Comments on: Lord, Get Me High? http://jewneric.com/lord-get-me-high/2008/03/13/ A New Platform for the Jewish Voice Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:08:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: occupier1948 http://jewneric.com/lord-get-me-high/2008/03/13/comment-page-1/#comment-400 occupier1948 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:05:24 +0000 http://jewneric.com/lord-get-me-high/2008/03/13/#comment-400 “As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don’t believe, or a legend, which I don’t believe either..." Interesting. He offers no reason why he doesn't believe it was not a "supernatural cosmic event", yet he is unable to dismiss it as mere legend (600, 000 Jewish men make that difficult). This guy is like the Ehud Olmert of science. “As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don’t believe, or a legend, which I don’t believe either…”

Interesting. He offers no reason why he doesn’t believe it was not a “supernatural cosmic event”, yet he is unable to dismiss it as mere legend (600, 000 Jewish men make that difficult). This guy is like the Ehud Olmert of science.

]]> By: Moshe Glasser http://jewneric.com/lord-get-me-high/2008/03/13/comment-page-1/#comment-387 Moshe Glasser Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:21:27 +0000 http://jewneric.com/lord-get-me-high/2008/03/13/#comment-387 People tend to put issues like this in the same boat as "higher" biblical criticism. The difference is that no one argues that the Bible is a book. The question can be where it came from, who wrote it, and what it should mean to us. On the other hand, psychologists and theorists who claim to assume the Bible isn't true use a "scientific" explanation to explain recorded events. Oddly enough, they offer no evidence, no proof, not even any corroborating accounts in the Bible itself, to justify this. Their explanation follows exactly none of the criteria for a scientifically sound and methodologically valid interpretation. Instead, they do what everyone does: believe (that's faith, people, as strong and irrational as any other kind, whether in God or Buddha) the explanation they find most comforting. The psychologist quoted here had absolutely no reason for rejecting literal interpretations. He even said that he didn't "believe" the other two explanations possible. A wise man once told me that atheists are more religious than religious people. While the religious man (Rabbi Soloveitchik's "homo religiosus") already knows the answers to life's questions, the atheist must have FAITH that science will one day answer his questions. His faith in science and logic is far greater than the religious man's already-determined answers. People tend to put issues like this in the same boat as “higher” biblical criticism. The difference is that no one argues that the Bible is a book. The question can be where it came from, who wrote it, and what it should mean to us. On the other hand, psychologists and theorists who claim to assume the Bible isn’t true use a “scientific” explanation to explain recorded events. Oddly enough, they offer no evidence, no proof, not even any corroborating accounts in the Bible itself, to justify this. Their explanation follows exactly none of the criteria for a scientifically sound and methodologically valid interpretation. Instead, they do what everyone does: believe (that’s faith, people, as strong and irrational as any other kind, whether in God or Buddha) the explanation they find most comforting. The psychologist quoted here had absolutely no reason for rejecting literal interpretations. He even said that he didn’t “believe” the other two explanations possible. A wise man once told me that atheists are more religious than religious people. While the religious man (Rabbi Soloveitchik’s “homo religiosus”) already knows the answers to life’s questions, the atheist must have FAITH that science will one day answer his questions. His faith in science and logic is far greater than the religious man’s already-determined answers.

]]>