Ask Moshe

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

HaShem does not impose that punishment. He warns that he repurcussions of certain sins reverberate over generations. Child abuse, for example.
[/quote]

Again to reiterate, I’m reading out of the old testament, but that isn’t how I read numerous cases. Original sin. Cain’s curse. And later under Moses.

“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me”[/quote]

You’re reading the Torah like a Calvinist.
…
Think of a woman on crack – her children are affected by her sin, for example, and probably her grandchildren. Generations of opportunity destroyed by the sins of a grandparent.
[/quote]

This is also the Church’s understanding of the evil. When God is the cause of evil, he neither wills nor acts in a morally evil way (God cannot go against his Character), but when God causes evil it is that of suffering or punishment; and, always for the greater good.

In the case of punishment it is not because he directly causes the evil, but allows the evil to occur. In the case of suffering it is a necessary aspect of removing yourself from the bad to the good (think woman on crack coming down off her high…she suffers but it is the process to the good).

Moshe, let me know if this is equivalent to a Jewish stance on the matter?

322

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

And as an aside, the Romans were full of it.

[/quote]

Painting all Romans with the same brush? Some of the greatest Roman historians were actually Greeks - in the case of Polybius a former slave of the Romans. Both he and Titus Livius(A Roman) painted a very flattering picture of Rome’s greatest enemy(Hannibal Barca) for example. They inherited the tradition of history as we know it today from the Greek Thucydides. They had also been recording the city’s annals since the era of the monarchy but they were lost after the sacking of Rome by the Gauls around 390BC. The tradition of recording the city annals developed into its own form of historical literature(Tactitus - Annals of Rome etc.)

What sources are you referring to? Caesar’s Commentaries? Albion was an unknown place to the civilised world in his time and prior to his invasion his commentaries record the information that he had garnered from spies/traitors in the area now known as Boulogne where he was assembling his invasion fleet in the summer of 54BC.

[quote]
I just cringe every time I see Roman “history”.[/quote]

Maybe you’d feel differently if you actually read some - Livy, Tacitus, Plutach(Greek), Caesar’s Commentaries, Suetonius, Polybius(Greek), the Augustine Chronicles etc. You also need to distinguish between the modern or Thucydidean school of history, the dry style of annals, Roman history with a clear agenda(Caesar), and the Herodotean school of history/myth/fable - i.e. Livy.

323

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

The Romans, interestingly, were so horrified by the Ammonites that they finished what we Jewish folk started and completely destroyed Carthage and its people.

[/quote]

And as an aside, the Romans were full of it. Much of their historic documentation would be more correctly called propaganda. They said similar things about the Celts and Druids which is now considered completely Bogus. Not that the Ammonites weren’t horrible people, I just cringe every time I see Roman “history”.[/quote]

The same can be said about any other civilization/country including the USA.

324

Reading this page has reminded me of a question. If it’s already been asked, just let me know and I’ll go to the page it’s on.

To what extent do we have free will according to Judaism?

325

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Reading this page has reminded me of a question. If it’s already been asked, just let me know and I’ll go to the page it’s on.

To what extent do we have free will according to Judaism?[/quote]

Pages 6 & 7.

Also;

"Free Will

In Talmud and Midrash

The doctrine of free will, expressed in the idea that man is free to choose between good and evil, was at the core of the Pharisaic outlook. Josephus indeed characterizes the differences between the Pharisees and their Sadducean and Essene opponents as between those who accepted both the freedom of man and divine providence (the Pharisees), those who ascribed everything to chance, denying providential guidance (the Sadducees), and those who denied human freedom, maintaining a doctrine of predestination (the Essenes; Wars 2:162ff; Ant. 13:171; 18:12f.). Though some doubt has been cast on Josephus’ account because of his tendency to explain matters in terms of Greek philosophical schools (see G. F. Moore, Judaism vol. 3 p. 139), there seems no grounds for rejecting the main outlines of his characterization (Urbach, Hazal: Pirkei Emunot ve-De’ot (1969), 227).

Though both the doctrine of man’s freedom and that of divine providence were adhered to by the rabbis as central to their faith, they do not seem to have been integrated in any systematic way in the talmudic texts which deal with the subject. On the one hand, one finds constant reference to the notion that nothing happens in this world which is not in some way determined from on high: “No man can touch that which has been prepared in advance for his friend” (Yoma 38b); “No man injures his finger here below unless it has been decreed for him on high” (Hul. 7b); “Never does a snake bite… or a lion tear [its prey]… or a government interfere in men’s lives unless incited to do so from on high” (Eccles. R. 10:11); “Everything is in the hands [i.e., control] of heaven except cold and heat” (Ket. 30a); “Forty days before a child is formed a heavenly voice decrees so-and-so’s daughter shall marry so-and-so” (Sot. 2a). On the other hand the whole rabbinic theological structure of reward and punishment turns on the idea that man is free to do evil or good (see Deut. 30:15â??19; and Sif. Deut. 53â??54). As Josephus mentions, the rabbis wished to maintain both doctrines despite the tension between them, though they were aware of this tension. Before conception the angel appointed over conception takes a seminal drop and asks God:“What is to become of this drop? Is it to develop into a person strong or weak, wise or foolish, rich or poor?” (Nid. 16b). But no mention is made of its becoming wicked or righteous, because “Everything is in the hands of heaven except the fear of heaven” (ibid.).

The combination of these two doctrines within rabbinic theology may be understood, not so much from the philosophical point of view, but rather from the practical point of view which underlies all rabbinic thinking. On the one hand it is necessary to think of the world as under the complete surveillance and control of heaven, a thought which adds to the confidence and trust of the Jew in God, and on the other the individual needs to make his choices and decisions on the assumption that evil and good are both within his grasp. The conceptual integration of these two ideas did not enter rabbinic thought forms. The philosophical problems surrounding God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will are dealt with in an equally cursory way in the texts. The most striking is the saying of Akiva, “Everything is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given” (Avot 3:15). This has been taken by some commentatorsâ??Maimonides, for exampleâ??to be a statement of the position that though God has foreknowledge of all our acts, still this does not limit our freedom (Maimonides, commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 3:15). Though such a doctrineâ??that God’s foreknowledge is such as not to be philosophically irreconcilable with human freedomâ??may have been held in some inchoate form by the rabbis, the saying of Akiva has been interpreted as an assertion that God sees all man’s acts, even those performed in the privacy of his room (see Rashi on Avot 3:15; Urbach, op. cit., 229â??30)."

The writer of this gloss is entirely too even-handed; the Pharisaic view of free will “won” this argument; Akiva’s judgment endures.

326

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

And as an aside, the Romans were full of it.

[/quote]

Painting all Romans with the same brush? Some of the greatest Roman historians were actually Greeks - in the case of Polybius a former slave of the Romans. Both he and Titus Livius(A Roman) painted a very flattering picture of Rome’s greatest enemy(Hannibal Barca) for example. They inherited the tradition of history as we know it today from the Greek Thucydides. They had also been recording the city’s annals since the era of the monarchy but they were lost after the sacking of Rome by the Gauls around 390BC. The tradition of recording the city annals developed into its own form of historical literature(Tactitus - Annals of Rome etc.)

What sources are you referring to? Caesar’s Commentaries? Albion was an unknown place to the civilised world in his time and prior to his invasion his commentaries record the information that he had garnered from spies/traitors in the area now known as Boulogne where he was assembling his invasion fleet in the summer of 54BC.

[quote]
I just cringe every time I see Roman “history”.[/quote]

Maybe you’d feel differently if you actually read some - Livy, Tacitus, Plutach(Greek), Caesar’s Commentaries, Suetonius, Polybius(Greek), the Augustine Chronicles etc. You also need to distinguish between the modern or Thucydidean school of history, the dry style of annals, Roman history with a clear agenda(Caesar), and the Herodotean school of history/myth/fable - i.e. Livy.[/quote]

I have read some. I’ve read some of the texts on the Celts, Josephus, and texts on Alexander the great. Most of them are riddled with myth, propaganda, and contradiction much of which is accounts based on accounts of second hand knowlege. (I’d have to search back and figure out which ones I actually read)

We can certainly gather knowledge from them, but they must be taken for what they are. Specifically, the Roman historians demonizing some people as messed up backwards human sacrificing savages is something I’ve read before. And in that case, the Romans were full of crap. It was essentially akin to reading about native Americans in stories written by the Europeans in the process of trying to conquer them.

Grant it, I was attempting to learn about specific subjects and not the tradition of Roman histories. If this stuff about the Ammonites was written by some guy in a different tradition in a more accurate way, I take back what I said. I’m sure there were some good honest Romans.

327

So, Jewbaca, one more question.

What would you have me know about Judaism?

328

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
To what extent do we have free will according to Judaism?[/quote]

In the Mishnah, Rabbi Akiva stated: “Everything is foreseen, and free choice is granted.”

In short, yes, there is free choice, but G-d knows your choice and has plannd accordingly.

Obviously, to us temporal beings, there is tension between the fact that we have free choice and G-d alraedy knows what is going to happen, but remember that G-d exists outside of time.

Science fiction actually helps understand this.

Let’s say you are a crewman on the Starship Enterprise.

Someone came back in a time machine and told you what was going to happen to the world, does that mean you are not responsible for all that happens from that point on? Obviously not. He only knows about it because from his vantage point you did it already.

G-d knows what you are going to do because He is beyond time. For Him, it all happened already.

In other words, knowledge of the future is a result of the events of the future, not their cause. In G-d’s super-temporal realm, the result can exist before the cause. But it’s still a result and not a cause.

329

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, Jewbaca, one more question.

What would you have me know about Judaism?[/quote]

It’s not what I would have you know, it’s what G-d would have you know that is important.

330

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
To what extent do we have free will according to Judaism?[/quote]

In the Mishnah, Rabbi Akiva stated: “Everything is foreseen, and free choice is granted.”

In short, yes, there is free choice, but G-d knows your choice and has plannd accordingly.

Obviously, to us temporal beings, there is tension between the fact that we have free choice and G-d alraedy knows what is going to happen, but remember that G-d exists outside of time.

Science fiction actually helps understand this.

Let’s say you are a crewman on the Starship Enterprise.

Someone came back in a time machine and told you what was going to happen to the world, does that mean you are not responsible for all that happens from that point on? Obviously not. He only knows about it because from his vantage point you did it already.

G-d knows what you are going to do because He is beyond time. For Him, it all happened already.

In other words, knowledge of the future is a result of the events of the future, not their cause. In Gâ??dâ??s super-temporal realm, the result can exist before the cause. But itâ??s still a result and not a cause.
[/quote]

Hmm. Perhaps this is an impossible question, but is time linear with God viewing the entirety of the timeline, or are all possibilities existing simultaneously and God is aware of all of them (past, present and future)?

331

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

HaShem does not impose that punishment. He warns that he repurcussions of certain sins reverberate over generations. Child abuse, for example.
[/quote]

Again to reiterate, I’m reading out of the old testament, but that isn’t how I read numerous cases. Original sin. Cain’s curse. And later under Moses.

“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me”[/quote]

You’re reading the Torah like a Calvinist.
…
Think of a woman on crack – her children are affected by her sin, for example, and probably her grandchildren. Generations of opportunity destroyed by the sins of a grandparent.
[/quote]

This is also the Church’s understanding of the evil. When God is the cause of evil, he neither wills nor acts in a morally evil way (God cannot go against his Character), but when God causes evil it is that of suffering or punishment; and, always for the greater good.

In the case of punishment it is not because he directly causes the evil, but allows the evil to occur. In the case of suffering it is a necessary aspect of removing yourself from the bad to the good (think woman on crack coming down off her high…she suffers but it is the process to the good).

Moshe, let me know if this is equivalent to a Jewish stance on the matter? [/quote]

I am not sure I understand what the Christian stance is.

Also, someone changed my post to “Calvanist.” I don’t know what a Calvinist is and how Calvanism is different from Christianity.

G-d created everything, including the ability in Man to sin.

Judaism agrees with Christians that G-d does not sin but did create the tendancy or ability in Man to sin, so that Man can overcome it.

Judaism rejects, however, the dualism of Christianity (e., rebelling angels, etc) and so “evil” is not exactly how Christians think about it.

For example, what appear to be “rebelling angels” to Christians are angels that are assigned, by G-d, specific task of tempting Man and thereby giving Man the opportunity to resist and reject temptation. (Now some angels may be overzealous in their duties . . . . and there are demons created by Man’s sins, but not rebelling angels.)

You can actually see this in the Book of Job. The angel is there, honing Job to be a better man. (Job, BTW, was a gentile.)

To bring this into a more modern context, G-d did not make Hitler evil. G-d made Hitler capable of evil. Hitler chose to be and do evil, thereby failing his test.

332

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
To what extent do we have free will according to Judaism?[/quote]

In the Mishnah, Rabbi Akiva stated: “Everything is foreseen, and free choice is granted.”

In short, yes, there is free choice, but G-d knows your choice and has plannd accordingly.

Obviously, to us temporal beings, there is tension between the fact that we have free choice and G-d alraedy knows what is going to happen, but remember that G-d exists outside of time.

Science fiction actually helps understand this.

Let’s say you are a crewman on the Starship Enterprise.

Someone came back in a time machine and told you what was going to happen to the world, does that mean you are not responsible for all that happens from that point on? Obviously not. He only knows about it because from his vantage point you did it already.

G-d knows what you are going to do because He is beyond time. For Him, it all happened already.

In other words, knowledge of the future is a result of the events of the future, not their cause. In G�¢??d�¢??s super-temporal realm, the result can exist before the cause. But it�¢??s still a result and not a cause.
[/quote]

Hmm. Perhaps this is an impossible question, but is time linear with God viewing the entirety of the timeline, or are all possibilities existing simultaneously and God is aware of all of them (past, present and future)?[/quote]

No clue. It’s linear to you and me, so go with that.

333

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

HaShem does not impose that punishment. He warns that he repurcussions of certain sins reverberate over generations. Child abuse, for example.
[/quote]

Again to reiterate, I’m reading out of the old testament, but that isn’t how I read numerous cases. Original sin. Cain’s curse. And later under Moses.

“You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me”[/quote]

You’re reading the Torah like a Calvinist.
…
Think of a woman on crack – her children are affected by her sin, for example, and probably her grandchildren. Generations of opportunity destroyed by the sins of a grandparent.
[/quote]

This is also the Church’s understanding of the evil. When God is the cause of evil, he neither wills nor acts in a morally evil way (God cannot go against his Character), but when God causes evil it is that of suffering or punishment; and, always for the greater good.

In the case of punishment it is not because he directly causes the evil, but allows the evil to occur. In the case of suffering it is a necessary aspect of removing yourself from the bad to the good (think woman on crack coming down off her high…she suffers but it is the process to the good).

Moshe, let me know if this is equivalent to a Jewish stance on the matter? [/quote]

I am not sure I understand what the Christian stance is.

Also, someone changed my post to “Calvanist.” I don’t know what a Calvinist is and how Calvanism is different from Christianity.

G-d created everything, including the ability in Man to sin.

Judaism agrees with Christians that G-d does not sin but did create the tendancy or ability in Man to sin, so that Man can overcome it.

Judaism rejects, however, the dualism of Christianity (e., rebelling angels, etc) and so “evil” is not exactly how Christians think about it.

For example, what appear to be “rebelling angels” to Christians are angels that are assigned, by G-d, specific task of tempting Man and thereby giving Man the opportunity to resist and reject temptation. (Now some angels may be overzealous in their duties . . . . and there are demons created by Man’s sins, but not rebelling angels.)

You can actually see this in the Book of Job. The angel is there, honing Job to be a better man. (Job, BTW, was a gentile.)

To bring this into a more modern context, G-d did not make Hitler evil. G-d made Hitler capable of evil. Hitler chose to be and do evil, thereby failing his test.

[/quote]

Yeah, i changed it. Mostly because he was putting forth a Calvinist interpretation of that Scripture (not surprising being from America and living through the end of the 20th century). However, his interpretation is not representative of orthodox Christianity.

334

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, Jewbaca, one more question.

What would you have me know about Judaism?[/quote]

It’s not what I would have you know, it’s what G-d would have you know that is important.[/quote]

I asked him too. Figured I’d see if you were telling the same story.

335

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I have read some. I’ve read some of the texts on the Celts,

[/quote]

I think the evidence is pretty clear that the Celts/Gauls engaged in human sacrifice during the period in question. The religion was Druidism - the epicenter of the Druidic religion was Ireland. Winston Churchill in The History of the English Speaking Peoples proposes that human sacrifice was possibly introduced to the Gauls by the Carthaginians.

My understanding is that some people believe there is evidence suggesting that certain references were added/redacted to Josephus’s histories by later librarians/scribes. But that’s a thread killer. Regarding his reliability as an historian I guess you’d have to take into consideration the probability of his last man standing suicide story for one thing. It’s also my understanding that, other than the Bible, Josephus is pretty much all there is on pre-Second Temple destruction era. I know that theology students go to Josephus to get an understanding of Judaism/Israel in a political sense at the time of Jesus.

Yes, you are correct. However, Arrian used contemporary sources including the King’s own diary, official Macedonian records, Alexander’s own letters, the histories of his generals Ptolemy and Aristobulus as well as the history of his admiral Aristus. Arrian’s Anabasis has been used to locate sites/battlefields associated with Alexander’s conquests. His descriptions are usually remarkably accurate as well - e.g. how the mole connecting Old Tyre with the mainland was constructed.

It was the Gauls who were the aggressors dating back to when Rome was little more than an obscure Etruscan village on a hill by the Tiber. I think Livy was pretty fair:

McAdams's Kennedy Assassination Home Page Index (Battle of Allia and sacking of Rome, 387BCE Livy Book 5)

And by the end of the first century AD the Gauls comprised something like half the Roman legions.

The Carthaginians were certainly demonised, but more by Roman statesman than historians. And that began after the defeats Hannibal inflicted during the Second Punic War and continued for more than half a century afterwards culminating in a (virtually) unprovoked invasion/siege of Carthage, the selling of the surviving populace into slavery and the destruction of the city itself.

[quote]
Grant it, I was attempting to learn about specific subjects and not the tradition of Roman histories. If this stuff about the Ammonites was written by some guy in a different tradition in a more accurate way, I take back what I said. I’m sure there were some good honest Romans.[/quote]

I have not read the work by Justin Martyr and cannot assess him as a source. And I’m not defending the Romans but giving my considered opinion on the value of Roman histories that I am familiar with.

336

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I have not read the work by Justin Martyr and cannot assess him as a source. And I’m not defending the Romans but giving my considered opinion on the value of Roman histories that I am familiar with.[/quote]

I am far from a historian and no fan of the Romans, for obvious reasons (pic related).

That said, the reasons various Romans were cited was to get non-Jewish sources regarding why the Ammonite/Carthaginians/et al and various related cultures pretty much needed wiping out, and thus to explain the various Jewish attempts to wipe them out noted in the Jewish scriptures.

Pretty much every source agrees these guys THREW BABIES INTO FIRES because it made their “gods” happy. Indeed, they were rather enthusiastic about it, sometimes killing too many.

You don’t have to be a great scholar to figure out PEOPLE WHO THROW BABIES INTO FIRES are fucking bad people.

337

JB:

Speaking of “Bad People”…

The Muslim Brotherhood has officially “won” the Election in Egypt (at least as declared by the Military).

What do you see as the implications for 1) Israel overall and 2) the Peace agreement between Israel and Egypt?

Also, an interesting comment by Former Secretary of State Baker. He feels that if Nuclear Sites in Iran have to be “taken out”, that it should be done by the U.S. because the cost would be too high for Israel to go “Lone Wolf”.

Thoughts?

(And as always…thanks for the insights).

Mufasa

338

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

The Muslim Brotherhood has officially “won” the Election in Egypt (at least as declared by the Military). What do you see as the implications for 1) Israel overall and 2) the Peace agreement between Israel and Egypt?

[/quote]

Well, it’s not good news. I’ve been busy today helping my partner in a brewrey I own (an arab Christian in Israel) get his family to Israel on work permits. Time to GTFO.

Sadely, best case scenario would be marshal law – the Eqyptian military is very good and reasonable people.

Baker is an odd duck and no friend of Israel, but I agree it sure would be nice if the USA did it. Israel could, but the USA has heavy bombers and could do it in a 10-14 day campaign. Israel would have to resort to missles, and perhaps even strategetic nukes.

For a little bit of backstory, Baker and his crew of “white shoe” Republicans are probably why Jewish people historically have been Democrats. They were the WASP crews keeping Jewish people out of Wall Street law firms, banks, and the country clubs (so we made our own).

One time James Baker was over heard saying – in the context of Israel being in a hard place — “fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.” Aside from the fact, Baker was confusing Israeli Jewish people (the ex-patriots of which voted Reagan/Bush 90%+) with American Jewish people (who are, indeed, heavily liberal), it confirmed the motive behind a series of really troubling anti-Israel actions.

339

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

That said, the reasons various Romans were cited was to get non-Jewish sources regarding why the Ammonite/Carthaginians/et al and various related cultures pretty much needed wiping out, and thus to explain the various Jewish attempts to wipe them out noted in the Jewish scriptures.

Pretty much every source agrees these guys THREW BABIES INTO FIRES because it made their “gods” happy. Indeed, they were rather enthusiastic about it, sometimes killing too many.

You don’t have to be a great scholar to figure out PEOPLE WHO THROW BABIES INTO FIRES are fucking bad people.[/quote]

I agree. And there’s other evidence besides historical records. The charred remains of 20,000 babies at the tophet in Carthage - The Tophet- Ordinary Cemetery or Site of Child Sacrifice? - Ancient History Blog - And I have no doubts about the Ammonites either.

340

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

The Muslim Brotherhood has officially “won” the Election in Egypt (at least as declared by the Military). What do you see as the implications for 1) Israel overall and 2) the Peace agreement between Israel and Egypt?

[/quote]

Well, it’s not good news. I’ve been busy today helping my partner in a brewrey I own (an arab Christian in Israel) get his family to Israel on work permits. Time to GTFO.

Sadely, best case scenario would be marshal law – the Eqyptian military is very good and reasonable people.

Baker is an odd duck and no friend of Israel, but I agree it sure would be nice if the USA did it. Israel could, but the USA has heavy bombers and could do it in a 10-14 day campaign. Israel would have to resort to missles, and perhaps even strategetic nukes.

For a little bit of backstory, Baker and his crew of “white shoe” Republicans are probably why Jewish people historically have been Democrats. They were the WASP crews keeping Jewish people out of Wall Street law firms, banks, and the country clubs (so we made our own).

One time James Baker was over heard saying – in the context of Israel being in a hard place — “fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.” Aside from the fact, Baker was confusing Israeli Jewish people (the ex-patriots of which voted Reagan/Bush 90%+) with American Jewish people (who are, indeed, heavily liberal), it confirmed the motive behind a series of really troubling anti-Israel actions.[/quote]
I have always wondered why American Jewish people are heavily liberal.