> The Old Testament is littered with rules that almost no one but orthodox Jews accept (mixing
> fabrics, shell fish, cleansing rituals) which makes, to me, any attempt to suss out morality nigh
> impossible.
Yes, I understand that. Now I _am_ an Orthodox Jew, and follow those codes. It might help if I explain that we see two different typos of behavioral rules: those that govern behavior between Man and his fellow, and those that govern behavior between Man and G-d. It is the former that you would see as "moral" while the latter would seem to be pure "ritual." Now we understand rituals to have important impacts on behavior, but we follow them because they are commanded. In some cases, we can infer reasons for the rituals, and in others we cannot - and that is something we simply have to accept. In some ways, it is much like the initial command to Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. There was obvious moral reason to do it - the point was simply obedience to one's Creator.
Of course, we believe that there is more value in the rituals than blind obedience, but that is another conversation.
It did, I changed it, but the email will have it. If you refresh, it should be done. I was hoping you might be awake, I am curious to hear your initial, gut response, before reading your full thoughts.
He knows it exists, although he has not subscribed; he did not even know what Substack was prior to our conversation. And no, I did not. He tends to avoid anything social media-esque, online, or that requires him to engage with anyone but close friends.
I am also confident he would disagree with all our positions, he tends to be fairly nihilistic; a biproduct of some truly awful life experiences at the hands of "good people." In our debates, he disavowed ethics, morals, or anything similar, and took the view that people do what they are evil/confident/powerful enough to do.
Well, my first gut thought is that I would’ve loved to have been with you when you had that discussion. Either as a participant or as a fly on the wall.
Oh, I am sure my face was priceless. The last time I am sure we discussed this would have been November 2015, shortly after I got married, which is the last time we were physically around each other. He started up, probably exactly where we left off, and I immediately had it flood back, thinking, "We should have discussed this outside of 1:00-5:00am, I probably would have retained more."
Ah, well those I can rehash. It tended to be a one sided argument. He did not distinguish between the two (essentially my recent position) and I argued that there is a code of right and wrong. Then my views on how religion can corrupt that when misapplied went into effect, given how his views.
My next post is up.
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/its-not-pineapple-pizza
> The Old Testament is littered with rules that almost no one but orthodox Jews accept (mixing
> fabrics, shell fish, cleansing rituals) which makes, to me, any attempt to suss out morality nigh
> impossible.
Yes, I understand that. Now I _am_ an Orthodox Jew, and follow those codes. It might help if I explain that we see two different typos of behavioral rules: those that govern behavior between Man and his fellow, and those that govern behavior between Man and G-d. It is the former that you would see as "moral" while the latter would seem to be pure "ritual." Now we understand rituals to have important impacts on behavior, but we follow them because they are commanded. In some cases, we can infer reasons for the rituals, and in others we cannot - and that is something we simply have to accept. In some ways, it is much like the initial command to Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. There was obvious moral reason to do it - the point was simply obedience to one's Creator.
Of course, we believe that there is more value in the rituals than blind obedience, but that is another conversation.
I believe that your first paragraph contains a typo. If not, I didn’t understand the sentence that began with “I man.”
It did, I changed it, but the email will have it. If you refresh, it should be done. I was hoping you might be awake, I am curious to hear your initial, gut response, before reading your full thoughts.
My second gut thought, or gut feeling, was a wondering if you’ve invited him to the Substack? To participate in the thread?
He knows it exists, although he has not subscribed; he did not even know what Substack was prior to our conversation. And no, I did not. He tends to avoid anything social media-esque, online, or that requires him to engage with anyone but close friends.
I am also confident he would disagree with all our positions, he tends to be fairly nihilistic; a biproduct of some truly awful life experiences at the hands of "good people." In our debates, he disavowed ethics, morals, or anything similar, and took the view that people do what they are evil/confident/powerful enough to do.
Well, my first gut thought is that I would’ve loved to have been with you when you had that discussion. Either as a participant or as a fly on the wall.
Oh, I am sure my face was priceless. The last time I am sure we discussed this would have been November 2015, shortly after I got married, which is the last time we were physically around each other. He started up, probably exactly where we left off, and I immediately had it flood back, thinking, "We should have discussed this outside of 1:00-5:00am, I probably would have retained more."
Your face might have been interesting, but I was particularly referring to the fact that I would’ve loved to have heard all the arguments both ways.
Ah, well those I can rehash. It tended to be a one sided argument. He did not distinguish between the two (essentially my recent position) and I argued that there is a code of right and wrong. Then my views on how religion can corrupt that when misapplied went into effect, given how his views.