Timeline for How can we be sure that Judaism is true/the truth?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2017 at 7:05 | history | edited | SAH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 130 characters in body
|
| Feb 7, 2017 at 23:06 | comment | added | mevaqesh | @MichaBerger That is certainly an interesting experience. I admit to having surveyed only a small fraction of even classical Jewish literature. My narrow horizons leave me ill-equipped for this. Nevertheless, I would note that internal consistency of some stratum of Jewish literature, still doesn't prove Judaism. Nor would inconsistency even disprove Judaism, depending one which "Judaism" one attempts to prove. In Rambam's scheme where derashot are rabbinic, and subject to be overturned (as in the Geonic view), their authority doesn't stem from being Godly, and indeed, arent necessarily | |
| Feb 7, 2017 at 22:46 | comment | added | Micha Berger | @mevaqesh: Ever have an experience like learning a sugya in choshein mishpat and realize it explains why chameitz owned on Pesach isn't inherited, which shows that bal yeira'eh isn't about ba'alus and that in fact qinyan and baalus aren't like purchase and ownership, which then explains why qinyanim are used to accept responsibility and now a light goes on about qinyan-qinyan miSedei Efron and marriage... This (less extreme cases) have happened to me often enough to agree with "its many, many parts fit together perfectly". I am also reading this answer to see how far the intent is from mine. | |
| Feb 5, 2017 at 10:11 | comment | added | SAH | @mevaqesh Thanks, fair. I'll try to remember to do this when I have computer access | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 16:10 | comment | added | mevaqesh | That had been my thought as well. That's why I suggested linking to examples rather than listing them. | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 10:55 | comment | added | SAH | @mevaqesh Thank you very much for your suggestions for improvement. It seems, though, with a topic like this, there is always more to be added, and yet one never reaches the asymptote. One may even lose ground if things become unreadably long, which was/is my main fear | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 7:20 | comment | added | mevaqesh | Hopefully you are not put off by the number of comments, however all but this one seemed fairly central, (while that one had the benefit of seeming easily correctable). Additionally, I think that this nicely written answer makes some very valid points, which others do not, and is pointed in the right direction, whereas others are very much not. It therefore seems imperative to improve this answer! Hatslaha rabba. | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 7:17 | comment | added | mevaqesh |
Torah's dignified, subtle, and intricate philosophy of personal and communal obligation, duty, and justice, as well as its stringent insistence on G-d's singleness, are the working through in human dimensions of extremely basic, and yet extremely innovative principles Some examples (or links) would improve this.
|
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 7:15 | comment | added | mevaqesh |
some half-baked religious criticisms of the mesorah of science What is the "mesorah of science"? Science claims to follow methodologies that increase its likelihood of finding better explanations for phenomena. It doesn't claim to base itself on ancient tradition!
|
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 7:13 | comment | added | mevaqesh |
The idea that one, in a few hours or a few lifetimes of skepticism, could outthink these geniuses, could outdo their combined work, is folly and idiocy What does doubting whether it is true to the original sense of the law have to do with out-thinking them? | If I see a a lot of work by seemingly very smart people, describing the writings of Homer in a post-modern light, for example, I need not be smarter or do more mental work than the authors, to merely doubt them. | It also isn't clear to me exactly which period or periods are under discussion here...
|
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 7:09 | comment | added | mevaqesh |
or whether the Jewish people, astonished at the miracle of their liberation, and at the formidable evidence of G-d they saw at the mountain, took upon themselves a code of law as a testament to their love and fear of this G-d Huh? Do you mean a code that includes a description of events that didn't happen to them? I thought you already said that that was inconceivable: The idea that the basic events of this account were made up, that 600,000 people were initially convinced of the lies, and that the lies survived...
|
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 7:07 | comment | added | mevaqesh |
Humans have simply never believed anything for as long, and with such consistency. Do you mean in terms of religion? If not, that seems fairly unlikely.
|
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 7:05 | comment | added | mevaqesh |
Did other religions really achieve the same? No, because their tenure is much shorter Seems like cherry picking. | Those other religions could just as easily measure success in terms of other benchmarks, such as number of adherents, rather than tenure of any adherents.
|
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 7:03 | comment | added | mevaqesh |
The idea that the basic events of this account were made up, that 600,000 people were initially convinced of the lies, and that the lies survived in their original form for 65 generations thereafter (because the fervency of this belief caused parents to impress it on their children at every cost) is difficult to conceive Sounds like a straw man.
|
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 7:01 | comment | added | mevaqesh |
The written and archaeological records supply, indeed, ample evidence... for example?
|
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 7:00 | comment | added | mevaqesh |
There are numerous, very striking examples of Torah's uncanny and precocious accuracy in describing phenomena of nature, biology, chemistry, astronomy, and even the physics of the last century for example?
|
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 6:59 | comment | added | mevaqesh |
Torah's power to correctly predict and reflect the world has been discussed interestingly in other answers. for example?
|
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 6:58 | comment | added | mevaqesh |
its many, many parts fit together perfectly, even where they seem not to do so at first or at second or even fiftieth glance for example?
|
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 6:15 | history | edited | SAH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Feb 3, 2017 at 3:02 | comment | added | kouty | wow, deep philosophy. It is not easy for me to follow the reasoning, but I appreciate the original way to address the issue | |
| Feb 3, 2017 at 0:40 | history | edited | SAH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 17 characters in body
|
| Feb 1, 2017 at 19:46 | comment | added | ray | seems much of what you say is difficult to put in words. can you perhaps add a summary at the end | |
| Feb 1, 2017 at 12:18 | history | edited | SAH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Feb 1, 2017 at 12:11 | history | edited | SAH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Feb 1, 2017 at 12:03 | history | answered | SAH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |