PC friday question of the day.

[Yo ssi]

That was told to you by "Man". I could be mistaken and you were actually present for this? 

This discussion reminds me of a fascinating lecture / article
https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/proof-torah-true/

(Pays to hear it, if you've got the time)

[drosenberg88429]

In general, secular law is effectively a societal interpersonal contract to protect people from each other.

Even if I believe my religion may mandate me to kill certain people, I think secular law should outlaw me from doing so. Secular law is there by definition to protect others from my beliefs which may lead to their harm. Anything which I do which does not directly harm others (such as homosexual activity between consenting adults, smoking marijuana, driving without a seatbelt, ect) is not the secular government's place to dictate.

I happen to believe that there is nothing inherently immoral about a lion eating a human because it is hungry. This is how it was created, and this is its instinct, and in its belief system it is totally justified. The fact that the lion may be behaving in an objectively moral mannerism doesn't mean that the secular government shouldn't shoot a marauding lion charging through the streets. Moral or not according to its belief system, it poses a menace to society and the threat needs to be eliminated, according to the mission statement of secular governance. (The parallel to be drawn to people that believe that they are religiously mandated to kill infidels should be obvious, I believe.)

Now, the huge issue that comes up is how my personal religious beliefs apply to my minor children.

Minors are generally not considered to be capable of making their own decisions, and to a large degree, parents or guardians are entrusted to make decisions for their benefit on their behalfs. However, that doesn't mean that any decision a parent can make about themselves can be made for a child.

An adult (logically) should be legally allowed to end their own life by choice, according to secular law. However, if an adult were to make and carry out such a choice for their child, they would be convicted of murder. There are clearly areas where one cannot say that a decision which can be reasonably stated to be in a child's best interests has been made.

Where the line is to be drawn on this is extremely murky. Can a parent decide to mutilate the childs body by piercing their ears? How about carrying out a circumcision? How about FGM? How about deciding not to medically intervene to battle a disease? How about deciding not to vaccinate? How about allowing them to marry at 14? There are a plethora of questions that come up as to what the parameters of reasonably acceptable fiduciary decisions are, and what the state has the right to mandate or outlaw on the child's behalf.

[jj1000]

That was told to you by "Man". I could be mistaken and you were actually present for this? 

This discussion reminds me of a fascinating lecture / article
https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/proof-torah-true/

(Pays to hear it, if you've got the time)

@CountValentine I didn't listen to that specific leacuture.

But FWIU the general idea is. Any one man can say he heard a revelation or prophecy from God. And that is how 99.9% of religions in the world started.

But there is only 1 religion that makes a claim of "mass revelation" meaning millions of people agree that they heard and saw the same thing at the same time being when God spoke to the Jews at Sinai.

Now you may know from being on DDF for about 5 minutes that it's very rare for 2 Jews to agree on something. But somehow millions of people agree to the same thing.

No other religion has ever made such a fantastic and crazy claim because it would be so easily disproven. Think about starting that type of religion right now. Unless it is in fact something that actually happened.

Anyway, at the end of the day it's faith and IMO anyone that says they can prove a religion 100% is ludicrous and I think defeats the whole purpose of why we are here. If it's 100% there is no challenge, or faith for that matter etc.

So everyone believes what they want at the end of the day, but to me and many others here the claim of "mass revelation" is at a minimum a better claim than any other religion makes as far as authenticity of source goes.

ETA - I am not commenting on another part of this dialogue, just wanted to shed some light on what people are referring to.

[drosenberg88429]

You can argue with it but the theory is that no matter what society feels about the fetus, it can’t impose its view on the mother who thinks differently without a religious basis. Preventing somebody from murdering somebody else is very different than coercing a woman to harbor and nourish something in her body.

That's one theory. The other theory is that when you put a fetus into a captive position, you are legally mandated not to starve them to death, the same way I would be tried for murder were I to lock someone in a room and throw away the key and leave them to die of starvation, or were I to not take care of my infant child. (The fact that an infant can be given up for adoption is irrelevant in this case, as I put the the child in a scenerio where we are temporarily latched together and cannot be separated. Such a move carries with it the responsibility to care for the child dependant on me.)

In addition to that, abortion is an active termination, not just passively withholding care.

You cannot avoid the fact that there are two sides to the debate, without bringing religion into the equation.

[drosenberg88429]

except for one religion which is based on a mass revelation

@CountValentine I didn't listen to that specific leacuture.

But FWIU the general idea is. Any one man can say he heard a revelation or prophecy from God. And that is how 99.9% of religions in the world started.

But there is only 1 religion that makes a claim of "mass revelation" meaning millions of people agree that they heard and saw the same thing at the same time being when God spoke to the Jews at Sinai.

Now you may know from being on DDF for about 5 minutes that it's very rare for 2 Jews to agree on something. But somehow millions of people agree to the same thing.

No other religion has ever made such a fantastic and crazy claim because it would be so easily disproven. Think about starting that type of religion right now. Unless it is in fact something that actually happened.

Anyway, at the end of the day it's faith and IMO anyone that says they can prove a religion 100% is ludicrous and I think defeats the whole purpose of why we are here. If it's 100% there is no challenge etc.

So everyone believes what they want at the end of the day, but to me and many others here the claim of "mass revelation" is at a minimum a better claim that another religion makes as far as authenticity goes.

Can we please not get into a "My religion is better than your religion" debate?

[jj1000]

Can we please not get into a "My religion is better than your religion" debate?

I think people can explain their beliefs without putting another's down. That's the key to any good dialogue. What was discussed last night made me upset and I wanted to lock this thread for a few days, but it seems to be ok today.

[PlatinumGuy]

if the torah says to do it then there is nothing to be embarrassed of

Chilul hashem applies to (some) things perceived by non-Jews as wrong even if the Torah says to do them, and I can prove it.

[aygart]

Chilul hashem applies to (some) things perceived by non-Jews as wrong even if the Torah says to do them, and I can prove it.

I would like to see your proof.

[CountValentine]

Can we please not get into a "My religion is better than your religion" debate?

He didn't do that and I didn't take it that way.

How big does a mass revelation have to be to carry any weight?

[aygart]

He didn't do that and I didn't take it that way.

How big does a mass revelation have to be to carry any weight?

either 1.2 million, 2.4 million, or 3.6 million, depending on the machlokes in Mechilta.

[CountValentine]

either 1.2 million, 2.4 million, or 3.6 million, depending on the machlokes in Mechilta.

So 10k, 20k or even 100k won't be considered a mass revelation?

[aygart]

So 10k, 20k or even 100k won't be considered a mass revelation?

Only ours not more not less.

[ExGingi]

He didn't do that and I didn't take it that way.

How big does a mass revelation have to be to carry any weight?

IDK, but do you have anything with a claim of tens of thousands?

[CountValentine]

Only ours not more not less.

Would it be fair to say other religions have had mass revelations based on their standards?

[CountValentine]

IDK, but do you have anything with a claim of tens of thousands?

Would that make a difference if I did?

[sguitarist18]

@CountValentine

Anyway, at the end of the day it's faith and IMO anyone that says they can prove a religion 100% is ludicrous and I think defeats the whole purpose of why we are here. If it's 100% there is no challenge, or faith for that matter etc.

Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen titled his books "Permission to Believe/Receive" because you can't prove something 100%, there can always be a counterargument, so that isn't his goal. His goal was that if there are people who would be willing to believe, but feel it isn't rational, to show them rational evidence for believing, thus offering them permission to believe.

[EliJelly]

How does that explain eishes ish being an issue only with the woman and not the man?

That can theoretically be explained by the biology of a woman living with multiple men vs a man with multiple women and their effects.

Eishes ish is a byproduct  of the exclusivity which is one sided - You probably have to go a step back and discuss polygamy only being an issue on one side

yes, but every child is born with it being clear who the mother is.

[CountValentine]

Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen titled his books "Permission to Believe/Receive" because you can't prove something 100%, there can always be a counterargument, so that isn't his goal. His goal was that if there are people who would be willing to believe, but feel it isn't rational, to show them rational evidence for believing, thus offering them permission to believe.

Very smart Rabbi. What happens when the person you are explaining it to does accept your rational evidence as rational?

[aygart]

Would it be fair to say other religions have had mass revelations based on their standards?

no clue if there are any with claims of bonafide mass revelations.

[EliJelly]

@CountValentine I didn't listen to that specific leacuture.

But FWIU the general idea is. Any one man can say he heard a revelation or prophecy from God. And that is how 99.9% of religions in the world started.

But there is only 1 religion that makes a claim of "mass revelation" meaning millions of people agree that they heard and saw the same thing at the same time being when God spoke to the Jews at Sinai.

Now you may know from being on DDF for about 5 minutes that it's very rare for 2 Jews to agree on something. But somehow millions of people agree to the same thing.

No other religion has ever made such a fantastic and crazy claim because it would be so easily disproven. Think about starting that type of religion right now. Unless it is in fact something that actually happened.

Anyway, at the end of the day it's faith and IMO anyone that says they can prove a religion 100% is ludicrous and I think defeats the whole purpose of why we are here. If it's 100% there is no challenge, or faith for that matter etc.

So everyone believes what they want at the end of the day, but to me and many others here the claim of "mass revelation" is at a minimum a better claim than any other religion makes as far as authenticity of source goes.

This piece is the יסוד of our אמונה as explained many times in Ramban and Sefer H'Chinuch. There's a famous and beautiful תשובות חת׳׳ס, the last tshuva in יו׳׳ד on this subject.