Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ok, but some do?
Well then fine. I’m not saying that my rishonim are definitely correct that slifkin is a kofer. I’m just saying that I cannot honestly hold any other way. I hope you’ll agree that an acceptable way of life.
I assume my point is clear. You can’t get up and decide that you are only able to believe in Judaism if one rishon is the only correct one. Especially when that rishon is not the theory that has been accepted in the mesorah over the next 1000 years.
(Also, are you saying that he makes himself extreme because of me? What is that supposed to mean?)
I don’t know why the “rationalists” are allowed to pick and choose rishonim, but we aren’t allowed to. Why is it ok for slifkin to choose one rishon and then go about accusing everyone else of being idiots and “irrational” for not agreeing with him?
He “holds” like Rav Avraham ben Harambam? Fine.
Well, I hold like the majority of rishonim who consider that kefira! And in reliance therof, I’ll call him kofer.
Can a kind mod please make sure to copy the posts from the new thread to here, cause I sure as blazes aren’t going there
I’m a kind mod, how much is it worth to you? – 29
Nu, so what do you mean by political? Just how do you figure that they really do agree with him? But don’t want other people to?
I think you’re being a wee bit too cynical. In fact, I would kind of accuse you of being political–you do not have a real disaagreement with the rabbonim but you want to villianize them because it fits with your worldview of being cynical about the rabbis.
Well, what do you mean by that? It seems you mean that it was done so that people shouldn’t be influenced by his incorrect ideas.
I never said incorrect, I said objectionable.
Ok, but what do you mean by “political”? It seems you mean that it was done so that people shouldn’t be influenced by his objectionable ideas.
(also, you should look in a dictionary for definition of objectionable.)
Well, you’ll have to give a bit more detail than that.
Ok, so the claim is that the objection was real, but the extent of the objection was “political”.
Well, what do you mean by that? It seems you mean that it was done so that people shouldn’t be influenced by his incorrect ideas. Well–what about that is “political”?
Precisely what DY said. If it was the ideas he was propounding that were objectionable, then what about that is “political”?
Yes, DY does always ruin it, doesn’t he?
I still don’t know what you mean when you say political. Can you define it perhaps?
From the free dictionary:
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: “Calling a meeting is a political act in itself” (Daniel Goleman).
3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
4. Interested or active in politics: I’m not a very political person.
5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.
6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives: a purely political decision.
It sounds like you’re accusing us of number 6. And that theory would make sense if we didn’t really believe in our positions and were just pretending to in order to get some other benefit. But you don’t actually think we don’t believe our positions–so that doesn’t really work.
Yah yah, sriracha
ROB:
So then it is your contention that the people who oppose slifkin really agree with his ideas, but don’t want others to agree with them?
I’m just getting at the “political” part. I’m not sure what you call political, and what is not political.
It sounds like you are saying that he is considered worse than he actually is, because of his challenging some holy cows. Meaning, that the criticism directed at him should have been confined to his challenging the holy cows instead of at other aspects of him that may not be as problematic.
Is that your angle?
I think they made that in response to complaints from people who accidentally paid after hours.
ROB:
1. I don’t know when you last checked, but HIR hasn’t been an orthodox shul for years.
2. You say the opposition to him is “political”, but you don’t say what the nature of those politics is. That should sort of matter, should it not?
Yes, baptist ministers are absolutely not priests. And Charlie was not trying to be evasive at all–he just did not see how one thing was related to the other.
lol, ??? ??? ?? ????.
Hah! I found it! Maharat Weiss really did turn his sanctuary into a dance hall for priests, and I have no idea why Charlie thinks we wouldn’t find out that he’s lying.
On January 18 2010, HIR hosted a MLK Day concert in their sanctuary. At the concert, they had a performance by a baptist reverend with a church choir. I watched the clip on youtube, and indeed they do dance.
I hope the choir at least got a teudah from him testifying that they’re Jewish, as payment.
When did it become mutar to spread motzi shem ra against numerous distinguished rabbis?
It is a mitzva to say lashon hara about apikorsim, particularly distinguished ones. But you would be correct that it is probably assur to say motzi shem ra, since sheker is still assur!
But there is still no issur of kabbalas sheker, so it would only be a problem for the person who said it.
I can’t easily find on google that they hosted priests dancing (whatever that would be), but they do have a Hip Hop dance class–no priests invited.
Anyway, I don’t assume they would allow priests, since the Catholic church is a bunch of old fashioned religious bigots and doesn’t allow female priests. (Hey! Maybe Maharat Weiss can try ordaining the first female Catholic priest! He’s as Catholic as he is Orthodox, so I don’t see why he can’t. And then he can get Israel’s Catholic authority to recognize it!)
I hope Weiss reads this. I’m only trying to help.
You own nothing. HaShem owns everything. The Rabbis issued a gezerah to require that the things that HaShem had lent to you be lent to a different person. Secular governments do the same thing for hundreds of years — at least since the enactment of the Poor Law in England in 1601 (versions of which were enacted by every colony).
Right. But it isn’t the same thing. Because you do it simply out of not recognizing a property right, instead of out of G-d reallocating it.
So I ain’t sure what you’re getting it. You seem to be saying that once G-d owns it, now there are no more rights on earth–which certainly doesn’t accord with anything in the Torah.
Right, so that is the opposite of socialism and central planning. He actually reduced demand, instead of just insisting that the price be lower.
(And charlie, you apparently didn’t read my post before quoting and replying. Your example is merely G-d reallocating the stuff that He owns, and bears no resemblance to when you reallocate the stuff that I own)
Think of it as 100 learning boys called him 4 weeks ago and asked for an appointment to talk to him today. If that makes it better.
Look, I’m sorry if you’re not having it easy in shidduchim, and I believe you if you generally feel slighted by shadchanim. I just don’t think this is a good example.
“The freezer just opened and I am too busy for guys like you now. When I have more time I will be in touch”. I am shocked!
I don’t find that particularly weird. The BMG boys are seasonal, and tomorrow is literally ?? ????. Meanwhile, you could have called him two weeks ago, and can call next week.
It’s like if you would call an accountant on April 14th and ask him to do something other than file your tax return. He’ll say: “tomorrow is April 15th, and I’m way to busy filing tax returns to do something that isn’t time sensitive; call me next week.”
The tannaim would “break the market” if needed to allow neccesities to be affordable
I wonder what that was about. You still end up with the same amount of food–just different people have it or are left out.
If I’m not mistaken, Popa believes it is “outright theft” when the government, through the democratic process, decides to tax him, and use part of the proceeds to pay for someone else’s food stamps.
I like the way you say “the government” as if it is an entity independent of the people. It’s especially notable when that is the theory behind your opinion.
Charlie is wrong. Judaism beleives in immmutable proprty rights, but that those rights belong foremost to G-d by virtue of His creating the property. Socialists simply disregard property rights in outright theft. That isn’t the same.
because they’re anti-social
I text my rav.
Why not just ask your rav for his cell number, and send him a text.
You really wanna talk about this seriously? Then here’s what you need to do differently:
1. Tell us precisely what you mean by socialism.
2. Ask the question directly: “why do people dislike or disapprove of socialism”. Don’t ask why people consider it an insult to be called a socialist.
Mix flour and rendered beef fat. Salt and pepper to taste. Stuff into cow intestine, and tie off ends. Throw in cholent.
Why is it considered derogatory to call someone a dictator. I personally think that dictatorships work on a large scale.
You would have to be crazy to agree to that. Tell them no way.
Well, I guess the sock fits.
There’s no rashi. What does it mean.