The following correspondence is one I had right before I became an
atheist, my last question to a Rabbi, to help me answer my unsettled doubt. By
this point I have already recently become convinced in evolution (as opposed to
the traditional 6 day creation story, believing the latter to be simply a metaphor but still divine) and considered myself a "rationalist orthodox
Jew" and no longer a Chabad Chassid. I also had become convinced that
Homosexuality isn't unethical and that Homosexuals weren't pushing an agenda
(as I once believed) and I believed that there must be a place for homosexuals
and their relationships within Orthodoxy because otherwise that would make
Hashem a cruel and unjust God.
Now my faith has been shifting. I asked this question to a Rabbi on
Chabad.org. I wonder if he would have said something different had he known my
entire faith was on the line, but I doubt had he known that it would have made
any difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Rabbi,
Abraham brought his son up as a sacrifice to G-d and this is seen as a tremendous act of faith, but if some other person claims the same God's will, why are they not given the same benefit of the doubt?
Abraham brought his son up as a sacrifice to G-d and this is seen as a tremendous act of faith, but if some other person claims the same God's will, why are they not given the same benefit of the doubt?
Deanna Laney murdered two of her children and severely injured a third
because she believed G-d asked her to sacrifice her children to Him. For us
today she is clearly and rightfully viewed as a lunatic and should be sent to
prison. However we see Abraham as a righteous individual and not a lunatic. If
the situation was a little different and Deanna Laney didn't kill her children
but only brought them up and attempted to kill them but as the blow was about
to be struck a police officer came and stopped her, would she still not be sent
to prison and condemned as a lunatic? Even if her children were grown adults and
were consenting to the acts she would still be sent to prison and condemned as
crazy.
I am a practicing and religious Jew but this question has always
bothered me and I never heard a satisfactory answer for it. Is it really a
Jewish ideal to be willing to commit an atrocious act for G-d? Is it really a
Jewish ideal to blindly follow horrific commands without questioning G-d or your
sanity on the matter?
Clearly it was an impressive act of faith that is unmatched by any
other act Abraham could have committed but to be willing to perform an immoral
act based on blind instruction from G-d without question in my mind isn't a
tremendous act of faith but a tremendous act of foolishness. I am not trying to
be disrespectful, this question just bothers me very much.
-Daniel Rosenberg
--------------------------------------------------------------
BH
Hi Mr. Rosenberg,
Are you asking why is Deanna Lavey different? Or are you asking, why is it praiseworthy that Avrohom agreed to do something that is immoral in human instinct just because G-d said so?
Best regards,
Rabbi
Hi Mr. Rosenberg,
Are you asking why is Deanna Lavey different? Or are you asking, why is it praiseworthy that Avrohom agreed to do something that is immoral in human instinct just because G-d said so?
Best regards,
Rabbi
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rabbi,
I guess both. First off how can we condemn her or others who may be doing what Abraham did, but not Abraham himself? And secondly how could Abraham accept to perform an immoral act from G-d without question? For instance would you consider it noble for a man to accept a divine command to slaughter his entire family without question, even if the acts are never actually performed (perhaps he is arrested, etc.)? Would it be noble for a man to rape someone else based on a divine command without question?
I guess both. First off how can we condemn her or others who may be doing what Abraham did, but not Abraham himself? And secondly how could Abraham accept to perform an immoral act from G-d without question? For instance would you consider it noble for a man to accept a divine command to slaughter his entire family without question, even if the acts are never actually performed (perhaps he is arrested, etc.)? Would it be noble for a man to rape someone else based on a divine command without question?
Thanks for the response.
-Daniel
--------------------------------------------------------------
BH
Hi,
These are both difficult questions. The answer to the first one makes the second one even more troubling.
The answer to the first one is that the Torah states that the laws of the Torah will never be changed, so even if a true and proven prophet (by virtue of being fit for prophecy by the Torah's guidelines, and having having accurately predicted the future) comes and tells you that they have an instruction from G-d to break the commandments, this is the biggest proof that they are not telling the truth. The only reason we believe a prophet is because the Torah commanded us to do so, and that same Torah said that the instructions given by Moses will never change. So there can not be a true prophecy that tells us to abolish a Torah law. So Deanna Lavey could not have received such a prophecy.
This seems to make the second question even stronger... but Abraham did recieve such a prophecy?! Why did G-d tell him to do so? and Why was he rushing to do it?
Here are two articles that address the Abraham issue:
http://www.chabad.org/326064
http://www.chabad.org/326392
Please let me know if this helps.
Best regards,
Rabbi
Hi,
These are both difficult questions. The answer to the first one makes the second one even more troubling.
The answer to the first one is that the Torah states that the laws of the Torah will never be changed, so even if a true and proven prophet (by virtue of being fit for prophecy by the Torah's guidelines, and having having accurately predicted the future) comes and tells you that they have an instruction from G-d to break the commandments, this is the biggest proof that they are not telling the truth. The only reason we believe a prophet is because the Torah commanded us to do so, and that same Torah said that the instructions given by Moses will never change. So there can not be a true prophecy that tells us to abolish a Torah law. So Deanna Lavey could not have received such a prophecy.
This seems to make the second question even stronger... but Abraham did recieve such a prophecy?! Why did G-d tell him to do so? and Why was he rushing to do it?
Here are two articles that address the Abraham issue:
http://www.chabad.org/326064
http://www.chabad.org/326392
Please let me know if this helps.
Best regards,
Rabbi
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rabbi,
I appreciate the thoughts and I will have to
chew them over a bit. It does help, thank you so much.
I thought the article with the discussion between the skeptic and the believer was the better of the two. The other one basically said that we can't trust our own rationale and must only trust in G-d's. While this is true to a point, it doesn't really answer the question. The remaining problem I see is that if the reason Abraham was allowed to perform the command without question is because it showed his unwavering commitment to G-d why then is a person who may hear a similar voice (even if he is delusional) not judged on the idea that he is showing his commitment to G-d like Abraham did. If it is because that prophecy is only believed if it doesn't conflict with G-d’s laws then why wouldn't this also negate Abraham’s revelation?
I think that the best solution is that Abraham and Isaac both decided to go through with the sacrifice thus not making it murder which was already revealed through Noah as a sin. Thus Abraham and Isaac could have potentially believed that if they ruled out murder from the act then human sacrifice really isn't a problem since it was common practice at the time anyway. Thus Abraham is not breaking any command G-d previously issued by the act and thus wouldn't assume the revelation was faulty. However today it has been revealed that human sacrifice is wrong thus we shouldn't rely on that type of revelation.
I know this isn't perfect but it is what I came up with based on the articles and your email.
Thanks,
-Daniel
I thought the article with the discussion between the skeptic and the believer was the better of the two. The other one basically said that we can't trust our own rationale and must only trust in G-d's. While this is true to a point, it doesn't really answer the question. The remaining problem I see is that if the reason Abraham was allowed to perform the command without question is because it showed his unwavering commitment to G-d why then is a person who may hear a similar voice (even if he is delusional) not judged on the idea that he is showing his commitment to G-d like Abraham did. If it is because that prophecy is only believed if it doesn't conflict with G-d’s laws then why wouldn't this also negate Abraham’s revelation?
I think that the best solution is that Abraham and Isaac both decided to go through with the sacrifice thus not making it murder which was already revealed through Noah as a sin. Thus Abraham and Isaac could have potentially believed that if they ruled out murder from the act then human sacrifice really isn't a problem since it was common practice at the time anyway. Thus Abraham is not breaking any command G-d previously issued by the act and thus wouldn't assume the revelation was faulty. However today it has been revealed that human sacrifice is wrong thus we shouldn't rely on that type of revelation.
I know this isn't perfect but it is what I came up with based on the articles and your email.
Thanks,
-Daniel
--------------------------------------------------------------
[6
Days later]
--------------------------------------------------------------
BH
Hi Daniel,
Just got to read your suggested answer. While it does seem to answer the issue of murder, it could still be argued that suicide was also forbidden for the children of Noah, so how does Isaac have the right to choose to end his life? Also, it could be argued that even if one wants to end his life, it is still forbidden for someone else to end it for him even at his request. (Do you remember the Kevorkian case?)
I, too, have difficulty with the article just dismissing the issue as human moral against G-dly morals, but ultimately, I agree with the point that the repulsion with murder must stem not just from our gut feeling, but because G-d told us not to murder. Otherwise, there is room for mercy killings et all. Once we've established that, then if G-d were to actually tell some to do otherwise in a specific case, like in cases where the Torah prescribes capital punishment, then that is just as G-dly as life. In Abraham's defense it is clear that he truly got this command from G-d, and therefore was willing to do so instead of questioning.
With the giving of the Torah G-d laid down the rule that prophecy will never abolish a Torah law.
Please let me know if this helps.
Best regards,
Rabbi
Hi Daniel,
Just got to read your suggested answer. While it does seem to answer the issue of murder, it could still be argued that suicide was also forbidden for the children of Noah, so how does Isaac have the right to choose to end his life? Also, it could be argued that even if one wants to end his life, it is still forbidden for someone else to end it for him even at his request. (Do you remember the Kevorkian case?)
I, too, have difficulty with the article just dismissing the issue as human moral against G-dly morals, but ultimately, I agree with the point that the repulsion with murder must stem not just from our gut feeling, but because G-d told us not to murder. Otherwise, there is room for mercy killings et all. Once we've established that, then if G-d were to actually tell some to do otherwise in a specific case, like in cases where the Torah prescribes capital punishment, then that is just as G-dly as life. In Abraham's defense it is clear that he truly got this command from G-d, and therefore was willing to do so instead of questioning.
With the giving of the Torah G-d laid down the rule that prophecy will never abolish a Torah law.
Please let me know if this helps.
Best regards,
Rabbi
--------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the day I received this last message was the same day I became an atheist. Between the
time I sent my question above and when I got the Rabbi’s final response I came
across information that led me to begin doubting the Exodus and Matan Torah
itself. I had already accepted a “rational” approach to Judaism and no longer
believed that scientists were only out to push an agenda designed specifically
to deny Judaism. This didn't help when I heard the evidence and arguments presented
by leading archaeologists and historians when it came to the Exodus story. Also
the moral dilemma’s regarding God’s command of genocide in the books of the
Tanach became more and more unsettling for me.
This weak response, not to use
my intelligence, and non-responses to similar questions I asked of supposedly “rational” Rabbis, regarding the morality of genocide and historical problems
with Matan Torah was the final nail in the coffin of my once fervent belief in
Judaism.
But with this death came a new life. A life filled with the elation of experiencing the real as opposed to fantasy. A life filled with the satisfaction of living for yourself instead of being a slave to ancient men. A life filled with the exhilaration of thinking for yourself rather than others thinking for you. A life filled with wonder.
But with this death came a new life. A life filled with the elation of experiencing the real as opposed to fantasy. A life filled with the satisfaction of living for yourself instead of being a slave to ancient men. A life filled with the exhilaration of thinking for yourself rather than others thinking for you. A life filled with wonder.
