There was a time in which I would bash other religions for making no sense, that was in the days before I realized that Judaism makes no sense. Of course I was born into it and the guilt and mussar heaped on me forced me to stick with it. Now I have community obligations and social norms to adhere to, but there’s nothing like hearing someone try to explain why Judaism makes more sense than Christianity, in the meanwhile mocking other religions and the crazy things they do. Sure it makes more sense from the revelation perspective, but once you get to the tefillin vs. wafers and Jesus blood stuff it goes out the window. And so in the spirit of poking fun at religions I bring you The Oatmeal comic on how to suck at your religion.
Welcome back to the world of religion mocking.
Well said heshy
When viewed from the outside all religions sound like the ravings of a febrile toddler.
yes but some religions make more sense than others
care to elaborate?
well the common belief that there’s one God and the seven noahide laws which all societies believe are the norm is from Judaism. The idea of praying to Jesus is moronic. The Muslims have some sort of warped version of Judaism. Fact: the US constitution is based on the Jewish bible. Read John Locke.
Amazing how many stupid mistakes you can make in one paragraph. Here are a few…
1) Judaism did not invent monotheism
2) Belief in one God is only “common” in the places where the alternatives were forcibly drowned in a sea of blood.
3) The 7 Noachide laws aren’t even vaguely universal.
4) Punishing thieves and murderers goes back long before Adonai was even in diapers.
5) The idea of praying to Dead Jew on a Stick is no more ridiculous than the idea that there’s just one God, that there are any Gods, that the superstitions of a bunch of Bronze Age sheep-shaggers are Infallible Holy Truth, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
6) The Muslims would say the Jews perverted and corrupted their own holy books to suit themselves. At least we can be pretty sure the Quran was written by Mohammed. We know the Torah has more dotted lines than a European Royal Family tree.
Doesn’t mean the Quran is true, but yidden who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
7) The Constitution wasn’t even vaguely based on the Bible. The idea of a bicameral representative democracy isn’t anywhere in toireh. Theocracy. Monarchy. Tribalism. Nothing within a light year of a republic.
8) The only place the Constitution even mentions religion is to say “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. Absolutely 100% against toireh which has huge lists of things that only shomer mitzvah frum Jews can be entrusted with.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Your ramblings are full of little round things like goats leave behind.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
duh.
That comes from the Torah?
Get real.
Torah demands theocracy or a theocratic monarchy. The idea of freedom of religion for all and all religions on an equal footing is as far from kosher as bacon cheeseburgers made from strangled pigs.
“Dead Jew on a Stick”!!! Can I order that deep fried at the local County Fair ? That’s pure genius, that is. Thanks, Nuran. I really needed the laugh tonight.
Just wait. I’m sure it will be at the Texas State Fair next year.
It’s amazing how many abysmally ignorant mistakes you can make in one paragraph, anon
Fact: the US constitution is based on the Jewish bible.
That’s hilarious.
Read the two treatises of government by John Locke. Locke’s philosophy was used by the founding fathers.
This proves it to me. If John Locke thinks the Torah makes sense, and the founding fathers of the US of A think that Locke made sense, then that is pretty irrefutable evidence that the Torah is true and makes much more sense than any other religion. Prior to this, I was unsure. But now, I’m convinced. Anon is correct.
A. Nuran, however, must be wrong since he said that “bacon cheeseburgers made from strangled pigs” are kosher — and although he might be right (if you apply the heter kiruv), he said this during the 9 days — and everyone knows that we go vegetarian to commemorate the destruction of the vegetarian-inspiring beis hamikdash. So he’s wrong. The other reason he’s wrong is ‘cuz he comes across as being smart — and that means he’s hiding the fact that he’s wrong. Smart people do that all the time.
I bet sacrificing and standing around while burning the bits set aside for Hashem day in and day out would turn you vegetarian after a while. The blood. The grease. The noise. The smell. The filth. The frightened animals with all their noise and smell and filth. The P.I.T.A. worshipers – No, you can’t sacrifice a donkey instead of a bullock. And those aren’t pigeons. One of them’s a crow, and the other’s a hummingbird. Now get to the back of the line! Hey! Your donkey just ate the sack of meal the next guy was going to offer up!
I have. Locke was wrong.
Actually even Hindus believe in one God, the idols we worship are the different aspects of the same being, and we are definitely not influenced by Judaism. A little more research next time maybe?
That’s the current pravda. Indian religion has been and is all over the place in its long history. Pantheists, monists, monotheists, animists, atheists, you name it. It’s only in the post-Mughal, post-Portuguese, post-British years that this wide variety of beliefs has been whittled down to “We’re really all monotheists just like the people who conquered us. Always were. Always will be.” Stockholm Syndrome. Slave identifying with the Master. Call it what you want.
Nope.. Been there for a long time.. Mentioned in the Vedas and the Upanishads.. No Stockholm Syndrome here.. So please, as I said, a little more research please.. Btw.. My main point was that Hinduism is far from being influenced by Judaism..
“yes but some religions make more sense than others”
Yes, but some science-fiction movies make more sense than others.
True. Pastafarianism makes a lot more sense than most religions. The idea that we were created by a not-very-bright God has a lot more evidence than most theology.
Personally, I think Judaism makes the most sense because of the Talmud. Most other religions boil down to “because I said so”; ours is the only one where everything a Rabbi tells you to do has to be derived logically from first principles, and you are allowed – nay, expected – to ask him to prove it.
Christian Canon Law, the schools of Muslim jurisprudence, so on and so forth all do the same thing. Talmud scholars have nothing on Jesuits or a Hanafi legal eagle.
Eventually it all comes down to “Believe or we’ll torture and kill you”, even Judaism. Eventually you get to things that you just have to believe or God will do terrible things to you. You can argue with your rabbi about the minutia of interpretation, but if you question the accuracy or legitimacy or Torah, monotheism, the authority of Chazal or the authority of gedolim with Daas Torah in the right sects you find that “proof from first principles” turns into “shut up and obey, you vile aporikos”.
Judaism isn’t any different than any other religion in this regard. We’re just really good at arguing.
I can and do question these things. What’s your point?
13 Principles? Talmud says you will lose your place in the world to come if you deny or question central points of dogma? Forbidden to listen to the words of aporikosim?
Any of these sound familiar?
” Talmud scholars have nothing on Jesuits or a Hanafi legal eagle.”
Just curious, what makes you say that?
They’re excellent at what they do. Sharp. Knowledgeable. Incisive. They aren’t better at it than Jewish scholars, but they aren’t worse.
so why do you say they have nothing on them?
> you are allowed – nay, expected – to ask him to prove it.
Not any more. Daas Torah means never having to justify your decisions.
I find it hard to believe that G-d is inside a little cookie that you get at communion.
But he reads the little fortune cookie notes we put in the kotel. And He wants you to tie your left shoe before your right shoe.
But yah, I agree, eating a TamTam does not get you closer to God unless there is a heap of chopped liver on that TamTam.
Do you find it impossible to believe that God could ever not be wholly separate from our world? That we could ever not be divided from him by our physical and time-bound nature? Is it possible that God could ever willingly, and for our sake, enter time and space to share our humanity rather than watching our pathetic little lives and sufferings from the vast distance of ephemeral eternity?
Is it possible, that having done this once, he could leave us with a “portkey” (to use Harry Potter speak) that keeps open the connection between Heaven and Earth, so that man (a physical being) can physically connect with God this side of death?
Whether you believe it or not, it’s no more ridiculous than any other religious teaching and a lot more appealing than many.
I think that both rob and ‘anon’ (above) are stating something very profound: they totally think that their religion makes perfect sense while every other religion (including yours) is totally ridiculous, foolish, and downright stupid. The Dunning–Kruger effect explains this well.
Don’t be offended if they think your religion is foolish. I think most people believe their own religion makes sense and others are dumb. Most people are dumb. Think of it this way — 50% of the population has an IQ under 100, and even those with above average IQs are pretty stupid too. I just look at the numbers. There are billions of people who are totally whacked out believing in some nonsense about a guy rising from the dead, a prophet who ascended to heaven, or some pantheon of gods shtuping or fighting with each other. And there are a couple of us who believe in our little stories. Although, the more I speak to the people in my shul, the smaller my belief circle gets — since half of them are whack too.
Now, I will say that my understanding of religion makes more sense than anyone else’s and that’s a fact I can’t prove, but never felt the need to. But rob and anon are totally off base when they suggested that their religion makes sense more than anyone else’s. The only issue, of course, is that I think I share their beliefs — but they are wrong, of course. I’m right. It’s that simple. Pass the tam tams. yum.
When you put it that way, your argument is irrefutable.
Dear Mom,
I’ll give you another irrefutable proof: Exhibit A. This video — which proves there is a Muslim version of frum satire too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHpd2T7mi5c
I guess we are both wrong about our religions.
He’s got a point.
“Error has no rights.”
–Leo XIII
“What is ‘truth’?”
–Pontius Pilate
> I find it hard to believe that G-d is inside a little cookie that you get at communion.
God isn’t “inside” communion wafers. The consecrated wafer becomes the flesh of Christ while retaining the physical aspect of a wafer. Which is creepily cannibalistic, but no harder to believe than that every time something in Tanach or the gemara contradicts reality, it was really talking about something in the mystical realm, or that eating chometz on Pesach will have a negative effect on your neshama.
Ritual cannibalism has a long history in magic and religion. Even vegetarians say “You are what you eat” which means the tofu-munchers are bland, colorless and tasteless 😉
If you think communion is “ritual cannibalism” you don’t know much about communion. Or cannibalism. Or ritual.
It is, and I do. “Take, eat for this is my body.” According to Catholic dogma the bread actually turns into Yeshua ben Miriam’s body and the wine into his blood. By eating them you take on what he is.
In cultures which practice cannibalism as a magical ritual it’s very much the same. You eat someone and take on his power.
No, you don’t “take on what he is.” You don’t magically acquire the traits/characteristics/power of Jesus by “eating” him a la ritual cannabalism. I know you think because you read some paragraph about something in some comparative religion book (or wikipedia) you can now pontificate on it, but the Eucharist is the most profound, essential, and yet mysterious core of Catholicism and it does not involve “ritual cannabalism.”
As you know, from your extensive reading, at every Mass there is a reading from (in order) the OT, the psalms, the epistles of Paul, and finally the Gospel. They are co-ordinated to reflect the same themes. Today in the Gospel we heard about Jesus feeding the 5,000 with a few loaves of bread and three fish. It’s about the abundant, full-to-overflowing, never-growing-smaller-no-matter-how-many-share-it, there-for-everybody love of God. The OT reading was from 2nd Kings — the story of Elisha feeding the masses with a few loaves of bread which is very similar and has the same point. We also have the “foreshadowing” story of God feeding the Israelites with manna, — the “bread of heaven.”
The Eucharist symbolizes the fact that, for us, Jesus himself is the “bread of heaven” that feeds, not our bodies like the Israelites in the desert, but our souls.
Jesus said: “I am the bread of life. He who eats of me, shall not hunger.” (Hopefully you get that metaphor — he’s not talking about how you feel when you miss a meal.)
When the little kids (7 years old) receive their First Communion, they all stand up together and sing this very simple song. If a 7 year old can get the meaning, you probably can too:
“Jesus, you are Bread for us.
Jesus, you are Life for us.
In your gift of Eucharist,
We find Love.”
According to your own Church it’s literally the body and blood of Jesus. It’s not “symbolic” anything. You don’t become a god. But you take his Presence into your body just like the air you breathe or the water you drink.
That’s ritual cannibalism at its most basic.
It’s certainly NOT “literally” the boody and blood of Jesus. The most extreme transubstantialism does not say this. If it were, it would look like meat and blood. It looks like bread and wine because it IS bread and wine. Jesus said “I am the bread of life” not “I am the pot roast of life.” So we can dispense with the word “literal.”
Now we are left with the word “symbolic.” Yes, it is true that it is not merely “symbolic” (I never never said it was, quite the opposite) because “symbolic” means “this thing stands for (but has no actual relationship to) that thing.” The relationship between the symbolic thing and the real thing occurs ony in your mind. I could hold up a U.S. flag and say “this flag stands for American imperialism and I will now show my disdain for American imperialism by burninging it” and that would be symbolic. But there is no actual relationship between the flag and America other than that the flag is a symbol. The Supreme Court recognizes that when you burn the flag, you do nothing to America. Likewise, you can wrap yourself in the flag, kiss the flag, genuflect to the flag, or whatever else you feel like, and America has done nothing for you.
The Eucharist is not “symbolic” because it is a sacrament — this is a concept that does not occur in Judaism (or most of Protestantism, for that matter). In a sacrament (any sacrament) the actual power of God is believed to be acting in the actual moment to effect an actual change. So, for example, when you are baptized, you are (believed by Catholics to be) actually changed by the sacrament. When the host is consecrated, it is (believed to be) actually changed and those who receive it are actually changed.
You appear to have made some minimal effort to understand Islam, yet it seems to be a point of pride of you with you to toss off completely ignorant comments about Christianity (“dead Jew on a stick” “ritual cannibalism”) that I guess are supposed to show your “wit” combined with your disgust. It’s fine to dislike and loathe any religion you want, but it seems to me that it is intellectually dishonest to do so when your level of understanding is below what would be obtained by reading “Catholicism for dummies.”
Sacramentalism is a concept that is essential to Catholicism. You can make a minimal effort to grasp it, or not, but your anti-Catholic sarcasm will continue to be wide-of-the-mark until you do. You will be able to make much cleverer and funnier remarks when you actually know something.
Everything is silly or even weird when viewed from the outside.
When viewed from the inside, many things make sense. Of course, Jews are world champions at deciding that they *know* what Judaism is, before they have even seriously thought about it.
Judaism makes perfect sense, to me. But to get there requires assuming that there is a G-d, that the Torah is His Word, and that everything in our world can be understood. All of these (except perhaps the last) are logically unprovable. Which means that we are all free to choose to either be servants of G-d, or “frei” (free).
And I think the Torah itself not only acknowledges this choice, but it revels in it. I am free to serve G-d. Nuran is free to heap scorn and mockery on me for doing it.
If you apply Hitchens’ Razor you have to do it equally.
“What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”
I mock your complete ignorance of many things which you blithely assume. I scorn the way you assume your conclusions and fall into exactly the same mistakes you condemn in others.
Over on matzav.com there is an article by Rabbi Yehuda Spitz on the halachot of showering during the Nine Days.
One commenter (Tzvi) blithely reports that:
“Israelis (myself included) have a hetter not to shower because they only take a shower likovod Shabbos on Friday, and if they miss one Friday, they’ll take the next Friday- so during the year, they only take once a week, or once in two weeks, so 9 days same.”.
This, in turn, elicited the retort of: “There is absolutely nothing worse in this world than riding the Jerusalem Light Railway during the Nine Days”!
Heshy Fried said: “Judaism makes no sense.”
How can a giyoret who swore before Beth Din to obey the entire Torah justify being married to a Jew who said “Judaism makes no sense” before thousands of people on the internet?
The actual manuscript said “My adherence to Judaism is based on a deep seated emotional connection to Hashem, but if you only applied strict logic, many rational people could conclude that Judaism makes no sense.” However the text was edited by Artscroll.
Zelig, dissing a man’s wife is really scummy. Sorry, let me rephrase that. I mean: Zelig, you are scum.
Heshy is being honest when he says that the source of his belief is based on a deep-seated emotional connection. In fact, he’s being more honest than most believers. Ultimately, the fundamental assumptions cannot be proved rationally. You have to take some things on faith. Faith is an emotional process, not a rational one.
And lay off his wife. That sort of thing is lower than whale dung.
posted by Zelig July 25, 2012 at 8:37 PM
Heshy Fried said: “Judaism makes no sense.”
How can a giyoret who swore before Beth Din to obey the entire Torah justify being married to a Jew who said “Judaism makes no sense” before thousands of people on the internet?
Let me take this in reverse order. If you are reading Frum Satire, I assume you have some idea of the concept of “frum” whether or not you yourself are. A rather clear halacha states that one may not embarass a convert even to seven generations after the conversion. I did not know that Mrs. Fried was a convert (assuming this post is true) until reading this. Where do you get the right to disclose this information publicly?
Next, should you happen to stumble across a volume of the Talmud, take a look at Avot and see what it says about embarassing someone in public. Further, did you not learn anything on Tisha B’Av? This is a perfect example of “sinas chinum.” If you look at the world in general, there are much more controversial people than Heshy Fried, say Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews. But nobody attacks their wives!
Finally, maybe you have some difficulty both with comprehending what is written here as well as Jewish philosophy. Grab a Chumash and see where it says, “These are the laws and the statutes” that the Lord has given you. If you also read the commentaries the question arises as to what is the difference between a law (“mishpat”) and a statute (“chok”). The answer is that for a law, Hashem has given you a reason but for a statute he hasn’t. You have to follow it on faith.
So, tateleh, you are like the guy who says that he will follow the prohibition against eating pig because pork is bad for your health whereas Heshy Fried is the person who says that there was no reason given for not eating pork, that it makes no sense, but I will follow it anyway because Hashem commanded it. Who has the greater schar? If you don’t know the answer, keep your mouth and your computer shut.
Let me answer your other jackass post:
How can a person who believes that be trusted to handle kosher food?
Unfortunately, it’s you who we should not trust to handle kosher food given your abysmally poor knowledge of Hilchoth Kashruth. Lots of kosher food is handled by gentiles. Look at any restaurant in Borough Park and count the Indians and Mexicans working there. As long as there is supervision and the halachos are followed (e.g. bishul yisroel), it doesn’t matter what they believe in and they certainly don’t believe in Judaism.
I have a suggestion for you: apologize or get off this website.
Heshy Fried said: “Judaism makes no sense.”
How cana person who believes that be trusted to handle kosher food?
Easily. If he know the rules, follows them and is an honest man he can be trusted to do the job.
Any Private in any Army does a thousand things every day which make no sense. He knows they make no sense. But he does them anyway because those are the rules he lives by. Same thing but with fewer bullets.
Bad example. Kosher is a chok.
I saw heshy behind the kitchen table restaurant in mountain view davening mincha. I wonder how many people in silicon valley daven mincha every day but still show up to an O shul on shobbos morning.
And let’s face facts. You can’t “prove” Judaism from first principles, physical and historical evidence or any of the ways we demonstrate any subject outside of religion. It always comes down to something that you accept because of unprovable, emotional, personal reasons. The liars who run Aish or the Creation Research Institute make fools of themselves when they try to.
I hope I’m not putting words in Heshy’s mouth here, but that’s how it works. He understands that the bedrock on which his faith rests is a deep emotional connection and belief which can be experienced but not analyzed. That’s how it always works for intelligent religious people who are honest with themselves. It isn’t a flaw. It’s a sign of self-awareness.