rationalism as clarity?

[Guest guest]

Dear

 

 

> " Perhaps being jewish, a religion where neither of these ideas

> (heaven

> or reincarnation) carries much weight, makes me more comfortable

> with a

> philosophy (philosophical daoism) that does not postulate about the

> afterlife (as do all branches of christianity, buddhism, islam and

> hinduism). I guess you just assume you live a decent life and you

> won't suffer as a result. that's about all. Rationally, it makes

> no

> sense to kill in a free society with laws. "

 

 

Please be careful to represent your rational humanistic exposure and

Jewish upbringing (I would assume as non-practicing and following

non-traditional --conservative or reform revisionism) as just that,

yours, and not as representing what traditional Judaism espouses.

 

Judaism has never (until the advent of revisionism) viewed itself as a

religion but rather as an all encompassing lifestyle where deeds rather

than creed as are the basis for any reward or punishment. Furthermore,

Judaism has never separated belief from performance. I suggest that you

review Maimonides 13 principles of faith for a clear review of the

tenets upon which Judaism is based. Essentially the 13 principles fall

into three categories: the nature of belief in G-d, the authenticity,

validity and immutability of the Torah, and person's responsibility and

ultimate reward. There are no " Jewish ethics " apart from the Torah

(from a classical perspective) and it is no more ethical to be kind to

animals, than to fulfill the commandment of placing a railing around a

balcony or roof, then to refrain from kidnapping or murdering, as all

originate from the same source.

 

Though this forum is not the appropriate venue to discuss the foundations

of Judaism, except as they relate to Chinese medicine, I present the

above for clarification purposes only, as your assumptions about

" mainstream normative Judaism " (eg. heaven, reincarnation, etc) are just

not correct.

 

furthermore,

 

" I could not pursue my

> freedom if killing was not constrained for everyone. Any rational

> person would have to agree The fear of imminent death would make

> any

> real progress impossible. Now I am being idealistic here, since I

> know

> also that most folks need the fear of god or law to keep them on the

>

> straight and narrow. but ultimately rational thought must be the

> answer to moral dilemmas, not the fear of the current god or state.

>

> Only an enlightened state of rationality ends violence on a large

> scale. "

 

Rational humanism only works to the extent that the society espouses

social justice and social responsibility. As long as there is greed as

long as people seek personal comforts at the expense of class

differences, your ideal just won't work. Communism and socialism for

that matter have failed miserably for that reason. Who determines what's

moral? Who determines when human life begins? Is abortion murder?

your idealism reminds me of the '60s idealism which also didn't

work, witness the utter failure of the collective farms and communes of

that era.

 

 

" certainly the widespread religiosity in america is no help for the

> violence. In largely secular western europe, violence and the

> thrill

> for it are much less than over here. I fear that by suggesting that

> a

> cure for america or the world's ills rests in some sort of spiritual

>

> conversion rather than a conversion to rational thinking is fraught

> with great risk. We already live in a culture where the some people

>

> think that if we all had the proper religion, everything would be

> peachy. I think we play right into the hands of the least

> enlightened

> when we agree that the problems of the world are all ultimately

> spiritual, even if we do not agree with their version of god.

> Because

> religion and politics both depend on most people not thinking for

> themselves and just following on faith (now I am not talking to any

> of

> you religious intellectuals on this list; you know the sheep to whom

> I

> refer). "

 

 

Please understand that I feel that there is an alternative. What I

espouse is not religious fundimentalism, neither do I believe that

government should impose its values on society unless to protect the

civil rights of religious minorities and I am certainly not interested in

proselytization. Rather, if the seven Noahidic imperatives of basic

moral behavior would serve as a foundation, then you could have your

ideal enlightened world. What are they?

Write me privately and I'll be glad to discuss it, as , as I said, this

is not the forum for such a discussion.

 

 

So one looks around and rather than seeing an irrational

> world

> that needs clear thinking,

 

 

By clarity, don't you really mean a sense of security in the mind of the

thinker, and must we always find clear rational explanations for that

which is beyond our perception or understanding?

 

one see one devoid of the correct version

> of

> spirituality that needs chinese metaphysics to set them straight.

 

> All

> you need is faith. that's the last thing you need. skepticism will

>

> serve you much better.

 

skepticism is one side of a two sided coin. The other side is not

faith, but rather a humility to acknowledge that much lies beyond our

understanding.

 

 

Yehuda

 

______________

The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!

Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!

Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[Guest guest]

Jewish ethics

>>>And for many of us its just culture

alon