@ CS
The difference is Yiddishkeit is true, everything else takes a point of Yiddishkeit and mixes in garbage. So you can usually convince an open-minded person to this effect.but the basis of Yiddishkeit needs to be emuna.
An adequate response to this would really go well beyond the scope of this forum. Suffice it to say that Emuna does not mean choosing to believe based on emotion and then using the mind to rationalize that belief.
When you made this point and used it as the Yesod for believing in the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe there where other posters who attacked this as irational. I’m inclined to agree which that (sorry). It is likewise irrational to use personal miricles, success in kiruv, rapid expansion of Chabbad, and their many good works as a Yesod for the belief in the Lubavitcher Rebbes teachings.
What I did was to show that it is eminently rational and appropriate for Lubavitcher Chasidim to follow the teachings of their Rebbe for the reasons that I have already explained earlier.
Which is why I am at loss how you could possibly write the following…
If you say that we can’t believe something the Rebbe said, then how can we believe anything he says? And the frierdiker Rebbe says,as he was his successor? Etc until the Baal Shem Tov? And as these people were holy tzaddikim, how can you believe any Torah authority? Maybe they’re wrong too? May as well just be a tzeduki or reject torah altogether cvs.