Yeah admittedly those comments were not my best work. But I was not banned because they were “off topic.” If someone delivered a lengthy off-topic discussion on hilchot Rosh Chodesh, I don’t think they would be banned for being “off topic”, at least not without receiving a warning first.
This is one of the biggest reasons why I became a "kofer" in the first place. I remember thinking to myself: if Judaism is really true, why does it require massive censorship to be believed? Why did I feel so afraid of reading other points of view? Why was I subconsciously trying to avoid thinking certain thoughts? *Why does religion require so many dirty tricks to protect and perpetuate itself?* This behavior is *exactly* what we would expect from people who are deceiving themselves to keep a false belief system artificially alive.
And also I find it rather disgusting of you to be so dismissive of the concern about amalekite babies. The Torah's support for nazi-style exterminationism was one of the main things that got me questioning in the first place. This always bothered me 100000x more than any Torah and science concerns.
The reason I find it ridiculous is that nobody is killing amelekite babies. The orthodox community is not committing the next genocide. We both know it.
As far as you are concerned I find it ironic that you are dismissive of the genocide of fetuses. Thousands dying every day!
Or the genocide of brain dead people merely to harvest their organs.
Edit: I happen to support organ donation after brain death. My main point is morality is subjective, based on inner feeling. That's why I do not lend credence to morality questions.
If you read my argument again carefully, you will notice that it doesn't claim anywhere that the Orthodox community is committing the next genocide. The argument is that the great prophets Moses and Samuel, acting in accordance with God's will, were genocidal maniacs who would have been hanged at Nuremberg with the Nazi war criminals if they lived in modern times.
What is more likely, that the Creator of the universe really is a genocidal maniac like Hitler, or that these genocidal fantasies in the Bible are the product of petty human minds, who were seething with hatred for enemy tribes, and that this is just the *same old story* of killing-in-the-name-of-god and "God Is On Our Side Of The War-ism"? What is the simpler explanation?
See my edit above. I can easily imagine a universe where the Torah approved of Gay marriage and people being bothered by how the Torah can allow immorality.
I certainly understand why it bothers you - it bothers me too - but that's based on our upbringing. Had we been raised by genocidal maniacs we may be bothered why the Torah doesn't approve it in all cases!
A question from science is objective, from immorality subjective. (Ftr, I don't think I would be able to kill an Amelekite baby unless God himself rerevealed himself in some sort of incontrovertible way, and even then, it would be hard.)
Also, I don't support abortion. The point was to point out the hypocrisy of people who claim to be pro-life while their holy texts are decidedly not pro-life.
It's good to be exposed to other ideas, if they are good. If they are bad ideas, or false ideas, they are nothing more than confusing. Look how you and so many people like yourself are so confused by having been exposed to bad ideas.
The reason for censorship is obvious if the censorship comity is correct.
Of course, anyone who thinks they're right could use this argument. We just happen to think we're right, and the only question is if we are. But if we indeed are I'm not sure what turns you off about insulation.
1. When you censor opposing views, it's an admission of weakness. You are tacitly admitting that you don't think your opinions are strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
2. Just because you think you're right, that doesn't mean you can't be wrong! I obviously think I'm right, but I'm always open to the possibility that I could be wrong, about religion and everything else. Censoring opposing views doesn't logically follow from thinking that you're right.
3. You give me the impression of someone who has never, not once in his life, seriously considered the possibility that he could be wrong. I think this is profoundly irrational, arrogant, and dangerous. It's dangerous because *total certainty doesn't guarantee that you're actually right.* There are plenty of people who are totally certain about their beliefs, just as certain as you are about Judaism, yet both of us would consider them wrong. So if you're unwilling to consider the possibility that you could be wrong, then, for all you know, your head could be filled with nonsense too! This is why it's important to be open-minded.
1. Yes, but weakness of whom? If the topics are complex and they have confused millions, is it fair to expose more people to them?
2. True, I'm not right because I think I am. I'm open to the possibility that I can be wrong; at this point I haven't been shown anything to tell me off. If I would, I'll change my views as soon as I could convince my emotions to do so. If you want to take that as a challenge, do so! I am being honest with you.
"Censoring opposing views doesn't logically follow from thinking that you're right." It does if you are right and the opposing ideas are very confusing.
3. If you must, I read almost every kofer book on the planet (I exaggerate, but for sure all the big ones). If you can believe it, they only strengthened my emunah! If you want to debate these things we can (if Ash lets, if not via email is fine by me), but again, if we Jews are correct, and I mean objectively correct, other ideas that cunningly obscure that truth are only bad. I am very open minded, and I understand that it can be irrational, arrogant and dangerous to assume the "I'm right", but only if you are wrong (as you said about the plenty of people). But if you have the truth, it can be rational, humble and safe to believe so.
In short, you don't believe Judaism is true. You hide behind the fact that you've been "turned off by this and by that". All I'm showing is that these turn offs are not the real point; the main problem you have is that you don't think Judaism is true. They may have been the original cause for questioning, but they are not the problem.
Ignore the last paragraph (In short...). It isn't to point and I'm not sure why I added that now. I can't seem to edit my comment for some reason so just ignore.
I happen to agree with last paragraph. The administrative decision wasn't mine, but the offending comment was just totally off topic.
Yeah admittedly those comments were not my best work. But I was not banned because they were “off topic.” If someone delivered a lengthy off-topic discussion on hilchot Rosh Chodesh, I don’t think they would be banned for being “off topic”, at least not without receiving a warning first.
This is one of the biggest reasons why I became a "kofer" in the first place. I remember thinking to myself: if Judaism is really true, why does it require massive censorship to be believed? Why did I feel so afraid of reading other points of view? Why was I subconsciously trying to avoid thinking certain thoughts? *Why does religion require so many dirty tricks to protect and perpetuate itself?* This behavior is *exactly* what we would expect from people who are deceiving themselves to keep a false belief system artificially alive.
And also I find it rather disgusting of you to be so dismissive of the concern about amalekite babies. The Torah's support for nazi-style exterminationism was one of the main things that got me questioning in the first place. This always bothered me 100000x more than any Torah and science concerns.
The reason I find it ridiculous is that nobody is killing amelekite babies. The orthodox community is not committing the next genocide. We both know it.
As far as you are concerned I find it ironic that you are dismissive of the genocide of fetuses. Thousands dying every day!
Or the genocide of brain dead people merely to harvest their organs.
Edit: I happen to support organ donation after brain death. My main point is morality is subjective, based on inner feeling. That's why I do not lend credence to morality questions.
If you read my argument again carefully, you will notice that it doesn't claim anywhere that the Orthodox community is committing the next genocide. The argument is that the great prophets Moses and Samuel, acting in accordance with God's will, were genocidal maniacs who would have been hanged at Nuremberg with the Nazi war criminals if they lived in modern times.
What is more likely, that the Creator of the universe really is a genocidal maniac like Hitler, or that these genocidal fantasies in the Bible are the product of petty human minds, who were seething with hatred for enemy tribes, and that this is just the *same old story* of killing-in-the-name-of-god and "God Is On Our Side Of The War-ism"? What is the simpler explanation?
I don't know.
See my edit above. I can easily imagine a universe where the Torah approved of Gay marriage and people being bothered by how the Torah can allow immorality.
I certainly understand why it bothers you - it bothers me too - but that's based on our upbringing. Had we been raised by genocidal maniacs we may be bothered why the Torah doesn't approve it in all cases!
A question from science is objective, from immorality subjective. (Ftr, I don't think I would be able to kill an Amelekite baby unless God himself rerevealed himself in some sort of incontrovertible way, and even then, it would be hard.)
Also, I don't support abortion. The point was to point out the hypocrisy of people who claim to be pro-life while their holy texts are decidedly not pro-life.
It's good to be exposed to other ideas, if they are good. If they are bad ideas, or false ideas, they are nothing more than confusing. Look how you and so many people like yourself are so confused by having been exposed to bad ideas.
The reason for censorship is obvious if the censorship comity is correct.
I'm not defending bans, I am not a fan of them, but I do understand them.
A Soviet party official could have issued the same statement verbatim
Of course, anyone who thinks they're right could use this argument. We just happen to think we're right, and the only question is if we are. But if we indeed are I'm not sure what turns you off about insulation.
1. When you censor opposing views, it's an admission of weakness. You are tacitly admitting that you don't think your opinions are strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
2. Just because you think you're right, that doesn't mean you can't be wrong! I obviously think I'm right, but I'm always open to the possibility that I could be wrong, about religion and everything else. Censoring opposing views doesn't logically follow from thinking that you're right.
3. You give me the impression of someone who has never, not once in his life, seriously considered the possibility that he could be wrong. I think this is profoundly irrational, arrogant, and dangerous. It's dangerous because *total certainty doesn't guarantee that you're actually right.* There are plenty of people who are totally certain about their beliefs, just as certain as you are about Judaism, yet both of us would consider them wrong. So if you're unwilling to consider the possibility that you could be wrong, then, for all you know, your head could be filled with nonsense too! This is why it's important to be open-minded.
1. Yes, but weakness of whom? If the topics are complex and they have confused millions, is it fair to expose more people to them?
2. True, I'm not right because I think I am. I'm open to the possibility that I can be wrong; at this point I haven't been shown anything to tell me off. If I would, I'll change my views as soon as I could convince my emotions to do so. If you want to take that as a challenge, do so! I am being honest with you.
"Censoring opposing views doesn't logically follow from thinking that you're right." It does if you are right and the opposing ideas are very confusing.
3. If you must, I read almost every kofer book on the planet (I exaggerate, but for sure all the big ones). If you can believe it, they only strengthened my emunah! If you want to debate these things we can (if Ash lets, if not via email is fine by me), but again, if we Jews are correct, and I mean objectively correct, other ideas that cunningly obscure that truth are only bad. I am very open minded, and I understand that it can be irrational, arrogant and dangerous to assume the "I'm right", but only if you are wrong (as you said about the plenty of people). But if you have the truth, it can be rational, humble and safe to believe so.
In short, you don't believe Judaism is true. You hide behind the fact that you've been "turned off by this and by that". All I'm showing is that these turn offs are not the real point; the main problem you have is that you don't think Judaism is true. They may have been the original cause for questioning, but they are not the problem.
Debate away! I live for that.
You are not reading the right kofer books. Lmk if you want an actual good list.
Ignore the last paragraph (In short...). It isn't to point and I'm not sure why I added that now. I can't seem to edit my comment for some reason so just ignore.