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.
"This weak response, not to use my intelligence..."
ReplyDeleteWhich part of the Rabbi's last letter made your feel this way? I don't see what was so irrational about his response.
Thanks,
"...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....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."
DeleteThis part didn't sit well with me. I had come to believe that Judaism supports doubt, asking questions, and not to accept things on simple blind faith. I interpreted this response to mean that we shouldn't question god's morailty. To basically shut up and accept that god is always right regardless of our rational judgements when it comes to morality. (ie not to use my own intelligence to question the legitimacy of this command).
It seems to go against other teachings within Judaism, that Jews struggle with god, and at times argue against god when he commands the immoral. Abrahams blind acceptance of an atrocious command doesn't seem moral or appropriate in this light. Especially considering it is doubtful that mental illness didn't exist in ancient times and should have been something, even Abraham should consider, if you believed they were great men with deep insights into the world beyond the standard of that time and place.
"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."
If there was some distinction between mental illness and true prophecy that can be objectively assessed then what is that distinction. I don't believe I ever got a response to that question.
How was it clear? Perhaps I should have continued with that question, but his response rubbed me the wrong way at the time, and opened my mind to the possibility that these apologetics were nothing more than mere rationalizations. I mean on what basis do we have to know what occured in Abrahams mind? What evidence do we have for all of the assumptions that can be made in order to make the Torah seem more reasonable than it appears? Why not give the same benefit of doubt to Deanna Laney?
I may reask this question to him, to see if he has a response, but what would your response be?
It isn't necessarily that the responses are damning to the position that Judaism is true, I just noticed certain signals. Things I noticed when arguing against Christian apologists. I saw the hand writing on the wall so to speak
1) "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." -- The following comment is not about homosexuality at all, just about the reasoning above. Wouldn't there be a gazillion *other* evidences that Hashem is a cruel and unjust God? Such as one's desire to shack up with the married woman down the street, or my natural tendency to be a total jerk, or Harlequin babies, or the Holocaust?
ReplyDelete2) "no longer believed that scientists were only out to push an agenda designed specifically to deny Judaism. " -- I haven't heard so much of *that* theory, though I *have* heard much of the theory that their agenda is designed to deny anything non-materialistic or non-naturalistic.
3) "A life filled with the satisfaction of living for yourself instead of being a slave to ancient men." -- Theoretically, you could have written: "A life filled with the satisfaction of living for yourself instead of living for a higher purpose than yourself."
Note how I wisely (or cowardly) evaded the question of divinely-mandated genocide.
PS,
Delete1) Those certainly didn't help ;)
I think this affected me so much because it dealt with real people (ie GLBT Orthodox Jews). I heard their stories. Their struggles with trying to reconcile their faith with their inner most needs. And also the painful experiences they had with other Orthodox Jews (including their family members) who would ostracize and verbally abuse them. It simply touched something in me. I thought about my children. What if they turned out to be homosexual? Would I make their lives a living hell simply because of my religious beliefs? Would I not rather have them be happy, living a frum lifestyle in any way they are able despite their sexual orientation? It didn't make sense that god would prefer that I ostracize and/or guilt my children for something they had no control over.
So I came to accept something that is generally considered outside of acceptable orthodox practice and beliefs. This didn't make me reject god, but it certainly allowed me to doubt more than I had before and gave me more resolve to think about my morality independant from what most Orthodox Rabbis were teaching.
2) Well I very much doubt that as well.
3) Except I wouldn't have believed it. I do live my life for a higher purpose than myself. My family. Their needs and desires come before my own and they give my life a lot of meaning. I live my life for what I choose, but that doesn't ruling out the idea of living for a higher purpose, I just don't think god or religion is a higher purpose, at least not for me.
"Note how I wisely (or cowardly) evaded the question of divinely-mandated genocide."
Noted
1) There is a story of two vagrants who were arrested for loitering. The judge asked the first vagrant, "What were you doing when the officer arrested you?" "Nothing," the vagrant answered. The judge then turned to the second vagrant, "And what were you doing when you were arrested?" The man pointed toward his buddy. "I was helping him," he said.
Delete== == == == ==
I'm wondering if you can think of another case where God (or, if you prefer a god) would forbid a non- moral-related act, but a small portion of the population has a strong inclination to take part in that act. (I have one idea.)
I am sorry I don't really follow. I am sure there are many rules God could implement, if he existed, that are not moral laws, but some people are drawn to. Sometimes rules like this need to be implemented by people as well. Not for moral reasons, but for practical reasons.
DeleteI don't think I have a problem with this category of rules. It would have to depend on what rule we are actually talking about.
> I became an atheist
ReplyDeleteWhen did this happen?
about 2.5 years ago
DeleteGreat. Based on my own personal experience alone (over 30 years ago I rejected OJ), expect the longer you live as an atheist, the more you realize you made the right decision and the more perplexing it will seem how anybody can believe in supernatural beings, let alone the nonsense that is OJ.
DeleteThe reason OJ persists iclude: childhood brain washing (parents and yeshiva), economics, coercion, tricky and subtle although false proofs of god and judaism, sense of community, scare and threats of all kinds, guilt & other psycological tactics, getting stuck in a family situation, parnusa, frienships, and I can go on. When will OJ finally disappear ?