Scientific Methods Show Multiple Authorship of the Bible

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=137500077

Is Gravity Supernatural?

I noticed someone write the following:

"Now, it is true that even today, we don't really understand what magnetism, or gravity for that matter, actually is. We can measure and describe how it works, but we still don't know what it fundamentally is. Nevertheless, we are fully confident that it is a natural, rather than supernatural, phenomenon. "

This doesn't make much sense to me. Ultimately we can't define supernatural vs. natural because we don't even know what 'natural' is, never mind supernatural. What are strings made of? God? How does gravity ultimately work? Because God makes it work? Maybe, or maybe it's the FSM. So what does it mean to say that we are fully confident that gravity is a natural, rather than supernatural, phenomenon? It's a meaningless statement.

As for segulos, there's no real difference between a segulah and the rest of religion. That's pretty obvious.

Who really respects Chazal?

Fundie: Chazal knew everything, they could have built a spaceship had they wanted.

Normal Person: Don't be stupid of course they couldn't.

Fundie: How dare you disrespect Chazal!

I need to keep reminding myself that the Chareidim (or even the Orthodox) are not the people who really respect Chazal. Chazal were sensible, keen observers of the reality around them, and were not afraid to make sweeping changes to their religion to keep it real and relevant. Chazal believed in TMS (and other strange things) because back then that was normal. There was no evidence against it. To say TMS has been disproven no more disrespects Chazal than saying they couldn't have built a spaceship. I'm not going to go so far as to say 'If Chazal were alive today they would believe in the DH' because the premise of such a statement makes no sense. But we have really no idea what Chazal would have done had good evidence of multiple authorship presented itself.

Weiner vs Tropper

Weiner: Reform
Tropper: Chareidi

Weiner: Facebook flirting
Tropper: Forced would be converts to have sex with him/others

Weiner: 'I made a terrible mistake and deeply regret it'
Tropper: Admitted no wrongdoing and expressed regret for “what has appeared to be conduct not within our significant laws of modesty'

Weiner: Future uncertain
Tropper: Hosted by the Gedolim

Avi Shafran: So Much for the Mesorah

"Even many of the most famous tales may be fictions. (Stories don’t become more factual with repetition)."

http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/05/31/french-connection/

Holocaust Denial, Ancient Israel Denial and Documentary Hypothesis Denial

What's the difference between Holocaust Denial, Ancient Israel Denial and Documentary Hypothesis Denial?

The answer is not as much as you might think. In general, there are numerous ways to ascertain what happened in the past. There are fields of science, archeology, linguistics etc etc all of which can be brought to bear on the question of history.

Of course for something as recent as the Holocaust, you hardly need to resort to science, you have thousand of eye witnesses, documents, film footage etc etc. Though that doesn't stop many people from disbelieving it happened (people are very gullible).

But when it comes to more ancient history, such as the state of Ancient Israel, it becomes harder to prove. Do we have absolute proof that there was a Temple in Jerusalem? Do we have absolute proof that King David had a kingdom? Of course not. But we have rational analysis, ancient texts, archeology etc etc, and the global academic non-biased consensus is that indeed there was a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and a Jewish state in Israel (though likely not as Chazal described it).

How can the Arabs deny such a thing? Very simple. They have emunah that there was no Temple, no Jewish State, and archeology or whatever else isn't going to trump their emunah, despite the fact that the global academic consensus is that there was a Temple and a State. Likewise Orthodox Jews have emunah that the Bible was complete by 1200 BCE, and no amount of archeology, linguistics or other evidence is going to sway them.

Is it acceptable to claim historical facts based on faith? Of course not. If it was, then we would have no leg to stand on vis-a-vis the Holocaust and Temple deniers. But we do have a leg to stand on, because a rational analysis of all the fact shows that there was a Holocaust, there was a Temple, and there was a Compilation of Biblical Texts.

Is the Documentary Hypothesis as proven as the Holocaust? Of course not. But the method and the approach is what is important. Either you submit to rational analysis, or you studiously ignore the evidence and maintain your biased faith.

Now faith might be fine in some cases, for example faith in the future (optimism and hope), or faith that God has an ultimate plan, but faith has no role in determining historical, physical fact.

People who resort to historical and scientific facts and other evidence based approaches when it comes to debates about Israel, but quite happily ignore the entire field of Biblical Criticism and global academic consensus when it comes to TMS, are simply intellectually dishonest hypocrites.

Why (East) Jerusalem Doesn't Matter

East Jerusalem is not important. It's not the historical site of Jerusalem (except maybe the edge of Silwan), nobody goes there, and if it will seal the (Peace) deal then we should give it up. Of course if there's no deal to be had, then there's no point in giving up anything at all, in fact it would be counterproductive. But if there can be a deal, and East Jerusalem is the sticking point, then give it up immediately. Build a big wall and we're done. Clearly this would exclude the Jewish Quarter and Kotel Plaza, I don't think anyone would expect that to be given up. And there would have to be some kind of 'arrangement' for the Temple Mount. But in principle the city can be divided. I just don't get the whole 'Jerusalem can never be divided' thing. Sounds like a bunch of stupid rhetoric to me.