First to “zoro” the agnostic. What a wonderful question. Reading through the letter I noticed only one consistency when dealing with the Torah verses, and that was how misinterpreted they are.
I assume you want a response to each of them, and I will certainly respond, but I doubt you are actually looking for answers. But first, the questions are very simple, the answers are much more complex. So it is easy to throw out such questions, and answering them requires much more in depth analysis.
This reminds me of a certain story, which I will tell you.
When the Goyim came into the Beis Hamikdosh (Holy Temple) and saw the Keruvim, they dragged them outside and showed everybody “what the Jews really worship”. Yiramayah Ha-Navie didn’t bother answering them, because the answer is not as simple as the question.
Instead he cried.
But of course, I do not have a sword to my throat, nor are these questions the most difficult to explain. They are basic criticism of the Torah, which are very easy to ask, but much more difficult to explain an answer.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
No you should not smite them. The offerings are only to be made in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem anyway. Since houses were generally, not very close to the Holy Temple, so probably they would not disturb the local residents.
The odor is also not “pleasing” to Hashem. It is a metaphor, or a way to explain to us G-d in our own terms, or way of looking at life. Just like how I may say “That computer
does not like the software.” The computer doesn’t actually “not like” the software, but we are explaining the computers actions in ways we can define them. The Torah is not in the heavens, but on earth, therefore, it was written for the mind of man.
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
First, note that "Slavery" in the Torah generally refers to temporary indentured servitude to one's creditor. Such slavery was permitted under Jewish law. However, the treatment of Jews towards their slaves was much more humane than that of the surrounding culture, for a key element of Judaism is to remember that Jews were once slaves in Egypt (in fact, this is the central theme of the holiday of Pesach).
Slavery, as permitted by the Torah was quite different from Greek and Roman Slavery, or even the cruel system in some modern countries down to our own times. In Hebrew law, the slave was not a thing, but a human being; he was not the chattel of a master who had unlimited power over him. In the Hebrew language, there is only one word for slave and servant. Brutal treatment of any slave, whether Hebrew or heathen, secures his immediate liberty.
Jewish law required that a slave could go free in the seventh year of service (Exodus 21:2), although his family would not be freed; although if he came into servitude with a wife, that wife would also be freed. The slave could, however, indicate that they preferred bondage to freedom. Every fiftieth year (the "Jubilee"), the slaves with their families would be emancipated, and property (except house property in a walled city) would revert to its original owner. (Lev XXV:8-55).
In Judaism, there is also the concept of an "Eved Canani", a non-Jewish slave, who is the property of a Jew, as is discussed in Vayikrah 25:46. This concept of slavery is nothing like slavery that occurred in America to the Negroes. The slaves were not kidnapped, but rather were purchased from themselves; i.e., they were offered a sum of money, or guaranteed shelter and food, in exchange for becoming slaves. The obligation to treat your slave humanely applies to both Jewish and non-Jewish have all necessary comforts, even at the expense of their master's own comfort (e.g., if there are not enough pillows for all, the master must provide his slaves with pillows before himself).
The reason the Torah allows you to sell your daughter into slavery is for her own benefit. Imagine you are poor and your daughter will starve. All you must do is sell her and she has shelter, food, and would probably receive and education. Than after certain number of years, she is automatically freed! The Torah allows this only because the scenario in which it is not allowed, and therefore, a girl dies of starvation because her family cannot feed her. Although, not practiced today, in those times, the idea of selling your daughter to become an indentured servant and then freed after 7 years in which time she is fed, and taken care of, was a plausible option.
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
A religious Jew who follows the Torah should not have any physical contact at all with women. You should not touch your wife during that time, and I would hope your wife would not take offense to such an inquiry by her own husband.
Read more about Shomer Negiah here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negiah
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
This is only when the Jewish people are in a halachicly valid state of Eretz Yisroel, which will only occur after the final stages of the Geula. When it is allowed again, that does not mean it is encouraged, but it is allowed. The purpose would sell himself into slavery, probably because he cannot afford food, etc. He would probably be treated in much more humane way, then he would by police as he sleeps on the street in his gentile nation, and if he becomes a righteous gentile or one who follows the seven laws he will be freed after 7 years to the best of my knowledge.
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
Only Jews are told not to work on the Sabbath. However the death penalty can only be carried out by a valid Sanhedrin, which is not around anymore, until the Geula. But since we are on the topic of our secular society’s morality and Jewish laws death penalty let us compare the two:
To be executed by a Jewish court, 2 witnesses must witness you commit an action, and while committing you must be warned, and while being warned you must acknowledge that you know what your doing is wrong, and you don’t care.
All that to be executed! Not only that, but if one judge of the Sanhedrin does not say that you are innocent (i.e. all say your guilty) you cannot be executed.
Compare that to the USA death penalty:
Since the DP was reinstated in 1976, 82 inmates have been freed from Death Row. That's 1 Death Row inmate found to be wrongfully convicted for every 7 executed. Source:
http://www.antideathpenalty.org/reasons.html
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
Both are abominations. Both are just as bad as eachother. In one you effect yourself only by eating a treif (unkosher) food, while the other, you effect someone else as well.
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Rashi explains that: [But this prohibition has already been stated (preceding verse). The meaning here is that] it is not fitting that he should approach, like “[When you offer up a blind [animal]…a lame or a sick one, is there nothing wrong?] Were you to offer it to your governor, [would he accept you or would he favor you? says the Lord of Hosts” (Malachi 1:8).
Thus, just as an animal with a defect is not fitting as an offering, neither is a person with a defect fit for presenting it.]
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
They all have free will, and the judge is G-d, not you, so they should not die at all. Actually it is against the Torah to kill them, since we are not in a period of time with a valid Jewish court, since we are in exile, as well as they did not have two witnesses who told him to stop in the action and he said he did not care. The later, wouldn’t matter since we have no court, and we must respect the rulings of the governments we live in as long as they do not prevent us as individuals from practicing the Torah.
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
The laws of Kosher apply only to eating. There is no problem with wearing (or using) an item which comes from any non-Kosher animal.
The only non-kosher items from which we are forbidden to derive any benefit are:
1) A mixture of milk and meat.
2) Chametz on Passover.
3) Grains or other seeds which were planted in a vineyard.
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
No, because again I will state that:
“They all have free will, and the judge is G-d, not you, so they should not die at all. Actually it is against the Torah to kill them, since we are not in a period of time with a valid Jewish court, since we are in exile, as well as they did not have two witnesses who told him to stop in the action and he said he did not care. The later, wouldn’t matter since we have no court, and we must respect the rulings of the governments we live in as long as they do not prevent us as individuals from practicing the Torah.
To be executed by a Jewish court, 2 witnesses must witness you commit an action, and while committing you must be warned, and while being warned you must acknowledge that you know what your doing is wrong, and you don’t care. All that to be executed! Not only that, but if one judge of the Sanhedrin does not say that you are innocent (i.e. all say your guilty) you cannot be executed.”
Therefore, they are not to be killed. And by the way, the laws that have to do with land, generally only are for land in Eretz Yisroe, not in Golus.
Have a great day, and I hope you raise your maturity level. Who knows surprise all, and reveal to us that asking these question was really in the hope of finding truth!
I seem to doubt it. But we can always have hope.
Peace.
_______________________________
Now to Ranma:
Shalom ranma1/2,
This would depend on the atheists as we have said many and many a time and you seem to understand but you ignore. Atheism is about a belief in god/s, it has nothing to do with morals.
But to show you atheistic societies.
You can look at Japan and sweden to see 2 primarly atheistic societies. With the excepetion of GODzilla they are pretty peaceful.
No, I don’t think you understand ranma1/2. There are no societies run by the morals of atheists, because we have a different moral outlook than animals do. One that in my humble opinion could not have developed by the theories you continue to present.
So what is wrong with animals? They seem to act in general more moral than humans do. They in general act out of the basic need to survive.
I never disputed that they may act more “Moral” in the sense of the word. But we have morals that are different, morals that are not naturally beneficial to us. An animals action will generally always be beneficial to him.
Well i would hate to have a predetermined purpose. That would essentially get rid of free will. Thats why i make my own purpose to life.
Regardless i see no way that a sense of purpose effects how we act anymore than anything else.
Free will is not discarded by having a purpose.
I said
You do not show why people of other religions are capable of being moral despite being atheists in your god.
It defintily is part of the topic if you are saying atheist are not able to be moral,
given your premise that atheist cant determine for themselves what is and isnt moral, then you must show why other religions "athiest to yours" are moral when your logic says they can not choose what is and isnt moral since they can not have a divine guidance.
I’m sorry, but you continue to not understand the points I am trying to get through to you. How you defined my logic is in the best sense of the word “defective”. All people have in their soul something that differentiates us from animals. People who are “atheists” to my religious beliefs have them as well, since all humans have souls with a specific definition of morality. I will continue to provide the example of how someone can understand that stealing is wrong, yet still steal. It is the same with murder. In criminal law, insanity may serve as a defense by excuse for a person's criminal acts. In most U.S. states, legal insanity is not sufficient to avoid a guilty verdict, rather to be not guilty by reason of insanity it must be demonstrated that the defendant could not tell the difference between right and wrong. In my belief, most people who murder either will know it is wrong, but commit the crime anyway, or will be insane and not understand it is wrong.
However, this far different than how animals, act, and it is indeed irrelevant if animals act morally superior or inferior to us in your own definition of morality. The relevant factor is that our morals are separate than the morals of the animal kingdom.
There is a lot of violence in the wild kingdom. Most animals must be continually watchful lest they be preyed upon and eaten. A large percentage of the young of many kinds of animals never make it to adulthood but fall prey to predators. Life in a well-ordered human society is not as dangerous as life in the wild kingdom. However, man can be violent and large numbers of people do die in wars. However, the above for animals is natural because it is a way of survival. The same could be said about humans but instead our violence comes from unnatural means that do not benefit us.
Humans ARE animals. We are not plants.
I disagree.
The Sabbath approaches. I hope you all have a great weekend.
