A Critique of Contenders

Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › A Critique of Contenders

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • August 11, 2011 5:32 pm at 5:32 pm #598574
    yitayningwut
    Participant
    August 11, 2011 6:08 pm at 6:08 pm #797428
    msseeker
    Member

    It is. And this why 1P2W brought people to teshuva. They saw the Reform rabbi’s poetic ignorance and empty “arguments”.

    August 11, 2011 6:12 pm at 6:12 pm #797429
    yitayningwut
    Participant

    msseeker-

    Honestly I was not impressed by that book. I felt 1) like they weren’t talking to each other at all (the only thing that made sense for them to debate in my opinion was the validity of the Torah) and 2) like the Orthodox viewpoint was being mellowed down in order to “taste good” to people who don’t believe in the Torah.

    August 11, 2011 8:48 pm at 8:48 pm #797430
    aries2756
    Participant

    As you can see your point was ignored completely!

    August 11, 2011 9:09 pm at 9:09 pm #797431
    Chacham
    Participant

    ONe thing I hated about the book is Ami hirsh just kept repeating the same Ibn Ezra which besides for being a mistake in translation all it can possibly prove is something against the Ibn Ezra.

    August 12, 2011 12:18 am at 12:18 am #797432
    yitayningwut
    Participant

    Chacham-

    The Ibn Ezra argument was the biggest joke. Both sides made as if this is some kind of new idea, when in fact the question of whether Ibn Ezra meant it the way Hirsch took it is one of the oldest debates in the book. I actually even saw it cited in Voltaire (!). Personally though, I agree that it is a mistaken interpretation, but for other reasons.

    But this just demonstrates my point. The main issue with Reform is the legitimacy of the authority of the Torah; they should have stuck to the Bible Criticism questions and argued them out, and if neither was qualified then they shouldn’t have debated at all, but to debate all of the other issues was really a waste of time. I’m sorry but to me it was all just a bunch of rhetoric.

    aries2756-

    Unfortunately, yes.

    August 12, 2011 5:00 pm at 5:00 pm #797433
    Lomed Mkol Adam
    Member

    What would you consider the basic issue which should be put on the table when debating Charadi vs. Modern Orthodoxy?

    August 12, 2011 5:13 pm at 5:13 pm #797434
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Which ibn Ezra are you talking about, the one in Bereishis about Malachim?

    August 12, 2011 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm #797435
    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Lomed, how about we’ll all go through a famous Sugya, say Rachuv uManhig, and we can discuss and argue with that. That way there’ll be S’char of learning, At V’Hav Besufa, and perhaps a normal outcome. Then we can all join, without our name tags, regardless of whether we were chosen to hold the megaphone, no need for a referee, and lastly, no non-stop mentioning about how we are ha ha online.

    August 12, 2011 5:33 pm at 5:33 pm #797436
    msseeker
    Member

    Chacham, that’s what I LOVED about the book. It made Ami and Reform look as ridiculous as it is and brought people to teshuva. Also his poetic ignorance and his avoidance of the damning question, “What do you learn in Theo Sem?”

    August 14, 2011 4:04 am at 4:04 am #797437
    yitayningwut
    Participant

    Lomed Mkol Adam-

    I’m not sure, but I would think to start with something like – What is the Torah view of secular knowledge in regards to a Jew’s spiritual growth? Present viewpoints and sources. The debate should be localized to arguing the validity of these sources.

    HaLeiVi-

    Bereishis.

    August 14, 2011 4:34 am at 4:34 am #797438
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    ytayninggut

    August 14, 2011 3:35 pm at 3:35 pm #797439
    yitayningwut
    Participant

    🙂 lol thank you

    August 15, 2011 2:33 am at 2:33 am #797440
    tomim tihye
    Member

    agree w/ pba

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.