag on the internet? Because I had enough experience in yeshiva and in the Orthodox community. You have no idea how many times I have heard my classmates and Rabbis tell me how mathematically brilliant the people of the Gemara were. And what an outstanding mathematician the Vilna Goan was. No, the people of the Gemara were mathematical retards, childish mathematics that is not impressive, already developed by Euclid. The Vilna Goan certainly loved Euclid (who possibly cannot love Euclid?) and studied him but that does not make a Vilna Goan a mathematician. The Goan lived in the 1700's at that time you had real mathematician geniuses like Euler and Bernouli and Gauss. There people far far far far surpassed anything the Vilna Goan was able to accomplish. So the Vilna Goan was no mathematician and not genius of mathematics.
So now I want you to admit to me that 99% of the all Rabbis and commentaries in the Gemara and Mishna that the Jewish world almost worships for their amazing mathematical talents really had no mathematical talent whatsoever. If you disagree, take the Vilna Goan, for example, then provide me his work so that I can be impressed with what he did. Otherwise, stop repeating this non-sense about the mathematical superiority of the Rabbis.
Here is another thing I wanted to say. This is what is actually relevant. When I was in 8th grade I have actually developed a lot of theological ideas myself. For example, the existence of problems that God cannot solve. I also came up with others. And my questions and answers that I had could have been find in the Rambam and other commentators. Here is my question. What is more likely: that I was some super gifted kid in theological issues with a natural talent for it that or that the whole theological issue is a load of non-sense that even an 8th grader can contribute to? I think the second one is more likely.
Theology is just pointless, just as pointless as the fan option on your air conditioner, and just as pointless as a plot in a porno.
Baruch,
Idiots often run around saying those sorts of things, that the Rabbis were geniuses and were smarter than goyim in math etc. etc.
However I don't think E-man is quite saying that Rabbis in general are mathematically superior all he was doing is defending the Ralbag.
BS, you are a funny man. I never denied that most Rabbis are not qualified to discuss science, math and other things on a deep level. All I said was Ralbag was a mathematical genius, which you admit was true. I am sorry there are many religious believers out there that just repeat what they are told by their Rabbis which repeat what they were told by their Rabbis and so on without actually thinking about what they are saying. The Gedolim stories that are made up without basis are misunderstood by so many. Do I think that the Gra also was able to learn Gemora better than anyone around him when he was 6 or 7? No, I think that he might have been a genius for his age, but I do not think those stories about him were accurate, they were most likely exaggerated to inspire people to work hard.
This is how I view your story, from my perspective. I was also able to come up with this idea before I learned, or even knew who the Rambam was. I think that some truths are obvious even to children who have rudimentary knowledge of general things nowadays. There is this idea of G-D, who is unlimited in "power." When you ask the question can G-D make a rock He can;t lift, everyone should realize that an unlimited being is not able to be limited, so the answer is no. However, that is not a limit of G-D.
However, back in the day when they did not understand science on the same level even a 3rd grader understands it today, I think the world needed someone like the Rambam to "figure" it out.
I would agree with you that made up theology is pointless (which I assume is how you view Judaism). However, since I believe in G-D then my theology is very purposeful in my eyes.
BTW, fan on the A/C is great when it is 70 outside and the previous day was 85 and I would say something about the plot subject, but I am not qualified to discuss pornos.
BTW, I meant you are a funny man because of your last line.
E-man,
I know you yourself were not saying that Rabbis are mathematicians, just only Levi ben Gerson, but the Orthodox community does. I wanted to hear an Orthodox Jew actually admit to me what what the Rabbis say about past Rabbis is untrue in their regard to science and mathematics.
You never watched a single porno in your life? Not once?! You never had a curiously to see what is going on? Never? Not even for a few minutes? You are at an age that a guy will probably watch it at least once. But I would believe you if you said "no". I know that I myself stood away from porn back when I was still religious. But after I gave up Judaism I opened up to sexual exploration. All I have to say is that porn is good for the soul. I think there should be a law mandating every male to watch porn regulary.
So in case you do not know some porn has a plot in it. For example, some big breasted girl in short clothing is at college and failing all her classes. So she needs to raise her grades. So the porno develops into a plot. And you learn the charachter names, such as the professors she sleeps with (which strangely turn out to be good looking guys, when was the last time you saw a good looking professor). My problem with all of that is that I do not care! I can assure you I am not watching porn to see some awesome piece of story telling. So I do not care about the plot. And I most certainly do not care about the charachter names. All I care about is something to masturbate to. That is it. Skip the plot, skip the charachter development, skip the bad acting, skip the theme, and just have sex. Porn plots really are just about the most useless thing in the world.
Actually I would join a porn film if I could get accepted. It looks so fun! But the problem is, sadly, they have standards. Apparently my penis is too tiny to be in a porno, ohh, that hurts, ohh, that makes me so sad, why, why does it have to be so tiny.
The point of the original post was that the statement "An omnipotent, benevolent G-d created a universe in which effort is necessary, in order that we should receive greater reward through effort" appears to be false because an omnipotent G-d seeking to bestow maximum good would create a universe where recipients receive maximum good without experiencing effort/suffering as a prerequisite. Creating a universe where recipients receive maximum good and have no negative experiences is not the same thing at all as creating a four-sided triangle ("a four-sided triangle" is simply a meaningless combination of words, as are the other examples provided). It would seem that an omnipotent, benevolent G-d could certainly create a universe (and by universe we mean all of creation, including the experienced world and olam habah) that contained only positive experiences.
Now the response of some is that from G-d's perspective of infinite wisdom outside this universe it is clear that the best possible combination includes effort/suffering. Aside from saying that this response appears to defy common sense, we cannot, of course, absolutely disprove it since we do not stand in G-d’s position. However, we can still say that the original statement is flawed because it is taking a property of the created universe (i.e., effort is necessary for greater reward) and using it to answer the question as to why the universe was created with the property of effort being necessary for reward in the first place. So, in other words, the argument is circular -- Q: Why did G-d create a universe in which inhabitants experience reward only following effort/suffering? A: Because a property of this universe is that maximum reward is possible only with effort/suffering. Circular logic.
Another simple, common-sense way of looking at this problem is the following: "Good only, with no bad" must by definition be "more good" than "good with bad". Therefore a universe of "maximum good" must not include "bad". If the universe includes “bad”, it is by definition not "maximum good". If the universe is not “maximum good” then why did an omnipotent, supremely benevolent G-d create it? To create a universe of “maximum good” that also includes “bad” seems to be an inherent impossibility, like creating a “four-sided triangle” and it would seem that even an omnipotent G-d could not have the ability to create a universe of “maximum good” that includes bad experiences. Or, to put it another way, a universe that includes bad experiences cannot be “maximum good” and it would appear that its creator, by definition, cannot be supremely benevolent.
This problem becomes even more acute when it is used to answer the question of why bad things happen to good people, or why G-d created suffering. One of the standard answers is that in some deep way the greatest good in this universe can only be achieved through suffering. But this response is inadequate because the obvious question is why did G-d create this very universe in the first place in which suffering is necessary for maximum good?
A point to note is that the argument does not prove that the maximum experience of good by humans does not require suffering. That may very well be true. The argument just appears to disprove the thesis that a G-d that is omnipotent and supremely benevolent created the universe.
E-man,
>they were most likely exaggerated to inspire people to work hard.
THose stories do the opposite they inspire you to give up because they basically say "well you'll never become a Godol because all the Gedolim were insanely smarter than you so might as well give up ever trying to be like them"
BS,
Turn it down a notch. Stop going on sexual tangents. Thanks.
Anonymous,
Couldn't have said it better myself.
BTW this whole discussion reminds me of a scene in the matrix where the computer-robot-agent thing explains to Neo that they tried making a perfect matrix - where the virtual world was all good and not bad at all - but the people hooked up to the first matrix kept waking up. So they had to make a new matrix where people had suffering.
Sort of a sci-fi Nahama De'Kisufa.
The usual response at this point, as far as I can tell anyway, is "there will always be some mysteries as to God's will."
By the way, here's an easy solution to the problem of evil: this is the afterlife. Bad things happen to good people because they were bad in their lives, and their punishment is to be given a mind that compels them to be good, yet to have a lot of pain.
"By the way, here's an easy solution to the problem of evil: this is the afterlife. Bad things happen to good people because they were bad in their lives, and their punishment is to be given a mind that compels them to be good, yet to have a lot of pain.":
I have an easier solution. It is all a bunch of non-sense. This is the best solution that there is. Besides, Jews do not believe in afterlife.
---
Is God willing to prevent evil but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is Gos able to prevent evil but unwilling?
Then he is manevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
>Besides, Jews do not believe in afterlife.
What???
"What???":
Afterlife not mentioned anywhere in Old Testament. The position of Rambam is that Jews die. What happens to them after death is not clear. Some believe they go to a form of temporary afterlife to get resurrected again after death when Meschiach returns. Some believe they just wait, with no afterlife, until Meschiach comes back and they live again after the resurrection of the dead. What happens after the dead are ressurected. Some believe people live forever, but I think Rambam says that the 2nd life is temporary. Eventually people do not live anymore. Furthermore, there is no hell in Judaism, really, the worst is kareis when the soul is destroyed from existing.
The Old Testament is not Judaism,
Judaism = Rabbinical Judaism
The Rambam is an exception
>there is no hell in Judaism, really
People keep saying this to me and I have to say that I have no idea where this lie, that there is no Hell is Judaism, came from (maybe wishful thinking).
The Gemara (as well as most Orthodox Jews) believes in "Gehennom" a place where the evildoers get BURNT for eternity or for a while (depending on different versions) If that's not Hell then I don't know what is!
Shilton, the Reform movement claims there is no hell in Judaism.
BS- The Rambam can;t hold that. He says that when a person dies their intellect is the part of them that lasts forever. Hence, he believes in an eternal life.
>Shilton, the Reform movement claims there is no hell in Judaism.
Obviously, and I'm not exactly a fan of Hell myself (not cuz I'm scared of going there lol but just because I think it's a silly concept) But you can't say that "there is no Hell in Judaism" when historically there just is.
>their intellect is the part of them that lasts forever. Hence, he believes in an eternal life.
That's only if you got "acquired intellect" by turning "potential intellect" into "active intellect" a task which only philosophers can do very successfully leaving most people with not much of an afterlife.
Exactly, the more you do and understand in this world, the greater your afterlife will be. That is the point.
> People keep saying this to me and I have to say that I have no idea where this lie, that there is no Hell is Judaism, came from (maybe wishful thinking).
Gehenom is more similar to Purgatory than it is to Hell.
"He says that when a person dies their intellect is the part of them that lasts forever.":
Perhaps he means to say the intellect of the person that he left for the generations to come. Euclid has been dead for thousads of years but we still talk about him. In that sense, and only in that sense, can be person gain immortality (if you want to call it "immortality").
E-man, why do you believe in an afterlife? You do realize what a silly concept it is? Every ounce of my reason points me away from such a childish concept. Everything that we know today in neuroscience points out away from any kind of metaphysical soul that survives daeth. How can someone possibly believe in an afterlife in today's age?
Here is a good video about afterlife: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9bMi4s_yOE
>Exactly, the more you do and understand in this world, the greater your afterlife will be. That is the point.
That's all well and good but if you're stupid even if you kept the Torah 100% it's still no afterlife for you. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Also it's all based on obsolete Aristotleanism but whatever.
-That's all well and good but if you're stupid even if you kept the Torah 100% it's still no afterlife for you. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Not true, read the guide again and the peirush hamishnayos on avos and the shemonah perakim.
I thoght the Rambam's statements in the Introduction to the Mishna made his views clear but hey I could be wrong
Can you bring me specific quotes?
Thanks
Post a Comment