Video: Why Does Evil Exist?

In this brief video, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz tells the Washington Post not to blame God for the evil committed by humans.

 

Comments

[Mike]

I've always had great respect for Rabbi Seinsaltz- from what I've seen of him, he represents the values of Judaism that have been abandoned in the wake of the Ultra-Orthodox radicalization of religous Jewry. I think many people who ask "how could a good God commit such atrocities?" should listen to the Rabbi's argument. Humans have free will- it can be used for positive or desructive purposes. And rather than destroying that free will, the Haredi approach, it is Rabbis like this that advocate using it in a manner beneficial to society. Thanks for the post Shamrya.

[Jeff]

I feel very differently, Mike. The concept of free will can just as easily be argued against - and indeed, if mystical traditions such as Hasidism are correct, ultimately there is nothing but "God" and it becomes difficult to make room for free will. Free will, in my opinion, is just another tool in their box, something they can use to try to bolster a flagging belief system.

We're like a child on a carousel, going round and round. We become dizzy and disoriented, and reach out for something to steady ourselves, but the only thing within reach is the brass ring. We think it will provide security, but it breaks away in our hand. The ring represents free will. (That is my deep teaching for the day.)

Also, we fear the suffering of the other, so we invent arbitrary systems of rules and convince ourselves that the other guy broke one or more of them, and that if we're careful not to break them, we won't suffer. Blaming the victim - it's the most quintessentially human thing we do.

I'm not at all a fan of R. Steinsaltz, and never have been, dating from my first exposure to him some years ago. I find him condescending at best, a dense (in the sense of being difficult to plod through, not stupid) writer and a boring speaker (to be fair, he acknowledges the latter). I don't really get the attraction many Jews seem to feel for him; I suspect it's something they talk themselves into - but there's no one in Judaism who's ever moved or impressed me as a spiritual teacher. The only guy who ever really did anything for me along those lines was the Dalai Lama.

The last time I said something like this here about Steinsaltz, our friend ca (chabadnik attorney) told me I say these things because I'm trying to justify my unobservant lifestyle. Shmarya, does he still come around here, under a different moniker? I know he changed it once before.

[Adam Neira]

Violence is not innate from birth. All behaviour is a result of mindset and setting. People make choices based on the awareness they have at the time and also how well they exercise their free will. The most peaceful of people can be made to commit acts of violence under the "right" circumstances. i.e. The 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. The promise of the Redemption and Ganeden is that violence will be eradicated from the realm of human affairs. This means that all acts of violence including child sexual abuse, rape, murder, terrorism and war will be eventually eradicated on Planet Earth. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz is one of the wisest people alive on the Planet at this time. The interesting question right now is..."Will the Jewish people allow a real Sanhedrin to be formed to lead them in the coming years ?"

[Jeff]

You see, people, this is what Neira does. He litters these comment threads with his insane remarks about prophecy, the Messianic Age, how much will you pay him to prove God exists, etc., until someone challenges him (although it isn't usually Shmarya, as it was the other day). He reacts badly, impugns the challenger's motives, asks irrelevant questions ("Do you believe in the Thirteen Articles of Faith?") often threatens him with divine retribution (and sometimes physical violence) - but then stays away for a day or two or three. He then tests the water by posting one comment that seems semi-coherent. If no one challenges him on that one, he leaves another, then a couple more... within a few days, he's back to business as usual.

His presence here is the only thing about which Shmarya and I seriously disagree.

[Adam Neira]

I forgot to mention...

Happy Independence Day to the State of Israel !

Although Shmarya may just post something about this in the next few hours. It's only 7:45 am on the East Coast of the USA after all.

[Mike S.]

most straightforward means of resolving the dilemma: admitting that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of god.

[Dovid]

God merged a horse and an awning and made a zebra.

[Dovid]

The Rabbi is steering clear of the billion dollar enigma. If god knows the future, how can we have free will.

He doesn't prove anything; he just says that in order for us to live normal, we Must believe in free will. OK, so what else.

[jancsibacsi]

As i wrote here before many times religion is all a mind game,if you let youre guard down youre in deep dooodooo.

[Bill]

Meet Joe Black?

[Jeff]

if you let youre guard down youre in deep dooodooo.

Maybe we should change the name to Deep Doodooism. It does almost rhyme.

[Jeff]

You know, stuff like this reminds me of that scene in Hannah and her Sisters in which Woody Allen decides to convert to Catholicism and his parents are distraught. He tries to tell them he's wrestling with questions of ultimate meaning, and asks his father if he wants to know why evil exists, using the Nazis as an illustration, and his father replies:

"How the hell do I know why there were Nazis? I don't even know how the can opener works!"

[Garnel Ironheart]

This is the main point: quite often people relate to God the way a child relates to his parents. The child wants rewards and treats but doesn't necessarily want to exhibit the good behaviour the parent requests in return. The child cannot comprehend that there is anything in the universe beyond his comprehension so when his parents act in a way that doesn't make sense to him he doesn't conclude that he doesn't understand but that they're acting in a nonsensical fashion.
Same thing with God. We want all the rewards and a perfect world provided by Him but Heaven forbid He ask us for anything in return. Who does He think He is to do that?
That the universe might be working along a complex plan far beyond our comprehension is incomprehensible to some. They respond by declaring that there is no plan. That's how they handle their limited understanding of things to avoid admitting they are limited at all.
Hence Jeff's recurrent rantings about Rav Steinsaltz. Because he can't understand him, therefore the Rav is of no value. Might Jeff be the deficient one?

[Yochanan Lavie]

Jews have to believe in free will. They have no choice. (/humor)

[Dave]

Garnel, excellent post.

[Mike]

@ Jeff:

The way I look at it is that the Rabbis of today have taken that concept out of Judaism entirely. Rabbis will drug their followers and make them fear the wrath of God to such an extent that a lot of Jews who say they believe in free will don't actually have it. Looking beyond Steinsaltz himself, if you don't find him that interesting or inspiring, I think that the message he is giving is important for Jews and for Judaism.

I'm not a big fan of the whole "freedom is being subservient to God" shpiel. I think that is essentially a paradoxical statement at best. The way I look at this Steinsaltz' approach is that for him- and for me- Judaism is about incorporating a level of respect and holiness into my humanity. This doesn't mean discarding my right to do as I choose, nor does it mean sacrificing my humane response to things.
It means focusing on how to improve my social interactions and focus on the facets of my behavior and think about how I can improve upon them.

The Haredim seek to do the very opposite. They want to take the human part of themselves and eradicate it. That approach to me is the very opposite of what Judaism should be about, which is why I believe Steinsaltz' message is important.

[Jeff]

Garnel, excellent post.

Posted by: Dave | April 26, 2012 at 10:04 AM

No, Dave, it isn't. Theologically, it's pretty simplistic, the sort of thing a freshman in Religious Studies could easily deconstruct.

As for the bit about me -

I didn't say I don't understand Steinsaltz, Garnel; I said I disagree with him and don't care for him. I think that was pretty obvious.

Every time I try to give you the benefit of the doubt. Seriously - every time. I've tried to get along with you - I've validated a couple of things you've said in recent months by way of a peace offering - but you make it impossible, and you really don't seem to get that. I've wondered at times if you aren't two people posting under one name, because you exhibit a significant fluctuation in your behavior. I've said this to you on a few occasions - sometimes you make sense, and sometimes you just come off as ridiculous, and again, I think you just don't see it.

Oh, and recurrent rantings? I've mentioned him twice, and neither was a rant. In fact, you often accuse me of ranting, and by "ranting", you obviously mean something along the line of histrionics, because you've also told me a few times to go back on my meds. You seem to have a need to dismiss me, to place my opinions in a folder marked "May be Safely Disregarded".

You obviously have a problem with me that you don't have with anyone else here, and it's demonstrably incongruent with the tone and consistency of my input.

[jancsibacsi]

Mike- Haredim seek to do the very opposite. They want to take the human part of themselves and eradicate it.
That is so true i tought of it the same way,they want to destroy the nature in the person and be a zombie not to think for themselfs.

[Jeff]

@Mike: I'm not a big fan of the whole "freedom is being subservient to God" shpiel. I think that is essentially a paradoxical statement at best.

Mmm, yeah. It's an exercise in mental gymnastics. The Christian fundies do it as well.

Holiness - eh, what can I say? It's a term that has no real meaning for me. I suppose that is because, as we've just learned, I am "deficient".

Anyway, if it works for you, that's fine, and if you resonate with Steinsaltz, that's fine as well. I certainly don't want to take it away from you.

[ah-pee-chorus]

quite often people relate to God the way a child relates to his parents. Posted by: Garnel Ironheart

thats true, but not in the way you analogized. most theists operate on the intellectual level of a child. they long for a sky-daddy who really really loves them and cares about them. they want sky-daddy to make everything right and fair. sky-daddy gives them eternal life. and will punish all who wrong them if even if they cant see it. sky daddy will eventually allow them to reconnect with dead relatives. isnt he just great?
garnels analogy, used often by the apologist crowd is just infantile. while a child may not have a brain mature enough to understand why he shouldnt touch a hot stove, or to process and analyze the risks associated with certain behavior, there are non-children who can. the negative implications of a childs poor judgement may be observed and tested repeatedly. to compare that to saying that we must be too stupid to understand the ways of a god we cant even show to exist, but we should follow a book someone claimed was written by him is idiotic.
but if that reasoning is satisfying, why not apply it to the invisible black unicorn? he says you should bang your head against a tree thrice daily to gain many rewards in your eternal life at the center of the earth. remember....youre not supposed to understand, youre just a child here and the IBU is your all-knowing daddy.

Might Jeff be the deficient one?

no.

[jancsibacsi]

Everything exists in a humans head evil shmievel, its all a fabrication of the imagination:)

[ah-pee-chorus]

its always both amusing and sad to see rabbis trying to explain evil. they are forced to make such fools of themselves in order to try to twist some justification of it into their "god is perfect and infallible and just and merciful" definition. it just doesnt work.
god himself is a huge failure if this is the best world he could come up with. and since that is logically impossible by the usual definition of god, he cant exist.
there CANNOT be both free will, and hashgacha pratit. these are 2 contradictory terms both necessary to the jewish theological picture. either free will is an illusion in which god doesnt permit a persons intended outcome when he sees fit, or innocent, undeserving people are subject to the whims of evil peoples desires. that would make the belief that ones fate is written on rosh hashanah impossible.

[ah-pee-chorus]

steinzalts argument is just a pitiful plea.
he starts by saying that we "have" to believe in free will because without it he feels life would have no sense or purpose.
thats all you got, rabbi?
since it makes you feel better it must be true?

[mimi]

Considering we humans are just violent chimps with clothing, I don't blame God in the least. We made him, we made him violent, just like us! Poor Guy, he never had a chance.

As far as the Bible goes, God had every opportunity to make us the way he saw fit, he didn't choose perfection-so how is it not His fault that we can be imperfect?

[Jeff]

god himself is a huge failure if this is the best world he could come up with.

Well, I certainly think so, but you know - breaking of the vessels, and all.

there CANNOT be both free will, and hashgacha pratit

Yeah, the problem is that people don't really think about it, and most aren't familiar with the parameters of the argument, and when they are - they have to compartmentalize HUGELY.

Two or three years ago, I was talking to a religion and philosophy scholar I know, a specialist in ethics. He teaches at Brown but Harvard used to have him come up here and teach a lot as well. We had just both attended a talk by a visiting scholar, and something had been mentioned along the lines of theodicy that didn't satisfy me, and we were talking about it as we left the building, and he said something to me that comes to mind quite often: "It's the problem of evil. It simply will not go away." It was a simple statement, of course, but what made an impression upon me was that this man was getting on in years, nearing retirement age (I think he has retired now, and is Professor Emeritus), and after a lifetime of studying philosophy and religion and struggling with all of the arguments put forth by the greatest minds our sorry species has managed to produce - he still felt that evil was a problem that no one had managed to explain satisfactorily.

Of course, this man is a gentile, so I realize he isn't operating at the madrega of our heilige gedoylim, but I'm operating at such a low level myself that he's managed to impress me with his openness, sincerity and willingness to say, "I don't know." So when I hear these guys with their self-imposed mental straightjackets making their definitive pronouncements... well, you know, I just can't take them seriously, especially as I know they're swinging chickens over their heads.

But what can I say? As we've just learned, I'm deficient.

[anti-agenda arguments]

Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | April 26, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Your argument is a scarecrow. Of course, one cannot prove the existence of g-d by claiming that g-d's actions are incomprehensible. Garnel is attempting a defense against an implied proof against g-d: If god exists and is, as assumed (in judaism) benevolent and omnipotent, how can bad things happen to good people?

[Dovid]

"Nature", drives a skunk to spray in order to protect himself, or, a deer to run away from danger, or an infant to cry when hungry.
So too, "Nature" instills in us a feeling of a higher power, in order to prevent us from doing mischief.

[Dovid]

Nature is acting to us as teacher in a classroom, telling the students that there is a very strict principal down the hallway.
Through-out the ages, all peoples have all believed in the idea of a God.

[Jeff]

since it makes you feel better it must be true?

There's the basis of eighty, ninety percent of Western theology right there.

In all my years of making my way painfully through the miasma of the world's faith traditions, this explanation of the origin of religion by Professor Oswalt is at once the most insightful and succinct I've come across:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w

[ah-pee-chorus]

anti-agenda arguments -

and you just strawmanned my post. i wasnt attacking an argument that incomprehensibility is proof of god. i was showing that his analogy is fallacious. i know what he was trying to defend. the problem is that his defense is 'childish' in more ways than one.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Nature is acting to us as teacher in a classroom, telling the students that there is a very strict principal down the hallway.
Through-out the ages, all peoples have all believed in the idea of a God.Posted by: Dovid

im not clear what your point is. are you saying that therefore belief in god is true and good?

nature used to teach people that there was a special god of the oceans who controlled the tides. and nature taught many that there must be a god of rain. and there were strict rules to appease those gods. since then, science has shown us why these occur and theyre remarkably predictable with no god needed. i guess nature in the hands of uneducated man isnt a very good teacher.... but science is.

|

[Bill]

Thanks the Oswalt clip, Jeff. Excellent.

[anti-agenda arguments]

Posted by: ah-pee-chorus:

I fail to understand, then, your argument: "[...] to compare that to saying that we must be too stupid to understand the ways of a god we cant even show to exist, but we should follow a book someone claimed was written by him is idiotic." Additionally, your attack that a parent's behavior to a child is easily understood to an unbiased observer, seems weak when an all-knowing god certainly comprehends many things that a human wouldn't. I certainly don't think Garnel's post answers the question fully because there are many things which occur that seem overwhelmingly obviously bad and undeserved; however, I think his point is valid.

[Jeff]

Isn't it?

[Jeff]

Thanks the Oswalt clip, Jeff. Excellent.

Posted by: Bill | April 26, 2012 at 01:54 PM

Isn't it? I think it's one of the most brilliant pieces of comedy I've ever come across - and, as Homer would say, "It's funny 'cause it's true!"

[Bill]

Summed it up very nicely. Saw him on Conan the other night but didn't see this side of him. How is it that comics (Woody Allen, Ricky Gervais ...) can hit the target in a way that philosophers and others can't even come close to doing?

[Dovid]

To apc

In order to to maintain the survival of this world, Nature instills into us certain feelings, (like the the belief in a God) that don't necessarily have to be true, but it does keep us going.

[ah-pee-chorus]

anti-agenda arguments -

what dont you get? his comparison was silly nonsense.

your attack that a parent's behavior to a child is easily understood to an unbiased observer, seems weak when an all-knowing god certainly comprehends many things that a human wouldn't.

we know parents exist and we can demonstrate their higher thinking, reasoning and risk assessment abilities. we dont know that there is anything referred to as god, and we dont know that a god would be all-knowing unless we limited our definition to such. and finally, even if we were to work under the assumption that he exists and is all-knowing, he might have no plan whatsoever , be evil, or view us as his ant-farm with no intercession whatsoever.
i hope you understand how unfulfilling answers like garnel are, especially when 'bolstered' by an analogy to child-parent to which there are so many differences.

[Jeff]

How is it that comics (Woody Allen, Ricky Gervais ...) can hit the target in a way that philosophers and others can't even come close to doing?

Posted by: Bill | April 26, 2012 at 02:21 PM

They're too serious/frightened/impressed with their own credentials. Impiety allows for significant insight. These guys don't dare allow themselves that liberty (although I think philosophers do; I think you mean theologians.)

I'm convinced a lot of it has to do with biological programming.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Jeff -

at least the prof. was honest. it reminds me of when i was about 21 and went to my rabbi with some of my questions regarding concepts and statements from the torah and gemarra which didnt make sense or werent true. he understood that while my lack of belief hadnt fully crystallized, i wasnt going to be appeased with non-answers. so rather than offering me silly apologetics he admitted that "for those who believe there are no questions, and for those who do not there are no answers."
i had more respect for him than i would have otherwise. i also loved the oswalt video. thanks.

[ah-pee-chorus]

In order to to maintain the survival of this world, Nature instills into us certain feelings, (like the the belief in a God) that don't necessarily have to be true, but it does keep us going.

Posted by: Dovid

we are definitely hard wired thru evolution to have certain feelings and thoughts. but while they must have been advantageous to our likelihood of passing on our DNA at some time, that doesnt necessarily make them good, let alone true. and it doesnt mean these are necessary currently to keep us going.
it might be more positive for the betterment of our species if certain ones disappeared, even if their origins were a positive. also, some positive traits carry with them negative implications. man wouldnt exist if males didnt have a biological desire to impregnate many women, even against their will. that doesnt make rape "good", though its basis was something "good" towards human survival. we are quite able to extend our species without resorting to or condoning rape. so if belief in god is not true, it might be a huge negative for man at this time. and it is. just look at religious delusional islamists who have many nuclear bombs in pakistan.

[Brian]

The reason that Jewish theology incorporates both freewill and hashgacha pratit, is that two wholly incompatible "versions" of God are presented in the writings of the Torah:

(1) Yahweh/El the anthropomorphic, emotional god(s) of J and E (2 deities rolled into one, but referred to in the singular from now on).
(2) the priestly, cosmic, non-anthropomorphic deity of P.

God Version (1) was not all-powerful (he didn't know where Adam and Eve were, he didn't know where Abel was), and Moses argued with him quite frequently to change his will, so God version (1) is internally consistent; he isn't all powerful, and human beings have free will.

God Version (2) is the impersonal deity that cannot be reasoned with, appears to be all powerful, and there are no writings authored by P that hint that humans had free will. So this version of God is also internally consistent- god is all powerful and we have no free will.

But when you combine (1) and (2), pretend that they were the same deity all along and try to tie up all the loose ends with rabbinic interpretation (i.e. exactly what happened) then you end up with the glaring logical fallacy that ah-pee-chours so eloquently laid out.

[Brian]

... i discovered during last week's torah reading that bats are birds, and insects have four legs.

It's a close competition between glaring scientific fallacies (such as the above) and the documentary hypothesis as to which-one-discredits-the-divine/mosaic-authorship-of-the-torah the most.

[anti-agenda arguments]

Dovid:
I have only now given this thought and may have a major fault in my reasoning, but I'm not sure I understand the evolutionary need for religion.Before people would've evolved into believing religion, certainly, the more powerful human would have the upper hand, but humans are clearly social creatures and that with the fact for necessary alliances to create shelter, gather food and other resources, and protect against other humans and animals would have already formed communities without religion.

[Bill]

Jeff, while no doubt true that "impiety leads to some of the greatest insights" I can't shake the notion I was raised with by my rebbeim that comics and the like are from the "moshav leitzim" and it was best to keep one's distance. Go know.

[Jeff]

for those who believe there are no questions, and for those who do not there are no answers

Yeah, I've heard of that one. It's one of the ways in which they protect themselves.

it might be more positive for the betterment of our species if certain ones disappeared, even if their origins were a positive.

I go back and forth on this one. On the whole, I think it would be better if religion were phased out, but then I encounter the believing masses. If one hangs out on blogs maintained by former Christians, fundies show up all the time to tell them, "If I didn't believe in God and fear hell, I'd be out there rapin', pillagin' and plunderin'!" In those moments, I think that perhaps we need to retain it if only to keep those people in line. Of course, we could just breed them out of the genome, which would be my preference.

Have you seen this website?

Fundies Say the Darndest Things!

[Dovid]

apc

If you run for Pres or Senate, you have my vote.

[Jeff]

I can't shake the notion I was raised with by my rebbeim that comics and the like are from the "moshav leitzim" and it was best to keep one's distance.

It's hard to overcome early indoctrination. Many people can't. You've already won more than half the battle.

[Jeff]

... i discovered during last week's torah reading that bats are birds, and insects have four legs.

A couple of years ago, when Shmarya's friend and mine, DK, had his blog The Kvetcher up and running, an Ohr Somayach rabbi by the name of Chaim Salenger came around one day and began spewing his fundie anti-evolution nonsense. He argued in favor of the Talmudic claim that a mouse exists, the hindquarters of which are made of dirt. When I challenged him on it, he came at me with that very weak verbal jujitsu with which they equip them: "Are you willing to concede you don't know everything?" Pathetic.

Rabbi Slifkin actually showed up - apparently they knew one another from their yeshiva days - and tried to disabuse him of the notion that a mouse's ass can be made of inorganic material. He backed down, because he realized he couldn't defeat Slifkin - but of course, he wouldn't actually say the rabbi in the Talmud was wrong.

It's all just too sad and contemptible for words.

[ah-pee-chorus]

"Nature", drives a skunk to spray in order to protect himself, or, a deer to run away from danger, or an infant to cry when hungry.
So too, "Nature" instills in us a feeling of a higher power, in order to prevent us from doing mischief.

Posted by: Dovid

you have a major error here. your first 3 examples show how "nature" selected (as opposed to 'drove') for these traits which all confer a better chance of survival. but while evolution can certainly offer explanations for how and why the type of thinking that could under certain conditions lead to belief in a god evolved, your suggestion that nature instilled a belief in god to prevent us from doing mischief is misguided. it would mean that nature has a brain or a goal in mind of its very own. and that somehow nature desires humans to refrain from mischief. you have left the field of science and evolution and ventured into a godlike conception of nature.
any valid explanation for human belief in god must show how that belief would cause a higher survival rate by which we could pass on our DNA.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Brian-

excellent post at April 26, 2012 at 03:01 PM.

(and not just because you mentioned me :))

[ah-pee-chorus]

"If I didn't believe in God and fear hell, I'd be out there rapin', pillagin' and plunderin'!"

jeff-

from my experience, these statements are never true and are instead used by theists to comfort themselves and eliminate the need for thinking about morality exclusive of the bible. i should know. i used almost these exact words in a discussion i had with my friends liberal mom when i was in high-school and quite frum. and when i said it i meant it and believed it. she insisted that i would be moral even if i didnt believe and she was right (i hope).
it comes back to my favorite quote...

with or without religion good people would do good and evil people would do bad. it is only WITH religion that good people can do evil.

so i dont share your doubts as to whether we'd be better off without religion.

[Jeff]

Really? As a frum teenager you were saying those things? I haven't encountered that before. I haven't even encountered it among frum adults.

[Izzy]

I'm replying just to the title as I haven't watched the video and I already agree with Rabbi Steinzaltz. God is not to be blamed for humans' bad actions, but hey nor should He be blamed for our good actions.
Perhaps, there is a He that has created the world, but the responsibility is ours, as in, each and every individual, to do good and protect the world. It's all in our hands.
No God will save the world if we destroy it.

[ah-pee-chorus]

yup. i was of course arguing that not only did all morality begin and hinge on the torah, but that without hashems guiding words and my fear of missing out on olam haba, i would be out raping and stealing if i could get away with it. having the raging hormones of a teenage boy was a contributing factor. i also viewed atheists as low-life degenerates who couldnt possibly be moral. heck, if there were an internet with blogs i probably would have sounded just like some of our charedi commenters here. though i was MO, all of my rebbeim and heroes were charedi .

[Jeff]

Oh, wow.

Were you in a Haredi school?

[ah-pee-chorus]

no, but almost all the religious studies teachers, both male and female (there were separate classes in the A.M. relig. and co-ed for secular) were card-carrying charedim. that still holds true today. thats one of the major reasons why MO is such a farce. Few graduates of MO schools become rabbis, and those that do tend to get very charedized in their gap year(s) in israel. and since you cant make a good living being a rebbe even in an MO school, only charedim and charedicized former MO take the jobs. most MO want to live an upper middle class life where they can afford to send their own kids to expensive schools. that leads to a situation where the schools are supposed to promote MO values-whatever that means- but are instead just diluted charedism minus the israel hatred.
even the ostensibly true MO rebbes have charedi rabbis as their rebbeim, so they follow much of their chumra garbage.
so tecnically my school was not charedi. they didnt dissuade college though 3 of my rebbes begged me not to go.

[ah-pee-chorus]

jeff-

i also spent 2 years learning in israel post high-school in a yeshiva run by 'cool' charedim followed by a stint in YU.

[Jeff]

Yeah. It's all part of the Haredization of Modern Orthodoxy. I'm having a frustrating conversation on Facebook with a middle aged guy who identifies as MO and is getting smicha at YU, and he seems to have trouble even distinguishing between Haredi and MO.

The MO day school here in Boston was founded by Rav Soloveitchik. I don't think they have any Haredi teachers, but liberal it ain't. They've had at least three boys leave to join Chabad, one of them my nephew.

so tecnically my school was not charedi. they didnt dissuade college though 3 of my rebbes begged me not to go.

Disgraceful. Was this a NY school?

[ah-pee-chorus]

Was this a NY school?

yes. i also had relatives who went to the chabad school in brookline. though it may have been in boston.

[Jeff]

Oh, I know that school. The MO rabbi I always talk about went there as a child. His parents also sent him to Ner Yisrael. I once asked his mom why (his parents were MO, dad was also a rabbi); she wasn't sure. She thought she remembered some guy coming to town and telling them it was a suitable place, so they sent him. And this was fifty, sixty years ago.

Now, he's liberal in his theology (doesn't think everyone else is going to hell) and does have a PhD - but in his personal practice, he's another example of what I keep describing as "Haredi Lite".

Again - the Haredization of Modern Orthodoxy. Shameful.

[Brian]

APC- thanks :) (i'm a bit late back to this thread).

[ca]

Hi, Jeff. Thanks for the honorable mention :). I will post on a more recent thread if you don't see this.