tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post114856154190081457..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Orthopraxy - Ijoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1148579358750930992006-05-25T13:49:00.000-04:002006-05-25T13:49:00.000-04:00Some Guy:sure, one can kvetch out some interpretat...Some Guy:<BR/>sure, one can kvetch out some interpretation of it by which one fulfills, but I don't think this is what the normative understanding of "Chayav Adam Lir`ot" means (I could be wrong), in which case it is not Orthopraxy in the sense of fulfilling all the strictures of normative halacha.<BR/><BR/>Chaim B:<BR/>That was going to be my next one, based on the post in Hirhurim a year back!joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1148578651824083192006-05-25T13:37:00.000-04:002006-05-25T13:37:00.000-04:00L'ma'am yed'u doroseichem ki basukkot hoshavti es ...L'ma'am yed'u doroseichem ki basukkot hoshavti es BN"Y. According to the Bach, you are not yotzei the mitvah of sukkah without knowledge/belief (I think the 2 are interchangable here) in the reason. Same Bach is brought by hilchos tzitzis and tefillin - where the reason for the halacha is brought in shulchan aruch then awareness of the 'why' becomes essential to the practice of the 'what'. (L'ma'aseh the Pri Megadim says you are yotzei b'dieved in all these cases, but the point still stands that in these cases practice sans belief is incomplete). I posted on this issue as well, but had not thought of your approach with repsect to tefillah. Good insight.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1148578562865295972006-05-25T13:36:00.000-04:002006-05-25T13:36:00.000-04:00I agree that Exodus is hard for the skeptical thin...I agree that Exodus is hard for the skeptical thinker (for many reasons!), but one can certainly imagine oneself being freed from bondage and one can certainly be thankful for that freedom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1148577925679649082006-05-25T13:25:00.000-04:002006-05-25T13:25:00.000-04:00it is difficult to maintain two discussions in tan...it is difficult to maintain two discussions in tandem.<BR/><BR/>I was not intending to address some sort of Maimonidean-based conception of God in this post, or series. Perhaps I am wrong, but the average Orthoprax who doubts the existence of God does not get into these deep philosphical questions. He or she simply is unsure, or does not believe, that God exists.<BR/><BR/>Chazal (some) have a handy aswer to the "where is he" question in terms of <I>hester panim</I> and the associated Biblical verses. Whether one adopts that answer or not is another issue.<BR/><BR/>But I do not want to get off track of the purpose of this series, which is to explore whether absence of belief impedes following halachic practice.<BR/><BR/>The last or my examples, by the way - placing oneself in the historical Exodus - certainly seems to be impeded by a belief in a non-interfering God.<BR/><BR/>I have other examples in store.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1148577161293846402006-05-25T13:12:00.000-04:002006-05-25T13:12:00.000-04:00These are good questions. I think the Maimonidean...These are good questions. I think the Maimonidean answer would have to be that one does not love or fear God in the way that one loves or fears a person, because God is not a person. The essential problem with the personal God (I think) is the question of "Where is He?" If God is an agent who interacts with people, intervenes in events, etc., then why is his presence not evident to us? And why would one posit the existence of an intervening Agent when there is no evidence for any intervention? And moreover, in the absence of concrete information about the motives and circumstances under which this Agent intervenes, why would we chose to love, fear, or worship such an Agent? The Unknowable God handily solves these problems, but only at the cost of making Judaism and the Bible look ridiculous. I guess that's a price I'm willing to pay, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1148574201189815732006-05-25T12:23:00.000-04:002006-05-25T12:23:00.000-04:00I was not directly referring to GH. I don't often ...I was not directly referring to GH. I don't often take the time to read his blog.<BR/><BR/>But there has to be some basic threshold of God's existence, at least in terms of relation to other mitzvot. If one is not convinced that there is a personal God on some level, how does it make sense to love Him? To fear Him? <BR/><BR/>For most people who are uncertain of the existence of God, what are the chances even of loving Him or fearing? They are caught in a state of uncertainty.<BR/><BR/>If one does not believe that God interacted with humans and took them out of Egypt, how can we one put oneself mentally in the non-existent historical event?joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958375916391742462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1148572768359298652006-05-25T11:59:00.000-04:002006-05-25T11:59:00.000-04:00The question that I think GH was raising on his bl...The question that I think GH was raising on his blog related to the meaning of last term in the phrase "belief in God", which without an unambiguous interpretation makes the entire expression utterly empty. So you can require "belief in God" until the cows come home, but what does that mean exactly from a mental standpoint?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com