Judaism

[Valke2]

Wouldn,t it be better to say nothing. Silence is golden. When you lie you commit sin. A lie is a lie.God is not capable of lying. It would contradict his Word. Please read Numbers 23;19

heh. I don’t usually have Christians asking me to read Numbers 23:19.
In any event, Hashem alter’s Sara’s statement for the sake of peace. He quotes what she said to Abraham, but he does not quote the part where she call’s Abraham old. This is what I meant that we learn it is ok to tell a white lie for the sake of peace.

Gen. 18:12 - 13:
And Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have become worn out, will I have smooth flesh? And also, my master is old.”

And the Lord said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Is it really true that I will give birth, although I am old?’

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

heh. I don’t usually have Christians asking me to read Numbers 23:19.

But is an interesting question though. I had actually asked this same question to you above.

For example, when I read this passage, I read the following…

**God is not a man, that he should lie, **
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

How exactly does Judaism translate ths passage?

I ask because I’ve always viewed this passage to mean that God simply cannot lie. At least, within traditional Christianity, this is how passages like this are interpreted. An example within the Christian Scriptures notes the similarities as follows…
Hebrews 6:18:

God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.

Another passage within the Hebrew Scriptures seems to indicate that God embodies truth…
Psalm 31:5:

Into your hands I commit my spirit; redeem me, O LORD, the God of truth.

Others, as I’m already aware, apparently interpet this to mean that God is so above reproach that even if he lies (by whatever means) he cannot ever be held accountable for it because he is simply above human judgement.

This is similar to the Muslim view of God’s honesty if I recall correctly-- a view which I find quite perplexing.

If God can lie, even by omission, then how can he be trusted?

Valke2:

In any event, Hashem alter’s Sara’s statement for the sake of peace.

I thought he was just peeling away the truth from the falsehood in what she said in order to get Sara to focus more on the things God himself actually promised as opposed to what Sara was assuming– the return to youth and vigor.

In other words, Sara seemed to be laughing at God and was thinking that God was going to make them young and youthful again in order to have children.

God apparently corrected her and basically said, “Um…no. You’re not really getting this Sara. I said nothing about making you or Abram young again in order to have a child. In fact, you will both get much older before your promised child will come. And I will specifically do this through you and your husband in order to demonstrate that I am the true God who can even bring children to barren women and old men.”

Take a look…
Gen. 18:12 - 13:

And Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have become worn out, will I have smooth flesh? And also, my master is old.”

And the Lord said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Is it really true that I will give birth, although I am old?’

Sara seemed to be laughing at God and was thinking that God was going to make them young and youthful again. God didn’t lie-- not even a white lie as far as I can tell. God apparently spoke the truth (and only the truth) in order to remove the falsehood that Sara was overlaying onto God’s words-- falsehoods that God himself apparently never intended in the first place.

That’s how it seems to me anyway.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well, I second what Valke2 has said on this matter & would humbly submit that perhaps you are not looking in the right places. Try mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/MFA+Spokesman/2006/Israel%20sends%20disaster%20aid%20to%20Cote%20d%20Ivoire%2020-Sep-2006, mfa.gov.il/MFA/Israel+beyond+politics/Israeli%20doctors%20deliver%20new%20smiles%2028-May-2006 & mfa.gov.il/mfa/mashav%20–%20international%20development/activities/ for starters. Yad Vashem (yadvashem.org/) put out the following statement about Darfur: www1.yadvashem.org/about_yad/press_room/press_releases/14.09.06.html.

Like I said above, I’m not saying it’s totally absent– because I’ve often seen Orthodox Jews for example standing alongside traditional Catholics and other conservative Christain groups to speak out against the more deplorable aspects of our modern day.

Likewise, I admit that Jewish people represent a signicant minority within most parts of the world-- so I am nonetheless very grateful for and impressed by the tremendous influence that this chosen people from Israel has had (at least on the Western part of the world).

In addition to this, I also recognize that Jonah was most certainly standing above many his own Jewish contemporaries since God himself choose him as a minor prophet specifically for this task-- so I realze that not just anybody can do what Jonah reluctantly did at God’s request. In other words, this is a rare event.

But, even still, even after the links you’ve posted to me, I generally don’t see a really strong desire or passion amongst most Jewish people to reach out to the world and fulfill their God-given roles to prepare the world for the coming of the messiah.

You had humbly submitted that perhaps I am not looking in the right place. And I admit this could be true. But perhaps Judaism is not showing me the right stuff all the time too.

For example, when I checked the first two links, I got the message…Request Not Allowed…and several possible reasons were given for not being able to read it.

To be fair, the third link worked, so I’ll be checking this out in more detail.

But, in regards to the fourth link (The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority), this doesn’t seem to be focussed on reaching gentiles per se. Rather, it seems to be mainly linked to the Jewish people’s memorial to the murdered Six Million and symbolizes the ongoing confrontation with the rupture engendered by the Holocaust.

And while I myself think that we should never forget this insidiously tragic event (and I think that many Jewish people can connect with gentiles through the pain that we all undergo), all in all, aside from this, I don’t really see the strong connection with the Holocaust Martyrs’ and a desire to reach the gentile nations through Judaism.

I’ll be reading the Righteous Among the Gentiles more.

The last link was an excellent example of what I was looking for too. I think the crisis in Darfur is indeed a tragic one and it is good to know that Judaism is working hard to make God known through his mercy in this area.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

lol. NO. Not quoting in small font. I meant quoting only portions of a post, inserting your own text, and then quoting other portions…

When I quote someone’s text, I usually take a good portion of their text and then type (or use the ‘quote button’ when highlighting the text in question)…

Valke2:

quoted text

…for example around the text I’m responding to-- and then I type my response as appropriate.

I then proceed to do this same thing for each section I’m responding to. It seems to allow me to clarify what I’m trying to say, specifically targetting the desired words without confusing the person as to what I’m actually responding to.

 

[Valke2]

But is an interesting question though. I had actually asked this same question to you above.

For example, when I read this passage, I read the following…

Sara seemed to be laughing at God and was thinking that God was going to make them young and youthful again. God didn’t lie-- not even a white lie as far as I can tell. God apparently spoke the truth (and only the truth) in order to remove the falsehood that Sara was overlaying onto God’s words-- falsehoods that God himself apparently never intended in the first place.

That’s how it seems to me anyway.

But you are ignoring the fact that GOd is quoting Sarah to Abraham. He is not simply telling Abraham a truth. He is saying “this is what Sarah” said. And He is neglecting to mention that Sarah also said Abraham was old.

Rashi, one of the greatest Jewish commentators, has this to say about the verse: Her actual words in v.12 were my husband is old but for the sake of peace between husband and wife, Scripture * now changed the uncomplimentary reference from her husband to herself.

As for the numbers verse, that may be another issue of translation. There is a slight difference between “does not” and “can not” and I think the more accurate interpertation, from what a read, is “does not”. Clearly, lies aimed at hurting.

But in the end, all I can tell you is that Jewish Tradition does allow for a white lie used to avoid hurting someone’s feelings, while at the same time putting an premium on truth. And this belief is based on the verse where God edit’s Sarah’s quote. If you have an online Talmud handy, you can find the explanation in Yevamot 65b*

 

[Valke2]

At least three times the Torah mentions the imperative to tell the truth and refrain from lying: “You shall not bear false witness” (Exodus 20:13); “Keep far from a false matter” (Ex. 23:7); and “Neither shall you deal falsely nor lie to one another” (Leviticus 19:11). The Torah is called “Truth” (Proverbs 23:23).

But there are other ethical imperatives in Judasim. One of them is peace. Zach. 8:19: Love the truth and peace. Also, the ethics of the fathers states that truth, peace, and justice are the three pillars on which the world is sustained. So what do we do when two of these pillars come into conflict, as happened with Sarah’s comments?

What is the primary purpose of truth telling? To ensure that society functions properly, which is possible only when there is confidence in communicaiton between us? Or is the primary purpose to insure the moral integrity of the individual? I don’t think there’s a one or the other answer to this question.

For an article that addresses the nitty gritty of this idea…
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n3_v42/ai_14234270/pg_2

 

[Valke2]

As an aside (but not really an aside) is it permissible to lie in order to save a life?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

stillsmallvoice:

Rabbi Lamm’s Da Man!

Vlake2:

Yeah, I like him what he has to say.

Ok. I think we’ve got a winner with Rabbi Lamm.

Let’s continue to return to before the beginning…

As I said before, I don’t think all references to waters within the Hebrew Scriptures are references to the gentile nations-- although I do think there is a strong theme present (and I thought this was something taught within Judaism and not necessarilly superimposed onto Judaism by Christianity).

But I’ll proceed to explain why I think the analysis leads to the conclusion that water can be a symbol for gentiles.

So far, it has been established from Judaic beliefs that it is taken for granted that chaos ensued at the beginning of existence. I’m honeslty not sure if this belief is a necessary one. But it seems to a strong tradition which goes back quite a ways.

Likewise, I’ve demonstrated, from within Judaism I might add, that this chaos seems to be believed represent God’s desire to bring order our of chaos. In addition to this, it has been suggested within Judaic thinking that, like God, we have to take the world in chaos and create order and maintain that order. In fact, to fail to do so, the Torah apparently warns, is to let creation and society drift back to its more natural state: chaos.

Taking this one step further, we also see that R. Simeon b. Yohai once commented that God stipulated that the world was to return to chaos unless Israel accepted the Torah. He also commented on Israel’s joy in accepting it and Moses’ fight to obtain it — an appreciation of the fact that God’s kingdom on earth can be established only after struggle.

Finally, so far anyway, we also come to Rabbi Lamm’s commentary where he points out that David Gelernter beautifully captures the centrality of separation in Judaism. But Rabbi Lamm also notes that Jewish thought also includes a contradictory strain relating to unity and wholeness. In fact, a midrash on the Creation story, for example, pictures the upper and lower waters weeping to be together again. But this weeping together is not in order to return to chaos but to be reunited in God’s presence.

So, before I go any further, I have to ask what the chaos prior to creation is believed within Judaic thought to have consisted of.

Many modern interpreters see these waters as the same primordial watery chaos of other Middle Eastern creation myths. Although Judaism (like Christianity and Islam) rejects the typical polytheism of Mesopotomian creation stories like the Enuma Elish, it does seem to share certain features with them. Land emerging out of an original watery chaos and waters above and beneath the earth are a good example of this.

In other words, some scholars see evidence that the Scriptural account, like other ancient religious views, presumes pre-existence of some kind of raw material, albeit without form:

“Now the earth was formless and void, darkness was over the face of the deep, and the spirit of God hovered over the waters.”

God, according to them, apparently then fashions the disordered material, to create the world. And, to be fair, while the scriptural narrative for the creation account in Judaism is contained in the first chapters of Genesis, the notion of “Tzimtzum”, or God’s retraction to make way for space and time, does appear to be a core element to the Rambam’s approach to the First Cause notion. It seems to me that some Talmudic traditions have taken a similar view before Rambam’s synthesis of Judaic thought with the neoPlatonists too.

As my own name on this forum implies, I myself do not actually believe that God fashioned creation from pre-existing material. I actually do believe in a creatio ex nihilo, all matter from nothing. In fact, I believe that, to some extent, not even nothingness itself existed before creation-- and I’ll explain this some other time.

Nonetheless, I’m not looking to debate this point. Rather, I would just like to understand Judaism’s perspective on this matter. I’m not talking about a literal 6 day creation account. I’m not even looking to debate any creation/evolution positions.

But I am curious as to what Judaism veiws the creation account regarding this primordial chaos.

In other words, what was the original chaos made of and what the orginal choas symbolic of?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

As an aside (but not really an aside) is it permissible to lie in order to save a life?

I think, depending on the situation, it can be considered venial and therefore easilly forgivable. But, even still, this doesn’t make it ‘not wrong’ either.

So, for example, if someone lies to save the life of a murderer, I’m fairly sure that God will not like this.

If, however, someone lies to save the life of an innocent babie, for example, I think this would be easilly forgivable provided the lie actually doesn’t result in further harm.

Ultimaltely, if one is trusting the Lord, one should not be afraid to speak the truth regardless of the outcome. Daniel and his friends certainly didn’t think lying was the answer when faced by their respective pagan rulers.

 

[Valke2]

Ok. I think we’ve got a winner with Rabbi Lamm.

So, before I go any further, I have to ask what the chaos prior to creation is believed within Judaic thought to have consisted of.

Many modern interpreters see these waters as the same primordial watery chaos of other Middle Eastern creation myths. Although Judaism (like Christianity and Islam) rejects the typical polytheism of Mesopotomian creation stories like the Enuma Elish, it does seem to share certain features with them. Land emerging out of an original watery chaos and waters above and beneath the earth are a good example of this.

In other words, some scholars see evidence that the Scriptural account, like other ancient religious views, presumes pre-existence of some kind of raw material, albeit without form:

God, according to them, apparently then fashions the disordered material, to create the world. And, to be fair, while the scriptural narrative for the creation account in Judaism is contained in the first chapters of Genesis, the notion of “Tzimtzum”, or God’s retraction to make way for space and time, does appear to be a core element to the Rambam’s approach to the First Cause notion. It seems to me that some Talmudic traditions have taken a similar view before Rambam’s synthesis of Judaic thought with the neoPlatonists too.

As my own name on this forum implies, I myself do not actually believe that God fashioned creation from pre-existing material. I actually do believe in a creatio ex nihilo, all matter from nothing. In fact, I believe that, to some extent, not even nothingness itself existed before creation-- and I’ll explain this some other time.

Nonetheless, I’m not looking to debate this point. Rather, I would just like to understand Judaism’s perspective on this matter. I’m not talking about a literal 6 day creation account. I’m not even looking to debate any creation/evolution positions.

But I am curious as to what Judaism veiws the creation account regarding this primordial chaos.

In other words, what was the original chaos made of and what the orginal choas symbolic of?

You can find Jewish sources discussing the fact that God created the world out of chaos and that God created the world out of nothing. From what I can tell, we believe God created the Chaos and then seperated order from Chaos as seen in the creation story.

We ask ourselves, could not have God created all of existance in an instant? He’s God. He would not need 7 days. So why is there these divisions? To teach us that the creative act requires order. That you can’t simply create out of chaos. You need to first impose order, and from the order, you create. I like to view chaos as my office desk. It is impossible for me to create a decent work product from my desk. But when I file everything, and organzie myself, I can then create what I need.

God imposing boundaries on the waters, and seperating them from the land, is an example of order imposed on chaos and what I was thinking of when I first stated that water in biblical hebrew was a symbol for chaos.

Of course, water is also a symbol for the exact opposite, which is Torah. So it depends on the context.

 

[Valke2]

I think, depending on the situation, it can be considered venial and therefore easilly forgivable. But, even still, this doesn’t make it ‘not wrong’ either.

So, for example, if someone lies to save the life of a murderer, I’m fairly sure that God will not like this.

If, however, someone lies to save the life of an innocent babie, for example, I think this would be easilly forgivable provided the lie actually doesn’t result in further harm.

Ultimaltely, if one is trusting the Lord, one should not be afraid to speak the truth regardless of the outcome. Daniel and his friends certainly didn’t think lying was the answer when faced by their respective pagan rulers.

this might be an instance where judaism disagrees with christanity, although only with the process, not the result. I don’t think we would view certain lies as being a breach of any commandment. We might fall back on the position that it is required of us to forgoe almost any commandment in order to save a life. So the lie to prevent a death (the baby’s) would not consitute a sin in Judaism. I am reminded of the non-jews who hid jews from the Nazis. Surely lying to the SS could not be considered a sin? Although I’m not sure we are really saying different things, if you are saying it is a sin that is automatically forgiven as soon as it is uttered.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I don’t remember reading a lot of philosophy regarding democracy in the book, although given his background and his father’s work in the armed forces, it wouldn’t surprise me. I guess that as a non-Catholic, I did not view his calls for a Vatican III the same way. I was a bit surprised to see that so much of the criticism of his book seems to focus on this. I’m sure if I was Catholic I would feel differently. My main interest in the book was the Church’s historic relationship with anti-semetism. ALl that stuff about what the church needs to do to address its actions, falls into the realm of the author’s pure opinion and was really more of an editorital at that point.

But that’s the thing.

His research into the nature of anti-semitism in the church was very done, although I think he does push the envelope in some cases cited.

But it’s nonetheless his conclusion as to why this anti-semitism existed in the first place – coupled with his reasons for pointing out these examples throughout church history – that ultimately leads him to point out the supposed need for a Vatican III.

In other words, he appears to be using the suffering of Jewish people throughout church history in order to promulgate his own democratic ideology of how the church should conduct itself. And I think this is deplorable if not outright blasphemous to his own claims to being a devout Catholic.

More to the point, his intentions appear to be an effort on his part to undermine the central authority of the papacy within the Catholic Church by essentially razing Christianity itself (including a few popes in the process) for incorporating a kind of counter-anti-semitic tradition – a counter-anti-semitic tradition which seeks to keep the Jewish people alive solely for the sake of witnessing to their supposed ‘condemnation’ as Carroll interprets the gospel’s intentions.

To place forth this idea and still call oneself a Catholic raises serious questions in my opinion. Perhaps he has not intended to willfully malign the church in this way. But he has, nonetheless, pointed to many valid incidences of Jewish persecution within church history in order to reform the church from within against what he ultimately believes to be a theology largely based on one’s hatred for Jewish people.

Carroll wrote regarding Constantine that…

…his role as a shaper of its central religious idea is insufficiently appreciated.

In other words, Carroll claimed that the “place of the cross in the Christian imagination changed with Constantine.” This would lead, according to Carroll, to a central theological tenet of Catholicism that wrongly focused on the death of Jesus as atonement and reparation for sin. Thus the concept of salvation would come to dominate Christian thinking as the meaning of the life of Jesus, his death on the cross an act of atonement for sin.

This was an intention that Jesus never had, according to Carroll.

But this view is seriously missing the mark so to speak. And if I’m right about this, I would honestly say that he is seriously not understanding Church history at all by making this claim. His view is definitely not a Catholic view that I’m aware of.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

this might be an instance where judaism disagrees with christanity, although only with the process, not the result. I don’t think we would view certain lies as being a breach of any commandment. We might fall back on the position that it is required of us to forgoe almost any commandment in order to save a life. So the lie to prevent a death (the baby’s) would not consitute a sin in Judaism. I am reminded of the non-jews who hid jews from the Nazis. Surely lying to the SS could not be considered a sin? Although I’m not sure we are really saying different things, if you are saying it is a sin that is automatically forgiven as soon as it is uttered.

Not necessarilly, although, in the end, it will be forgiven nonetheless.

According to one wikipedia article, in Catholicism a venial sin (meaning “forgivable” sin) is a lesser sin which does not result in a complete separation from God and eternal damnation in Hell. In other words, a venial sin involves a “temporary loss of grace” from God.

Each venial sin that one commits adds to the penance that one must do. Penance left undone during life converts to punishment in purgatory. And while a venial sin can be left unconfessed it is still nonetheless a transgression against the commandments to the extent that it breaks God’s Law.

Venial sins usually remain venial no matter how many one commits. They cannot “add up” to collectively constitute a mortal sin, except in certain cases of theft, where one steals a very small amount of money or goods many times-- or even where many small lies are told to build up to a big lie so to speak.

A very good and detailed explanation from a distintcly Catholic perspective can be found here…

 

[Valke2]

Not necessarilly, although, in the end, it will be forgiven nonetheless.

According to one wikipedia article, in Catholicism a venial sin (meaning “forgivable” sin) is a lesser sin which does not result in a complete separation from God and eternal damnation in Hell. In other words, a venial sin involves a “temporary loss of grace” from God.

Each venial sin that one commits adds to the penance that one must do. Penance left undone during life converts to punishment in purgatory. And while a venial sin can be left unconfessed it is still nonetheless a transgression against the commandments to the extent that it breaks God’s Law.

Venial sins usually remain venial no matter how many one commits. They cannot “add up” to collectively constitute a mortal sin, except in certain cases of theft, where one steals a very small amount of money or goods many times-- or even where many small lies are told to build up to a big lie so to speak.

A very good and detailed explanation from a distintcly Catholic perspective can be found here…

Thanks. I didn’t really know about the system of sins. There’s an issue with telling a repeated lie in Judaism, even a small one. It is prohibited because of its habit forming properties. Thus, while it may be permissible to tell someone a white lie once to keep the peace, it becomes problemitic if one repeats it over and over. The example used in the Talmud involves a rabbi and his wife who were always fighting. The son knew that whatever his mother asked of her husband, the Rabbi would argue it. So when he was delivering messages to the Rabbi from his wife, he would change the language a bit in order to promote peace. When the rabbi found out he appreciated what his son was doing but forbid him to continue it.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Ah…

Valke2:

Later, when he speaks about a “new covenant”, we view it as simply renewing the old covenant so that all Jews will comply with the commnandments and will take joy in doing so. SO that the new covenant is really just regenerating the everlasting covenant.

This seems about right.

Valke2:

In any event, Hashem alter’s Sara’s statement for the sake of peace. He quotes what she said to Abraham, but he does not quote the part where she call’s Abraham old. This is what I meant that we learn it is ok to tell a white lie for the sake of peace.

Gen. 18:12 - 13:
And Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have become worn out, will I have smooth flesh? And also, my master is old.”

And the Lord said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Is it really true that I will give birth, although I am old?’

We believe that publicly embarrassing or shaming someone is a terrible, terrible sin & is tantamount to shedding their blood. Tamar was prepared to be burnt rather than publicly embarrass Judah. Rather, she produced his tokens, without naming him, prompting him to own up. God rephrased Sarah’s statement in order to avoid embarrassing her & in order to preserve harmony between husband & wife. Lying per se is not the issue here. Sometimes peace (and preserving it) has dibs over truth. (I see that Valke2 has beaten me to it in posts #185 & #186.)
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

But, even still, even after the links you’ve posted to me, I generally don’t see a really strong desire or passion amongst most Jewish people to reach out to the world and fulfill their God-given roles to prepare the world for the coming of the messiah.

I don’t think we can be blamed for not reaching out to the world when all the world has seemed to do is call us Christ-killers, colonialists, terrorists, racist, clannish, etc. and to stand by while we’re gassed, blown up, etc. If the world had done little but defecate on you for almost 2,000 years it’s hard to see how much you’d be willing to reach out to it.


Mr. Ex Nihilo:

For example, when I checked the first two links, I got the message…Request Not Allowed…and several possible reasons were given for not being able to read it.

The first link is:

(Communicated by the Foreign Ministry Spokesman’s Ofice)

Israel today (Wednesday, 20 Sep.) sent an emergency shipment of humanitarian aid to Cote d’Ivoire, in response to an international appeal by its government for help following the recent ecological and health disaster caused by the spillage of poisonous waste in the lagoon surrounding the capital, Abidjan.

The aid shipment comprises primarily antibiotics and medical equipment for treating poisoning victims, whose number is estimated several score thousand. This assistance is an expression of the traditionally close and friendly relations between Israel and Cote d’Ivoire.

The charge d’affaires of the Israeli Embassy in Abidjan, Ravit Baer, will present the humanitarian aid shipment in a formal ceremony next week to the local Health Ministry.

Israel has responded to requests for aid from several African countries over the past year, starting with flood relief a year ago to the Central African Republic. Some six months ago a rescue team from the Israel Defense Forces Home Front Command was sent to Kenya to extract victims buried in a collapsed building in Nairobi. Recently Israel sent disaster aid to flood-stricken Ethiopia.

The second link was tinyurl.com/lsuw7.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Let’s continue to return to before the beginning…But I am curious as to what Judaism veiws the creation account regarding this primordial chaos.

In other words, what was the original chaos made of and what the orginal choas symbolic of?

The first letter in the Bible (in the original Hebrew), i.e. the first letter in the Book of Genesis, is a bet (which is actually the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet). It is shaped like a squared-off C, but opening to the left. (See jewfaq.org/alephbet.htm.) Thus, it is closed on three sides (top, bottom & right) and open on only one, left. Hebrew (like Arabic & Aramaic) reads from right-to-left, which means that left represents forward (while right represents backward). Our Sages say that the Torah begins with a bet because it is telling us that we should not concern ourselves with what is above (the bet is closed there), what is below (it’s closed there too), or what came before (closed again), rather we must look forward (the bet is open that way).

(cont.)

 

[stillsmallvoice]

(cont.)
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Ultimaltely, if one is trusting the Lord, one should not be afraid to speak the truth regardless of the outcome.

So, if a psychopath puts a gun to my head, asks me if I like chopped herring and says he’ll kill me if I don’t, am I to be perfectly honest & tell him that I can’t stand the stuff?

Be well!

ssv

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

(cont.)

So, if a psychopath puts a gun to my head, asks me if I like chopped herring and says he’ll kill me if I don’t, am I to be perfectly honest & tell him that I can’t stand the stuff?

Be well!

ssv

That’s kind of a non-sensical question.

Actually, I thought Valke2’s question about lying about hiding people who’s lives are endangered was a much better question to be honest.

That, and I actually like chopped herring-- so I guess I wouldn’t be in as much danger in this situation (I’d probably ask him if it could be fried up a bit though).

But to answer your question, if I could honestly retain my wits about me, I would probably just remain silent in the face of such a psychopath.

Either that, or try to reason with him if possible. I mean if he’s truly a psychopath without any conscience, then he’s probably going to eventually shoot me whether I say I like chopped herring or not.

In other words, if he shoots me, then he shoots me. Either way, I’m probably not going to lie.

Now, if this same psychopath were threatening my family, then I would, in all honesty, probably act much differently-- I’d probably attempt to grapple with him and disarm him with force if necessary.

In any case, it seems as though these examples would all be cases of extremely venial sins.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

We believe that publicly embarrassing or shaming someone is a terrible, terrible sin & is tantamount to shedding their blood. Tamar was prepared to be burnt rather than publicly embarrass Judah. Rather, she produced his tokens, without naming him, prompting him to own up. God rephrased Sarah’s statement in order to avoid embarrassing her & in order to preserve harmony between husband & wife. Lying per se is not the issue here. Sometimes peace (and preserving it) has dibs over truth. (I see that Valke2 has beaten me to it in posts #185 & #186.)

Hmmm…well I guess I’ll go on record as saying that I disagree with this. But, again, I’m just looking to learn more about Judaism so I’m really looking to debate this point further.

stillsmallvoice:

I don’t think we can be blamed for not reaching out to the world when all the world has seemed to do is call us Christ-killers, colonialists, terrorists, racist, clannish, etc. and to stand by while we’re gassed, blown up, etc. If the world had done little but defecate on you for almost 2,000 years it’s hard to see how much you’d be willing to reach out to it.

Maybe so.

But it seems to me that Christianity went through a very similar period of intense persecution during her early years, mostly the first three centuries if I recall correctly.

And I would also note that the reason that Christianity appears to have overcome these periods of intense persecution (in order to fairly well dominate the world stage today) is precisely because she learned to embrace the pain inflicted unto her by others and be strengthened by these tribulations even as she reached out in kindness to her enemies.

In fact, if one traces the initial spread of Christianity, we find that it was welcomed particularly by slaves and by the poorer members of society, so much so that pagans critics accused Christians of being able to convince only “slaves, women, and little children”.

In addition to this, the church welcomed all races and all classes into a unified caring community. In other words, belief in Jesus was not an individual affair like some Christians proclaim today…
The Story of Christianity:

In the lonely confusion of the city, with its anonymity, there was comfort in belonging to a community that cared, and this emphasis on communion and unity found practical expression in care for widows, orphans, and the poor. Even Julian the Apostate, who hated Christianity, admitted that that it had been “specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers, and … care for the burial of the dead.”

To be fair, at least since the first early centuries of the church have passed, I think a large segment of Christianity seems to have lost touch with this ability to withstand persecution and love their enemies without grumbling. In fact, when I hear other Christians making statements like “you’ll have to pry this rifle from my dead hands”, I’m sure many Christians have lost touch with this grace from God.

I can’t help but think of the words of Jerome somewhere around this time…

Jerome:

Our walls glitter with gold…yet Christ is dying at our doors in the person of his poor.

Unlike Carroll, who himself seems to have missed the mark on the message of Christianity, I think perhaps this falling away is partially due to the fact that Christianity has become the predominant force in the world. In other words, we’ve become a bit lazy about this in some parts of the Christian world. So I think, to some extent anyway, most modern day Christians would be ill prepared to face the same kinds of persecutions to our founding fathers endured.

Having said this, I do tip my hat to the Jewish people of the world for enduring what they’ve gone through. My only hope is that they would learn what the early church learned and seem to have somewhat forgotten. Love for one’s enemies enables us to be more than conquerors.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Ok, I just re-read through some of the information above that I missed before-- and that doesn’t make sense to me at all.

Actually, I just read through it twice…and then three times…just to make sure I understood this.

Am I understanding this correctly?

You said above that Abraham knew that when politeness is not followed by Awareness of God, it is no more than the mask of hypocrisy.

Abraham knew that even a highly advanced & developed culture is just a facade, a jerry-rigged veneer, if it is not built on, “the fear of God”, that its civilization is “a mile wide but [only] an inch deep” & can crumble in an instant if it is not built on a deep & thoroughgoing awareness of the Divine source of all morality, i.e. on “the fear of God.”

And this is apparently precisely why he was allowed to say that he thought the fear of God is not in that place and they will slay him for his wife’s sake to Abimelech.

This is also, apparently, why the Jewish Sages also criticized Abram for lying to Pharoah in an effort to save his life and then repeating the same stunt a little while later with Abimelech, the Philistine King of Gerar.

You even clarified that the Torah does not attempt to hide from us the faults, errors and weaknesses of our great men and precisely thereby it places the stamp of credibility upon the happenings it relates.

"The Torah is not an ‘anthology of paragons.’ It relates events not because they are worthy of emulation but simply because they took place.

The Torah does not attempt to hide from us the faults, errors and weaknesses of our great men and precisely thereby it places the stamp of credibility upon the happenings it relates. The fact that we are told about their faults and weaknesses does not detract from our great men; indeed, it adds to their stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they all been portrayed to us as models of perfection, we would have believed that they had been endowed with a higher nature not given to us to attain. Had they been presented to us as free of human passions and inner conflicts, their nature would seem to us merely the result of a loftier predisposition, not a product of their personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to emulate. Take, for instance, the humility of Moses. If we did not know that he was also capable of flying into a rage, this humility would seem to us an inborn trait not within our capacity to emulate. It is precisely his outburst (“Here now, you rebels!” Num. 20:10) that lends to his humility its true greatness, for it shows us his humility as the product of a mighty labor of self-control and self-refinement which we should all emulate because it is within our capacity to do so. Also, the Torah relates no sin or error without telling us also of its consequences, great or small…We must never attempt to whitewash the spiritual and moral heroes of our past. They are not in need of our apologies, nor would they tolerate such attempts on our part."

And yet, if indeed one knows God, then they are also allowed to lie for the sake of peace?

If so, then why did the Jewish Sages criticized Abram for lying to Pharoah in an effort to save his life and then repeating the same stunt a little while later with Abimelech, the Philistine King of Gerar?

In other words, you also believe that publicly embarrassing or shaming someone is a terrible, terrible sin & is tantamount to shedding their blood.

So, for example, you noted that Tamar was prepared to be burnt rather than publicly embarrass Judah. Rather, she produced his tokens, without naming him, prompting him to own up.

As an another example of this you also said that God rephrased Sarah’s statement in order to avoid embarrassing her & in order to preserve harmony between husband & wife. Therefore, lying per se is not the issue here. Sometimes peace (and preserving it) has dibs over truth.

So am I understanding this properly?

If someone does not have an awareness of God, and they lie in order to maintain peace, then they are engaging in hypocrisy?

But if someone does have an awareness of God, and they lie in order to maintain peace, then they are engaging in something holy?

I admit that maybe I’m not understanding this so I have to ask where the boundary is between telling the truth and hurting others feelings?

In addition to this, I also have to ask how one’s awareness of God can turn a lie spoken in order to maintain peace from hypocrisy to righteousness?

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Having said this, I do tip my hat to the Jewish people of the world for enduring what they’ve gone through.

You and Mark Twain. The illustrious Mr. Twain wrote in Concerning the Jews:

“To conclude. – If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”

Mr. Ex Nihilo:

Love for one’s enemies enables us to be more than conquerors.

We are not conquerors; neither have we any wish to be.

If you mean enemies like Nazis & suicide-bombers & terrorists who methodically shoot little girls in the head, no, I won’t love them. “Loving” them is a macabre pretense. Rabbi Shmuely Boteach (the former Jewish chaplain at Oxford University & noted author) wrote a week after 9/11:

A time to hate

“For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heavenÉ a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.” (Eccl. 3)

One of the most frequent themes of my writings is how we - a generation with a 50 percent divorce rate and a professional singles scene - have forgotten how to love. But today I will surprise you by complaining about how we have forgotten how to hate.

The proper response to the cowardly brutes who perpetrated these horrific attacks against America is to hate them with every fiber of our being and purge ourselves of any morsel of sympathy that might seek to understand their motives.

Forgetting how to hate can be just as damaging as forgetting how to love. I realize that immersed as we are in a Christian culture that exhorts us to “turn the other cheek,” this can sound quite absurd. Little do we remember, it seems, the aphorism that those who are kind to the cruel end up being cruel to the kind.

Indeed, exhortations to hate all manner of evil abound in the Bible; God Himself hates every form of immorality because of its harm to mankind. Thus the book of Proverbs declares, “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.” Likewise, King David declares regarding the cruel: “I have hated them with a deep loathing. They are as enemies to me.”

(cont.)