Lots of inaccuracies and false generalizations – in a sentence I see my kids and others as having a more balanced nature with a tendency for both good and bad , but essentially good people. Babies and toddlers show altrusitic behavior And when I try to raise a child who is responsive to the needs of others, I know I already have "an ally within the child. I don't see the kid as essentially egoistic who without the continuous threats of punishments he would misbehave and without the promise of rewards he won't do anything good.
It hasn't been postulated that the only approach is through punishment and reward. Raising a child to be responsive to the needs of others, is done by creating and illustrating and highlighting the natural reward of behaving this way. 'When you are nice to the other person, you will enjoy that person's pleasant response and reciprocation'. And this statement is not necessarily spoken, but more importantly demonstrated in the context of such interactions.
But all of this is in the category of active Chinuch, which Dennis Prager says is essential. He is right. The behaviors babies and toddlers show are definitely not altruistic in it's true philosophical sense. They are the products of previous positive results as I explained.
Dennis Prager claims that those who hold that kids are basically good believe feel that don't have to educate kids to be better people is absolutely nonsense. The difference in character education is whether we see kids as allies who will respond to being caring kids not because it pays – people treat you better and it is more pleasant , but this is the type of person I want to be , this is the type of school or classroom or community I would like to be in. Is character education one in helping kids reflect on how their actions impact on others and they in an autonomous way find ways to engage in the moral action of restitution or do you focus on rules and imposing consequences. Do you build community and focus on cooperative learning or do use competition , awards ,rewards , consequences ,punishments and indoctrination. These are the differences we find between the conservative –behaviorist right wing approach to character education who focus' behaviors ' ignoring the motives – all about chitzoyinus -and progressives who see the importance of building an environment which is conducive to pro-social behaviors
The altruism of kids is well documented in the research - check
To sum up - Those like Dennis Prager who have a negative view of human nature , don't educate but do their best to control kids who can't be trusted through rewards, consequences and punishments and those who have a positive view of kids can educate them because there is something to work with and of course there is the pygmallion effect - ones who see the negative trigger the self fulfilling prophecy of kids behaving badly
1) You're projecting an awful lot into his words which he has not said or even implied. He did not discuss which approach should be used in educating the children
2) Altruism does not exist. Philosophically it can not. Not in children, adults or anyone in between. The reason people o what they do is because they like or hope to like the way they feel about/when doing it. So the job of this Chinuch is to make it so that the right actions make them feel good and not the wrong actions. People are selfish by nature. To be selfless(altruistic) is supernatural - an ingredient present in the Jew Mitzad Kedushas Haneshama, which is a piece of g-dliness, and by that is supernatural.
3) What you bring from Rabbi Hirsch is nice although not Poshut Pshat. It is also not completely relevant. By his definition of bad, he means evil, and that, we all agree is not what we are born to be. But he does not say that we aren't born with evil inclination. We most certainly are.
4) The way you limit the meaning of Chesed Le'umum Chatoss is at best a Chidush which changes the simple Pshat. It needs a very good source or else it can't be said. Furthermore, it is clear from the Gemara in Baba Basra 10b That a Goy can't act L'shem Shomayim - selflessly, and a Jew can. See Rashi Kaan B'yisroel... This is because a Goy Does not have the supernatural Neshama which can act with selflessness.
Another source: Ma Dagim Sheb'yom Kol Hagadol Mechavero Bole'a Ess Chavero Af B'nai Adam Ilimalay Mora'ah (Shel Malchus) Ish Ess Re'ehu Chaim B'la'o.
"Altruism does not exist. Philosophically it can not."
Of course it does. Music, art is a form of altruism. Sharing beauty just because it is beautyful and because it becomes more beautiful when more people share it.
the human being strives to satisfy his needs, and only few of them are of materialistic nature. Need for community, for appreciation, for love are all inherently altruistic...
This is incorrect. The Gemara says that the Nachash put Zuhama into Chava and this Zuhama was there until it was clensed by Har Sinai, but then it came back with the Aigel. There are also countless sources which clearly say that the sin of the Eitz Hadass is the root of all of our evil and trouble.
A person's yetzer tov only comes into him at 13. Before then he has only the yetzer ra but he is not evil. See the Chovos Hatalmidim how he explains that apparent bad midos such as stuborness, over anger due to injustice and frivolity can be turned into good midos such as tenaciousness for a good cause, aiming for justice in deeds and society and a happy disposition.
People have bechira, free will and they can bend themselves the way that they want. Hakodosh boruch Hu created the yetzer hora and the Torah as a remedy.
Lapesach Chatoss Rovetz V'ailecha Teshukaso V'atoh Timshol Bo
It is clear that Dennis Prager is right. And in response to Allan Katz, The Gemara says that Chesed Le'umim Chatoss means that even though they do deeds of 'kindness' their motives are selfish. It is true that Jews are different, but that is not Mitzad Hagoof, but Mitzad Haneshama. And even Jews need to work through their Midos which are present Mitzad Hagoof.
As far as the pesukim go and the basic question as to the nature of man one will find differences of opinions. I like to see man's nature being balanced with a propensity to do good and evil. The question is as an educator or parent do you see the brighter side of human nature and trust the kid to be able to be an ally in your quest to raise moral people or do you see kids with massive yetzer ha'ras who can't be trusted without extensive rewards and consequences to keep the yeitzer ha'ra in check. I know parents and educators from both camps. As I said above I see kids as basically good and see their challenging behavior as product of lagging skills – a developmental delay. The words of R SRH below resonate with me.
Now, as far as we can see, the following, "for the impulse of man's heart is evil from his youth," has been completely erroneously taken to be the cause of this new determination of destiny… The words, "for the impulse, etc.," are in parenthesis: If the impulse of the heart of man should be evil again, and even in his youth, so that the only way of saving it would be the destruction of the generation, nevertheless I will not again, as I did… Youths are neither righteous nor evil. Woe unto them that take the average of child and adolescent nature to be evil! Who has really observed children say, No, it is not true that youth is bad, the impulse of man's heart is not evil from his youth, it is not in his youth that man names evil his ideal. In normal times one finds a much greater number of adults than of adolescents whose hearts and minds are directed to evil. (Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, commentary to Bereishit 8:21)
As far as 'Chesed Le'umim Chatoss' - a Rav was asked about this pasuk as from peoples ' experience including mine, they know many goyim who are altruistic and live by values. He answered the pasuk talks about 'le'umim in the plural – for eg nation states and not individuals
Well there's a lot to think about here. People are definitely born with tendencies. But a big factor is a child's ability or perceived ability. If the child is incapable of making it in this world, they will misbehave and "be bad" as a defense mechanism. This becomes the person's behavior over time. If someone can achieve based on their abilities or perceived abilities, they may be less likely to act out because they can do well within their framework. This is an oversimplification. But we can understand why at various stages in a child's life, as the demands on them become greater, they often act out.
) You're projecting an awful lot into his words which he has not said or even implied. He did not discuss which approach should be used in educating the children
My point that a negative view of kids guides one to a more controlling –control by seduction =rewards and punitive approach to parenting, school discipline and character education finds expression in the conservative Christian right. John Rosemond's parenting advice based on his negative view of kids and is what Dennis Prager recommends on parenting. And for this reason part of the struggle for some parents and teachers is that autonomy-supportive constructivism methods require a leap of faith in the child, and they seem stuck in the direct causality of adult MAKES child do x. As you know, some adults seem to struggle with either mustering the faith in the child, or conceptualizing any process other than adult controls child. The same negative view of adults leads management to be controlling using extrinsic motivators rather than trying to inspire employees and give them a vision of how the company can make a difference to the lives of people.
2) Altruism does not exist. Philosophically it can not. Not in children, adults or anyone in between. The reason people o what they do is because they like or hope to like the way they feel about/when doing it. So the job of this Chinuch is to make it so that the right actions make them feel good and not the wrong actions. People are selfish by nature. To be selfless(altruistic) is supernatural - Altruism – Your take on altruism is correct according to the behaviorist view of man is just a more sophisticated animal. Behaviorists will reduce everything to self-interest and reinforcements. they see everything as a contingency that is potentially controlling the behavior, so they'll find a way to explain even the most constructivist parenting/teaching in behavioral terms. People do things for many reasons , but when they are most self-determined they do things because they are the right things to do , they are an expression of their values and inner-cores. The fact that actions are intrinsically rewarding helps one to sustain behavior and be more committed. Rabbi David Lapin in his book – Lead by greatness which is aimed mainly to a non-Jewish audience says what drives the soul, the spiritual side of man is purpose , a sense of destiny , attaching oneself to an ideal bigger than oneself but what nourishes the soul is the meaning in what we do and its intrinsic reward. This is rather different from the view ' The reason people do what they do is because they like or hope to like the way they feel about/when doing it. ' In fact the opposite has been shown –people who feel good – do good. What a poor and dismal view of someone Hashem created – be'tzlelem Elokim – that people only do things for the pleasure they get -pay-off. The same goes for negative behavior. Kids don't hit other kids because they consider themselves as kids who don't hit other people, not because if they will hit a kid they will feel bad afterwards or get into trouble. Altruism , selflessness , generosity is not supernatural It is part of man's spiritual side while his materialistic side drives his tendency to be selfish. The fact that babies and toddlers display altruism at such a young age means that altruism is in our genes. ' So the job of this Chinuch is to make it so that the right actions make them feel good and not the wrong actions ' so Chinuch is helping kids on who they are and a vision of themselves as unique Torah Jews , reflect how their actions impact on others and ask is this the type of person I want to be rather than ask what's in it for me, does it make me feel good.?.
R' SR Hirsch on Ki Yetzer Lev Ha'adam Ra M'ne'urav. His explanation is relevant to the conversation as it gives a more balanced view of kids rather than the negative one stated by Dennis Prager. Of course man has a darker side of him – the yeitzer Ha'ra being responsible but also there is the brighter side of human nature
As far as the difference between Jew and Goy – I am still checking it out , but here are some thoughts. Looking at the mefarshim and the Gemorrah Baba Basra 10b there are many explanations of the pasuk Chesed Le'umim Chatoss. I don't have the gemorah in front of me , but it ends off with a positive explanation – the chesed of goyim is like a korban chatas. Their chesed can be considered a chatas- cheit for Jews as it is a 'kitrug ' against Jews when goyim do chesed. In a negative sense Goyim are said like Robin Hood steal and then with the money give to the poor. They give in the name of Avoda Zara which is a contradiction to the chesed they do . It could be that the Gemorrah is talking about not s'tam goyim but those who worship avoda zara. They give in order to boast and glorify themselves. Rabbeinu Gershom says that these negative behaviors are generalizations as at most' there are many goyim who act this way' . From the facts on the ground we see that there are many goyim who act in an altruistic way for the sake of the action – lishmah . This is different from acting L'shem Shomayim. The case in the gemorah is where both a Jew and goy give in order that a child will recover from an illness. If the kid does not recover , the goy regrets giving the Tzedaka where as the Jew accepts the divine judgment and sees his giving independent of his request , giving Tzedaka because God says so.- le'shem shamayim So in this situation we see a difference, but there are many goyim who give Tzedaka simply because it is the right thing to do.
I spoke to several people who professionally work with goyim. They said that they witnessed lots of acts of altruism and moral and ethical behavior. The Meiri and other Rishonim talk about how the akkum referred to in chazal are those who had no ethical discipline not the goyim of later times who adopted so much of a Judaic world view. We must also be aware that many goyim now have Jewish blood in them.
Goyim can display altruism and do things lishmah but don't do things le'sheim shamayim. Doing things le'sheim shamayim – with kedusha and tahara happens when a Jew operates from deep within his neshama and thereby radiates very powerful energy that changes people by virtue of its power and authenticity. Goyim seem to operate from a place much nearer the surfaces of their beings. Goyim's morality is a learned body of knowledge of behavioral repertoire. A Jew has a more innate sense of Emmes and yaashrus....not always evident because Jews also have yeitzer Hara
"I spoke to several people who professionally work with goyim. They said that they witnessed lots of acts of altruism and moral and ethical behavior."
You are being sarcastic, aren't you?You can't be serious when you write sentences like this, with this use of the word "Goyim".... Sounds like an etiologist observing primates...
No, the word goy was used first by another poster, as part of the discussion of the pasuk chesed le'umim chatos. I would welcome some input from you on what Prager said and my comments
Lots of inaccuracies and false generalizations – in a sentence I see my kids and others as having a more balanced nature with a tendency for both good and bad , but essentially good people. Babies and toddlers show altrusitic behavior And when I try to raise a child who is responsive to the needs of others, I know I already have "an ally within the child. I don't see the kid as essentially egoistic who without the continuous threats of punishments he would misbehave and without the promise of rewards he won't do anything good.
ReplyDeleteIt hasn't been postulated that the only approach is through punishment and reward. Raising a child to be responsive to the needs of others, is done by creating and illustrating and highlighting the natural reward of behaving this way. 'When you are nice to the other person, you will enjoy that person's pleasant response and reciprocation'. And this statement is not necessarily spoken, but more importantly demonstrated in the context of such interactions.
DeleteBut all of this is in the category of active Chinuch, which Dennis Prager says is essential. He is right. The behaviors babies and toddlers show are definitely not altruistic in it's true philosophical sense. They are the products of previous positive results as I explained.
Dennis Prager claims that those who hold that kids are basically good believe feel that don't have to educate kids to be better people is absolutely nonsense. The difference in character education is whether we see kids as allies who will respond to being caring kids not because it pays – people treat you better and it is more pleasant , but this is the type of person I want to be , this is the type of school or classroom or community I would like to be in. Is character education one in helping kids reflect on how their actions impact on others and they in an autonomous way find ways to engage in the moral action of restitution or do you focus on rules and imposing consequences. Do you build community and focus on cooperative learning or do use competition , awards ,rewards , consequences ,punishments and indoctrination. These are the differences we find between the conservative –behaviorist right wing approach to character education who focus' behaviors ' ignoring the motives – all about chitzoyinus -and progressives who see the importance of building an environment which is conducive to pro-social behaviors
DeleteThe altruism of kids is well documented in the research - check
here is a different view of kids
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Oh71h8be-I
To sum up - Those like Dennis Prager who have a negative view of human nature , don't educate but do their best to control kids who can't be trusted through rewards, consequences and punishments and those who have a positive view of kids can educate them because there is something to work with and of course there is the pygmallion effect - ones who see the negative trigger the self fulfilling prophecy of kids behaving badly
DeleteAllan,
Delete1) You're projecting an awful lot into his words which he has not said or even implied. He did not discuss which approach should be used in educating the children
2) Altruism does not exist. Philosophically it can not. Not in children, adults or anyone in between. The reason people o what they do is because they like or hope to like the way they feel about/when doing it. So the job of this Chinuch is to make it so that the right actions make them feel good and not the wrong actions. People are selfish by nature. To be selfless(altruistic) is supernatural - an ingredient present in the Jew Mitzad Kedushas Haneshama, which is a piece of g-dliness, and by that is supernatural.
3) What you bring from Rabbi Hirsch is nice although not Poshut Pshat. It is also not completely relevant. By his definition of bad, he means evil, and that, we all agree is not what we are born to be. But he does not say that we aren't born with evil inclination. We most certainly are.
4) The way you limit the meaning of Chesed Le'umum Chatoss is at best a Chidush which changes the simple Pshat. It needs a very good source or else it can't be said. Furthermore, it is clear from the Gemara in Baba Basra 10b That a Goy can't act L'shem Shomayim - selflessly, and a Jew can. See Rashi Kaan B'yisroel... This is because a Goy Does not have the supernatural Neshama which can act with selflessness.
Another source:
Ma Dagim Sheb'yom Kol Hagadol Mechavero Bole'a Ess Chavero Af B'nai Adam Ilimalay Mora'ah (Shel Malchus) Ish Ess Re'ehu Chaim B'la'o.
"Altruism does not exist. Philosophically it can not."
DeleteOf course it does. Music, art is a form of altruism. Sharing beauty just because it is beautyful and because it becomes more beautiful when more people share it.
the human being strives to satisfy his needs, and only few of them are of materialistic nature. Need for community, for appreciation, for love are all inherently altruistic...
All children are born good. It's us parents that screw them up.
ReplyDelete'All children are born good' - Flase
Delete'It's us parents that screw them up' - Often True
Being born "bad" is a Christian invention, i.e. original sin.
ReplyDeleteThis is incorrect. The Gemara says that the Nachash put Zuhama into Chava and this Zuhama was there until it was clensed by Har Sinai, but then it came back with the Aigel. There are also countless sources which clearly say that the sin of the Eitz Hadass is the root of all of our evil and trouble.
DeleteA person's yetzer tov only comes into him at 13. Before then he has only the yetzer ra but he is not evil. See the Chovos Hatalmidim how he explains that apparent bad midos such as stuborness, over anger due to injustice and frivolity can be turned into good midos such as tenaciousness for a good cause, aiming for justice in deeds and society and a happy disposition.
ReplyDeletePeople have bechira, free will and they can bend themselves the way that they want. Hakodosh boruch Hu created the yetzer hora and the Torah as a remedy.
Ki Yetzer Lev Ha'adam Ra M'ne'urav
ReplyDeleteAsher Assah Elokim Ess Ha'adam Yashar V'haima Bukshu Chishvonos Rabim
Adam Pereh Ayir Yivaled
Lapesach Chatoss Rovetz V'ailecha Teshukaso V'atoh Timshol Bo
It is clear that Dennis Prager is right. And in response to Allan Katz, The Gemara says that Chesed Le'umim Chatoss means that even though they do deeds of 'kindness' their motives are selfish. It is true that Jews are different, but that is not Mitzad Hagoof, but Mitzad Haneshama. And even Jews need to work through their Midos which are present Mitzad Hagoof.
As far as the pesukim go and the basic question as to the nature of man one will find differences of opinions. I like to see man's nature being balanced with a propensity to do good and evil. The question is as an educator or parent do you see the brighter side of human nature and trust the kid to be able to be an ally in your quest to raise moral people or do you see kids with massive yetzer ha'ras who can't be trusted without extensive rewards and consequences to keep the yeitzer ha'ra in check. I know parents and educators from both camps. As I said above I see kids as basically good and see their challenging behavior as product of lagging skills – a developmental delay. The words of R SRH below resonate with me.
DeleteNow, as far as we can see, the following, "for the impulse of man's heart is evil from his youth," has been completely erroneously taken to be the cause of this new determination of destiny… The words, "for the impulse, etc.," are in parenthesis: If the impulse of the heart of man should be evil again, and even in his youth, so that the only way of saving it would be the destruction of the generation, nevertheless I will not again, as I did… Youths are neither righteous nor evil. Woe unto them that take the average of child and adolescent nature to be evil! Who has really observed children say, No, it is not true that youth is bad, the impulse of man's heart is not evil from his youth, it is not in his youth that man names evil his ideal. In normal times one finds a much greater number of adults than of adolescents whose hearts and minds are directed to evil. (Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, commentary to Bereishit 8:21)
As far as 'Chesed Le'umim Chatoss' - a Rav was asked about this pasuk as from peoples ' experience including mine, they know many goyim who are altruistic and live by values. He answered the pasuk talks about 'le'umim in the plural – for eg nation states and not individuals
Well there's a lot to think about here. People are definitely born with tendencies. But a big factor is a child's ability or perceived ability. If the child is incapable of making it in this world, they will misbehave and "be bad" as a defense mechanism. This becomes the person's behavior over time. If someone can achieve based on their abilities or perceived abilities, they may be less likely to act out because they can do well within their framework. This is an oversimplification. But we can understand why at various stages in a child's life, as the demands on them become greater, they often act out.
ReplyDelete) You're projecting an awful lot into his words which he has not said or even implied. He did not discuss which approach should be used in educating the children
ReplyDeleteMy point that a negative view of kids guides one to a more controlling –control by seduction =rewards and punitive approach to parenting, school discipline and character education finds expression in the conservative Christian right. John Rosemond's parenting advice based on his negative view of kids and is what Dennis Prager recommends on parenting. And for this reason part of the struggle for some parents and teachers is that autonomy-supportive constructivism methods require a leap of faith in the child, and they seem stuck in the direct causality of adult MAKES child do x. As you know, some adults seem to struggle with either mustering the faith in the child, or conceptualizing any process other than adult controls child. The same negative view of adults leads management to be controlling using extrinsic motivators rather than trying to inspire employees and give them a vision of how the company can make a difference to the lives of people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2) Altruism does not exist. Philosophically it can not. Not in children, adults or anyone in between. The reason people o what they do is because they like or hope to like the way they feel about/when doing it. So the job of this Chinuch is to make it so that the right actions make them feel good and not the wrong actions. People are selfish by nature. To be selfless(altruistic) is supernatural -
ReplyDeleteAltruism – Your take on altruism is correct according to the behaviorist view of man is just a more sophisticated animal. Behaviorists will reduce everything to self-interest and reinforcements. they see everything as a contingency that is potentially controlling the behavior, so they'll find a way to explain even the most constructivist parenting/teaching in behavioral terms. People do things for many reasons , but when they are most self-determined they do things because they are the right things to do , they are an expression of their values and inner-cores. The fact that actions are intrinsically rewarding helps one to sustain behavior and be more committed. Rabbi David Lapin in his book – Lead by greatness which is aimed mainly to a non-Jewish audience says what drives the soul, the spiritual side of man is purpose , a sense of destiny , attaching oneself to an ideal bigger than oneself but what nourishes the soul is the meaning in what we do and its intrinsic reward. This is rather different from the view ' The reason people do what they do is because they like or hope to like the way they feel about/when doing it. ' In fact the opposite has been shown –people who feel good – do good. What a poor and dismal view of someone Hashem created – be'tzlelem Elokim – that people only do things for the pleasure they get -pay-off. The same goes for negative behavior. Kids don't hit other kids because they consider themselves as kids who don't hit other people, not because if they will hit a kid they will feel bad afterwards or get into trouble. Altruism , selflessness , generosity is not supernatural It is part of man's spiritual side while his materialistic side drives his tendency to be selfish. The fact that babies and toddlers display altruism at such a young age means that altruism is in our genes.
' So the job of this Chinuch is to make it so that the right actions make them feel good and not the wrong actions '
so Chinuch is helping kids on who they are and a vision of themselves as unique Torah Jews , reflect how their actions impact on others and ask is this the type of person I want to be rather than ask what's in it for me, does it make me feel good.?.
R' SR Hirsch on Ki Yetzer Lev Ha'adam Ra M'ne'urav. His explanation is relevant to the conversation as it gives a more balanced view of kids rather than the negative one stated by Dennis Prager. Of course man has a darker side of him – the yeitzer Ha'ra being responsible but also there is the brighter side of human nature
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAs far as the difference between Jew and Goy – I am still checking it out , but here are some thoughts. Looking at the mefarshim and the Gemorrah Baba Basra 10b there are many explanations of the pasuk Chesed Le'umim Chatoss. I don't have the gemorah in front of me , but it ends off with a positive explanation – the chesed of goyim is like a korban chatas. Their chesed can be considered a chatas- cheit for Jews as it is a 'kitrug ' against Jews when goyim do chesed. In a negative sense Goyim are said like Robin Hood steal and then with the money give to the poor. They give in the name of Avoda Zara which is a contradiction to the chesed they do . It could be that the Gemorrah is talking about not s'tam goyim but those who worship avoda zara. They give in order to boast and glorify themselves. Rabbeinu Gershom says that these negative behaviors are generalizations as at most' there are many goyim who act this way' . From the facts on the ground we see that there are many goyim who act in an altruistic way for the sake of the action – lishmah . This is different from acting L'shem Shomayim. The case in the gemorah is where both a Jew and goy give in order that a child will recover from an illness. If the kid does not recover , the goy regrets giving the Tzedaka where as the Jew accepts the divine judgment and sees his giving independent of his request , giving Tzedaka because God says so.- le'shem shamayim So in this situation we see a difference, but there are many goyim who give Tzedaka simply because it is the right thing to do.
I spoke to several people who professionally work with goyim. They said that they witnessed lots of acts of altruism and moral and ethical behavior. The Meiri and other Rishonim talk about how the akkum referred to in chazal are those who had no ethical discipline not the goyim of later times who adopted so much of a Judaic world view. We must also be aware that many goyim now have Jewish blood in them.
ReplyDeleteGoyim can display altruism and do things lishmah but don't do things le'sheim shamayim. Doing things le'sheim shamayim – with kedusha and tahara happens when a Jew operates from deep within his neshama and thereby radiates very powerful energy that changes people by virtue of its power and authenticity. Goyim seem to operate from a place much nearer the surfaces of their beings. Goyim's morality is a learned body of knowledge of behavioral repertoire. A Jew has a more innate sense of Emmes and yaashrus....not always evident because Jews also have yeitzer Hara
"I spoke to several people who professionally work with goyim. They said that they witnessed lots of acts of altruism and moral and ethical behavior."
DeleteYou are being sarcastic, aren't you?You can't be serious when you write sentences like this, with this use of the word "Goyim".... Sounds like an etiologist observing primates...
No, the word goy was used first by another poster, as part of the discussion of the pasuk chesed le'umim chatos. I would welcome some input from you on what Prager said and my comments
DeletePrager University seems to be a christian fundamentalist institution. Why do you promote them?
ReplyDeleteI am not promoting it - a friend sent to me as a point to be discussed. I have not endorsed the university or the speaker or his views
Delete