Dear Avram,
Thanks for taking the time to work through my posts. I’m using this minute to respond to the simple stuff. Hopefully I’ll get to the real stuff before shabbos. So, just some bullet points.
-I was intentionally vague because I’m not aware of what this is all about.
– What paragraph? The one you asked me to clarify. Sorry for the confusion. Please reread that post.
-Later we can discuss if my distinction about religion not being for one person is correct. I was trying to say that religion is not just a purely philosophical exercise.
-I’m aware of the contradiction. Later.
-About the OP. I’m not sure if this is an imitation of those other attempts, or is it an attempt to be more orthodox. Also, it seems pointless to have to go back to ethics to simply say, “what so and so is doing is unacceptable”.
-He has excluded those who are unethical. My question is if he has religious conviction in his own philosophical conclusion.
– I equate personal religion with syncretism.
On the last three points:
1. We’ve debated this before. I would love to continue it with you.
2. What people think is religiously important, has an outsized impact in how the people form the community. But what was or is critical to the religion, is not the communal part. An example. Our communities revolve around the imperative of having yeshivos. It affects so much of our lifestyle. But the goal is not to be a ben yeshiva. The goal is to be a ben torah.
3. A true religion wouldn’t permanently shift it’s goal because of the failings of it’s adherents. The religion is more vibrant when the group unifies to participate in the religious goals.
I think I got to everything. I’m not convinced I’m right about all of it or even most of it.