On the topic of darkness existing vs. not, see this class on parshash Shmois:
In the following class, Rabbi Paltiel brings a very interesting analysis of Moshe Rabbeinu’s inability to speak — including Rambam’s philosophical analysis of the question of whether absence of ability to speak is actual characteristic or a lack of characteristic (is darkness an independent entity or is it merely absence of light?). Rabbi Paltiel compares and contrasts Rambam’s (and generally philosophical) approach to that of Chassidus.
The Speech of Moshe
I would also post a video of a debate about existence of evil vs. benevolence of G-d, but I won’t do so out of humility. But if someone wants it for the purposes of enlightenment, I can send you the link.
15 comments:
Humility.
Also, Moshe could speak.
I always seem to have doubts about that one.
Not well, right? At least publicly...
There's a difference between a stammer and being mute.
Waffles.
I am interested in finding out who produced this video. Einstein’s name is spelled there as Алберт Аjнштаjн. Which is incredibly interesting: a) it’s Cyrillic, but b) it uses j, and c) it uses western pronunciation of Einstein.
Nu, who are the sponsors at the end?
Macedonia. Should’ve known.
Actually, that makes no sense. Whatever...
Also, it’s really a video about bringing religion back to schools. Which I am opposed to. Not bringing religion, but schools. At least public ones. Just like gay marriage. Not gays, and not gays marrying, but the state marrying anyone.
As one parking sticker said, “Don’t pray in our schools, and we won’t think in your churches.”
Hmm.
Just like the state should not marry anyone - because marriage entails society's approval of the relationship between two individuals; an approval that the state cannot give without some values framework, that needs religion to build it, so too, the state should not educate anyone, because education, too, requires the imparting of values, so that the student will not grow up to be intelligent animals.
Oh, and BTW, your poll is missing the correct answer:
G-d, or nature, has endowed me with access to x, and, by rights, government should prevent others from taking away my access to x.
But if I don't have access to x, it can only be because evil people have exploited me to deprive me of my access to x, so governement should tax those evil people (they can easily be identified because they tend to be rich) and use the revenues to supply me with x. Alternatively, government can simply give me x by devaluing the currency which represents the wealth of those evil people, or by borrowing from evil people that have not caught on yet.
My point regarding the state is that it is not its job to a) paint my roof, b) provide me with TV service, c) marry me, d) educate my children, e) fix my car.
The job of the government is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence: “and to protect these right, governments are formed”. It’s a guard. It protects me from my neighbors across the street and across the ocean. Also, in rare occasion when a dispute regarding primacy of rights arises (e.g., my right to learn Rambam with my chavrusa on Skype at 12 am vs. my neighbor’s right to sleep), the government will legislate regarding the primacy and resolve the dispute using courts.
Re: poll: that’s why I have several options.
But does the fact that I have a right to marry a frum Jewish girl and have not married one yet mean that “evil people have exploited me to deprive me of my access to frum Jewish girls, so the government should tax those evil people (they can easily be identified because they tend to be married) and use the revenues to supply me with a frum Jewish girl. Alternatively, government can simply give me a frum Jewish girl directly”?
You must really hate garbage collectors, airports and mailmen...
re:your poll - I thought that you were talking about health care, and other entitlements that are called "rights" in the public debate.
That was the point of my answer.
Firemen are the worst.
I was talking about any rights.
Post a Comment