The Jewish claim to truth is based on the idea that G-d revealed Himself to the entire people at Sinai which was an experience so great and so intense and so unanimously experienced by all that it could not have been made up. This imparted in the Jewish people an unswerving commitment to the belief in G-d. Subsequently they may have lapsed into rebelling against His will, but their acceptance of G-d’s existence was not questioned.
Compare this to other religions’ claim to truth based on the spiritual experiences or insights of one person, or of just a small group of people. This experience cannot be corroborated in any way by others. Of course, the experience may have happened. But the difference is that translating the experience of the individual to a national “belief” is based solely on faith in that individual and accepting his claims despite having no other verification.
The main flaw is the book of Ezra/Nechemiah where it's clear that the returning Jews have forgotten not just about minor halachos but about some of the biggest holidays which are reintroduced as if from scratch.
ReplyDeleteThe Aish argument has always been that you couldn't invent the revelation as Sinai because people would say "Oh yeah, how come we never heard of it before?" But even today, you see that a huge number of Jews don't know about Sinai or even how to properly say Krias Shema.
Very weak qasha, all 'round....
ReplyDeleteNo, it is very relevant.
ReplyDeleteKuzari is not about emunah, it's a form of speculation trying to prove historical events to the skeptic or non believer.
And it doesn't begin with Ezra. The Torah was lost when Josiah discovered it. And Hezekiah /shaphan.
The formulation proposed by ohr sameach 's resident philosopher claims that mass belief in a revelation cannot be falsely initiated - he argues if it wasn't true, people wouldn't believe it!
The claim is false.
Did masses believe in golden calf? Yes.
Was the calf true or false?
If you claim it is false, you refute kuzari sheker.
If you claim kuzari is true, then you are compelled to accept the egel zahav.
It's no surprise that I pantheism is widely accepted in the same circles who believe in kuzari.
What is your problem with Ohr Someach.
ReplyDeleteThe Kuzari principle is not the foundation of Yiddishkeit it is simply an additional support.
It has nothing to do with the golden calf. There is no evidence that the golden calf was a widespread belief in idolatry - contrary to your claims and thus has nothing to do with the Kuzari principle
Very good - we are making progress. The kuzari principle (KP) is not an important part of Judaism.
ReplyDeleteThe kp claims to be an empirical psychological truth , and the way it is taught by its proponent at Ohr.edu. is a compelling argument to become frum.
Idolatry is not the point, falsehood is the point.
RE mass acceptance of falsehood:
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt,(M) have become corrupt.(N) 8 They have been quick to turn away(O) from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol(P) cast in the shape of a calf.(Q) They have bowed down to it and sacrificed(R) to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’(S)
9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked(T) people. 10 Now leave me alone(U) so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy(V) them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”(W)
So you don't like the Kuzari principle but that has nothing to do with its validity. The golden calf is not relevant
ReplyDeleteThe verses you cite indicate nothing clear about false belief as you can see by the way the commentaries deal with them. especially even whether they indicate belief or incorrect behavior and how wide spread this was.
It still comes down to your own personal agenda - nothing to do with Kuzari Principle - except it triggers a strong response in you. Do you have a similar issue with the Rambam claiming that belief in his 13 principles is needed to get Olam Habah?
If some one became observant as the result of KP do you try to persuade him to revert to his old lifestyle?!
Really? Maybe your personal agenda?
ReplyDeleteSo you are suggesting that the Golden Calf wa a mitzvah, was correct belief, and was an empirical truth - i.e. it was the calf that took us out of Egypt!
You totally ignore (deny?) the Torah, in particular the pertinent verse of Shemot 32:
ח סָרוּ מַהֵר, מִן-הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִם--עָשׂוּ לָהֶם,
עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה; וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ-לוֹ, וַיִּזְבְּחוּ-לוֹ, וַיֹּאמְרוּ,
אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
they veered
they made a cast image
they bowed
and attributed Yetziat mitzrayim to the koach of their moltern image.
These are to you - the spokesman of the Eidah - the true beliefs of Yiddishkeit. I am waiting t see a letter from Rav Shternbich giving his approbation to your new form of Judaism!
Well done, we are enlightened. (not)
26: Moses stood up in the gate of the camp and said, “Whoever is for the LORD, come here!” And all the Levites rallied to him.
ReplyDeleteRashi:
מי לה' אלי means, WHOEVER IS FOR THE LORD let him come TO ME.
26
כל בני לוי ALL THE SONS OF LEVI — All the sons — from this we may gather that all the tribe of Levi remained worthy men (consequently “slay every man his brother” in the next verse can refer only to one who was his brother from the same mother, as explained by Rashi there) (Yoma 66b).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
in other words - other than the Leviim - the majority were not for the L-rd!
maybe in a perverse way it has to do with the Golden calf - the Calf is the obvious refutation of the claim made by HaLevi.
ReplyDeleteHalevi is aware of this, and thus tries to diminish the severity of the sin, by almost turning it into a mitzvah!
That it was a sin and not a mitzvah like you claim :
ReplyDelete30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people: 'Ye have sinned a great sin; and now I will go up unto the LORD, peradventure I shall make atonement for your sin.'
This was the day after the 3000 were slain. Hence many more were culpable.
That it was a sin of magnitude, in the terrain of idolatry :
31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said: 'Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them a god of gold.
That it was a collective sin of the masses, and not isolated to the 3000 Egyptians :
32 Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written.'
That the punishment did not end with the 3000 killed by the leviim
35 And the LORD smote the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made. {S
The Torah frames it as a sin against G-d. However, on a philosophical level this is the mass acceptance of sheker - falsehood. This demolishes the claim of the proponents of kuzari principle which alleges that mass acceptance of a belief proves the truth of that belief.
Nope! you haven't identified the sin and the Torah does not say it involved a mass belief in idolatry
ReplyDeleteWho claimed it was a mitzva not a sin - total nonsense. You are so desperate you are simply making up lies
ReplyDeleteSarcasm involves ridiculing an already silly statement.
ReplyDeletehere is one example below "Nope! you haven't identified the sin and the Torah does not say it involved a mass belief in idolatry"
These are direct quotes from the author of Living up To the Truth (the Kuzari principle)
ReplyDelete"Now, in modern language the principle that the Kuzari
uses is as follows. I beg you to look at it, hear it, and pay
close attention to all of its details. Let E be a possible
event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous,
easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence
does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred. "
and:
"The answer is yes, it does show that, but that is
not what the Kuzari's principle says. The Kuzari's principle says
that for an event which if it had occurred would
have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its
occurrence, and didn't occur, you can't get people to believe
in it"
https://ohr.edu/explore_judaism/living_up_to_the_truth/living_up_to_the_truth/2054
The book is simply a transcription of his lectures at the Yeshiva.
Look again "Let E be a possible
event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous,
easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred."
So, E can be a claim that the Golden Calf took the Jews, or Israel out of Egypt.
Can you imagine, a man made idol of a calf taking 3 million people out of bondage in Egypt? Such an event would leave tonnes of evidence. The cow moving, the cow leading, the cow fighting the egyptians. And 3 million Jews - people like einstein, Freud, Marx, Feynman, von Neumann, Kafka, Steiglitz, etc. - all geniuses, would have assessed the evidence for such a claim.
If there was no evidence for the cow, they simply would not beleive it. But the problem is, the Torah refutes this principle. They did believe it. they believed nonsense, with no basis in fact.
So KP is nuts, and not a great philosophical princple.