What Is Judaism? - Rabbi David Wolpe 

Very fair comment.

It would look different with any Jew he interviewed. Differing opinions are highly valued in Judasm.

@@booksquid856 For sure. I'm just saying that because I originally have an Orthodox Jewish background. I kept thinking "this is misrepresenting Judaism" and had to remind myself it's representing a particular interpretation of Judaism.

@@Discoursivist My jewish friends will use the saying "Two jews, three opinions"

​@@booksquid856i think the problem is within orthodox Judaism ,which currently has a complete monopoly of Judaism in Israel, David's views would be considered not religious at all. He understates the massive devide between orthodox Judaism and the conservative or reformed movement. In fact, orthodox Jews have more in comon with not practicing Jews in Israel that with David.

Beautiful reply. Thank you.

On your 4th point, there are parts of the tanakh that arent even hebrew but aramaic. If we know that much is true, how hard is it to accept that the different eras of authorship carried a variance in the language?

That's all anyone has ever done. I don't know of anyone who is practicing the Bible word for word, and I mean literally nobody.

@@thedude9941 it's literally impossible to do so because the "Bible" disagrees with "itself" (pardon the scare quotes, but this is one of those times where its important to realise that "The Bible" with the closed canon we're used to only really came to be well into the common era, and that it's a collection of texts that contain different perspectives from different times)

That could just be a symptom of evolving perspective. Each perspective has the flaw of confusing the next highest perspective with one lower than itself. Especially with a topic such as God, there is a great depth of potential understanding that requires repeated experiences and realizations. If everyone agreed, it would seemingly go against the nature of perspective, human development, and spiral dynamics.

They are

Your relationship with G-d is your own, but He expects much of us in His Love for us.

No it wouldn't

This is by far the best theist i have heard speak on YT

If every religious person were rabbi Wolpe. He'd either be the last religious person or we'd have a weird and inexplicable clone problem.

God to him is relatively unknowable and incoherent. So, why is belief warranted? We end up going back to what metric is used to determine what is authentic and what's not. *sigh*

​@@jasonbrown8155 We as humans have experienced lengthy stories of history that inform what matters to us, whether we pay attention to it or not. Religion makes it more conscious to us but doesn't make it less messy. So it is freeing to know that on the one hand we could never describe a god that was technically indescribable, but we can still investigate more deeply the path our ancestors took and what our own experience shows us in order to find meaning and responsibility.

A picnic in place of a BBQ.

Haha true!

Yes. It’s truly a shame Hitchens left so much meat on the bone against Dinesh compared to Alex

​@massdebationwhat Alex has that Hitchens didn't, regardless of hindsight, is an ability to comprehend, dissect, and directly address arguments. Coming out of my religious deconversion, I found many of Hitchen's debates and I was left entirely uninterested in listening to him further. I don't really bother with people that consistently demonstrate they're more concerned about making quips than making actual arguments.

I thought the same thing when he spoke with Dinesh. This hammers it home. It's obvious that is what he is doing

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

@@maithaiyou Actually, they used to notify you ahead of time, ergo EVERYONE expected the Spanish Inquisition.

Of course you didnt...

This read like an elden ring message in my head. I’ve been playing for the last week lmao

We're on a mission from God!

Exactly. Which is why Judasm has enormous and expanding libraries of historic debate, ethical questions, legal precedent and adaptation to accomplish that goal. The Bible isn't the same thing in Christianity. There it merely serves as a closed canon of belief. But in Judasm, the Torah is the central corpus of an ongoing and ever developing inquiry and life as a migratory nation.

​@@booksquid856With parts of it inspired or passed down by a god, and centuries worth of discussions and interpretations just being whatever the people think at the time. I mean, valid approach I guess

Imagine the US Constitution and its Amendments after a thousand years... in story form rather than legalese.

In fact there are plenty of books (historic, opinion, critique, propaganda) that tell stories of Independence and every amendment. What stories accompany the Patriot Act?

@CoreyJohnsonMusician By "face value" are you meaning literally? As in "if you're not a biblical literalist" then they need to provide an explicit set of rules in which you and all other humans can agree upon which set out the precise interpretation they arrive to their understanding of the nature of reality? I guess my question is, are you a nihilist?

He was possessed by Douglas Adams for this one

more David Wolpe please much better than Christian apologists

I’m curious, can you explain for me what being a secular Jew means to you? I am 16 minutes into this interview, but it is one of dozens I have listened to on the subject. I have also listened to and read many atheists who are religion scholars and speak/write about the origins of religions and their texts. I find it all very arbitrary. Judaism seems very tied to a specific belief system. Beyond that, there appears to be a code or rule that, once you’re in the club, you’re in for life, whether you like it or not… which I honestly don’t think is healthy in ANY religion. It is especially scary in Islam, but that is a whole other topic. So, I’m curious… if someone does not believe in God or the Jewish scriptures and rules, what is the point or reason or pride in identifying as a Jew? I’m not suggesting you should or shouldn’t, I genuinely curious what the reason for that is? I am not religious, nor am I atheist or agnostic. I’d say I do believe in God, in spite of finding nearly every religion I have studied or learned about to be HIGHLY problematic. I believe the universe is like a cake. Even if I don’t know who made the cake, or why they made it, I still think it makes more sense that someone made the cake. I don’t think all the ingredients necessary to make a cake suddenly or slowly appeared out of nowhere and formed themselves into a cake… just because I can’t find any evidence that someone made the cake. In the absence of evidence of a baker, the cake itself is better evidence that someone made the cake than someone didn’t. Anyway, if you read all that, lol… I’d appreciate your thoughts. Thank you 🙏

​@@vipnetworkera Muslim is one who adheres to Islam. A Christian is one who adheres to the Christian religion. Judaism is a religion. But Jews are a nation. Not someone who adheres to Judaism. What makes Judaism different than the other religions is that while most religions are open to anyone. Judaism is unique to the Jewish nation. We believe only "citizens" of the Jewish nation are required to adhere to this religion. Jews are an ancient nation. Back 2000 years ago it resembled a normal nation with its own land, culture language. The reason why most ancient nations don't exist anymore is that they assimilated into conquering nations. The Jewish nation did not assimilate like the rest of the nations being that we had our unique religion keeping us together and separate. This actually leads up to Zionism, in which Jews see ourselves as a nation without a land being persecuted by other nations. Zionism, at least secular Zionism sought to make Jews like any other nation with a land culture and language. Which is why the early Zionists hated Judaism and waged somewhat of a culture war in the early days of the state. Because they felt the religion was a threat to the image they wished to create of it being an ordinary nation. They also felt that the cause of antisemitism was because we were a nation amongst the nations. As opposed to being just a different race. A nation in another nation will clash more than a race within a nation. Hence the need for a state. But the short answer to Alex question to the rabbi is that Jews are a nation. Judaism is a religion. The rabbi didn't answer that question well enough.

​@@Yemi-gl3qx Jewish identity depends so heavily on her ancient constitutional narratives, the Torah. These expansive narratives force us to take a deeper look at how we interpret any modern campaign. The values of rigorous study, ethical debate, and oneness in Judasm are a challenge to anyone who is asleep in their thinking. Many people don't want to think. And many tyrants especially don't want people to think. So even though the religious community itself can become tyrannical, it was meant to be part of a context of internal contest, something which the secular Jewish world needs to somehow master and join. There is no possible way to erase persecution of the Jews based on assimilation nor retreat into a singular physical location, because again these unique values startle people and hold them accountable to something outside their present day assumptions. I have found that even going to the home of a group of Christians that they were deeply threatened and offended by my very existence as a modern day human that I did not exist as the two dimensional figure of their gospel narrative. Reality alone threatens people. There seems no way around that unfortunately. When you think about it, there are certain parts of the body that do difficult tasks we take for granted and we may even blame them for our problems...like the liver, for example. We use the term "liver failure" when in reality some poor choices and habits are often the source of failure. So maybe we go about trying to sanitize germs instead of boost our immune system and change habits of thinking. It's the same way we unfortunately tend to look at things in relationships with other people and nations too. People are so quick to jump on the bandwagon of blaming a boogeyman they think exists somewhere outside themselves.

​@@Yemi-gl3qx Judasm centers around study, ethical debate, and oneness as a people based on ancient constitutional narratives. Regardless of assimilation and location, people are threatened by such things that even slightly challenge their assumptions. Going to the home of some Christians recently, I was shocked at how threatened and offended they were by my very existence as a modern human--as someone who did NOT fit the shallow mold of their gospel characters. So I had to ask...why? Maybe people would rather think superficially and assume that they have all the answers. Judasm is almost entirely about asking more questions and doing so in the context of many that have come before us.

I posted a similar comment before I saw yours.

That's because European Jewry originated in Italy. That's why Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino look alike, also.

@@RoyalistKev well no it Just medeterian people look similar in general.

I thought the same lol

@@avshalomatI mean yes the beginnings of Ashkenazic diaspora first came up into Europe from the Levant through Rome as a combination of slavery and migration.

Twelve? How quaint... My paternal grandmother was Jewish and I think of them as a cult!

In that case, do you think that it would be fair to say that secular/atheistic jews be less tribal than their more religiously inclined counterparts? I find this topic to be complex, I just want to understand. For some reason, this topic has always been somewhat difficult to navigate.

@oscarpaez123 really insightful question. I'm NOT an expert (minored in philosophy and then switched to go the science route) but I would say that tribal identity and religious identity are intertwined but not the same. That's why secular jews are seen as "equally jewish." They are still in the tribe, even if they don't worship the same god.

Which tribes? Does it include the tribes from other countries, races, cultures and religion?

​@hermitcard4494 this conversation took place back in college, so like 15 years ago, so I'm hesitant to put words in yhe Rabbi's mouth, but I interested him to be using "tribe" in the categorical sense, although I doubt he'd have any cause to question the more litteral 12 tribes.

I absolutely concur. As a muslim, Alex is really the only atheist in this field that I have the utmost respect. His demeanor displayed an effort to arrive in the place of truth, rather than to make things into a competition. I considered myself religious and still be open minded for criticism towards my religion because simply as we all know anything is a subject to criticism, however the vast majority of atheists and theists alike who oppose Islam merely trying to intellectualise their hate rather than presenting a fair critique that meant to build progress. Alex in the other hand, despite being so young, he managed to grow a sense of understanding that these men you mentioned failed to cultivate even after delving into these subjects for decades as their full-time job. I also appreciate how he never speaks in a condescending manner towards the opposition (except Dinesh).

@@mrgrumpycat9049even to dinesh he was very respectful to the end

Well said. I am a Christian revert, but I always listen to what Alex has to say because it is well thought out. Just out of curiosity, did you ever look into the Biblical understanding of Jesus since leaving Mormonism? I ask because Joseph Smith changed crucial parts of Jesus' traditionally understood identity. e.g John 1 v 1 describes Jesus as the Logos (or Word of God), but Joseph took this out when rewriting the Bible.

Good points, indeed. Obviously Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris suffer from psychopathic #narcissism (right brain impotence). Accordingly, their overall chronic exercising of "negative emotional affect" is appealing only to people whose locus of identity is localized in the left hemisphere of their brain (as described in the works of Dr. Iain McGilchrist).

Beautiful put. Thanks for taking the time to write this comment.

I agree. I think it's because Alex is taking a look at Judaism through a definitively Christian frame - hence his confusion in the beginning especially.

I’m a convert to Judaism, and I agree. I’ve often thought that one has to experience Judaism to get it; it’s really tough to explain it to someone who is viewing through an American Christian lens.

Same here! While I am an atheist Jew and have been becoming gradually more anti-theist as the years go by, my sister has been going down an orthodox path. Conversations like these help me bridge the gap and try to understand her perspective better (or at least hold more understanding conversations with her)

@@amberkatz1680Why are you becoming anti theist ??? In fact Judaism is what made Jews such a great and prosperous nation and kept their identity together even in well over 2k years of the diaspora all throughout the world, maybe instead of hating the cultural heritage be proud of it, just my 2 cents you can be agnostic or atheist but still be proud of your cultural heritage and accomplishments of your people in history

Fellow atheist Jew and Vegan here! Nice to meet you!

As a secular Jew I very much appreciate your comment, which is spot on. TY

That’s an interesting journey. Raised orthodox to BT parents. Drifting towards atheism now, but likely will raise my kids orthodox.

@@ydubin I don’t think I could raise my children in that educational system, either in the U.S. or Israel.

@@Exjewatlarge probably easier as I was raised in it. Also, my kids are already in school. But ye, we’ll see how it goes:)

The documentary hypothesis is a garbage theory that never held any water. See Patterns on Parchment book and many others. Speak to any frum gadol for the authentic mesorah. Wolpe is a nice guy but he's conservative, his knowledge for Torah is nothing compared real Torah gedolim who would never go on a podcast like this, just sayin'. Sorry Alex buddy but if you want answers Wolpe ain't gonna give you them cause he doesn't really know Gemara, Kabbalah, Mesorah, Halacha, etc.

You forgot Islam..... Islam isn't a religion ,it's the truth😅

In our case, we are an ethnoreligious nation. This rabbi is just trying to be more mindfuld of proselytes that have no Jewish ancestry to not seem like he is saying they are less Jewish.

Also in Hinduism where they say "It isn't a religion, it is a way of life". As an Indian Atheist I am tired of hearing this haha.

I'm not sure you understand the words you have used to describe these "identity traits".... Not only do I think you haven't understood what he's said, but you quite literally used a word such as "philosophy", whilst obviously not understanding the context, for the usage of the term "philosophy"

​@@ultrasignificantfootnote3378Unfortunately not.

Agree. My thoughts exactly. He was basically saying whatever made sense to him. And what he personally believes. Not what Judaism believes. He's basically a religious intellectual who happens to be jewish

Well...Orthodoxy we have today was also made up in the last two hundred years, basically as a backlash to modern developments. So the timeframe for the development of his views doesn't necessarily delegitimize them. I think he is fully aware of various other perspectives. He gave very well thought out responses that I truly appreciate.

He should have a conversation with Rabbi Oury Amos Cherki

@@booksquid856 not the religious aspects of orthodoxy. Parts of the cultural aspects perhaps

@@Yosaif-Israel Agreed.

Smh

lol

Wow, that's interesting. And tonight, it kind of hit different. And to add to your parabble, I would say that 'Holy Scriptures' also reflect the human need for hierarchy and a big boss descending from the mountain on-high to lay out the law - and the rest is history.

I have always been taught that "Judaism" is the asking of questions while desperately seeking to find the answers, and this desperate seeking is the nature of our journey to find what we call GOD and OURSELVES.

@@joeewell4846 So you've got the 'seeking' part down-pat, but is there ever supposed to be a point of 'finding'? (honest question).

@@rigelb9025 From personal experience, especially through the study of the Talmud and Daf Yom, each apparent answer just leads to more questions.

@@joeewell4846 I thought so.

Personally, I don't think the WHO is that reputable in general. I did however find some research years ago that indicated that the circumcision tradition came from Africa. It seems this is another example of how humans, just like other creatures, really do adapt to our regional differences. We have to do this on more than one level of survival though since so much of our interaction does involve symbolism and storytelling.

I guess WHO also recommends signing for the organ list in case you died, but that doesn't make forcing children to. sign it moral, does it?

@@jozefglemp8011 No. And yet people do things constantly to scar their bodies and others without considering the "morality" of it. For some tribes it is simply a necessity of identity and survival. In which case, morality will definitely be defined according to a different context than it is for dominant demographic suburban Americans. For others scarring is a fashion. I have seen some people get deeply offended by some facets of Latin culture that pierce a baby's ears.

@@booksquid856 It's all about consent.

@@jozefglemp8011 I value consent, but I also realize that I value that in a particular context and within limitations. If my child doesn't consent to a safety belt, I will have to override. Similarly, if I was living in a hostile neighborhood and without the trappings of my modern existence, I would have very different priorities. If I were currently living under active persecution as a nomadic nation, I probably would have a different perspective also. There is also the fact that some cultures really do consider it an essential beauty treatment to mutilate the body. I don't agree. It troubles me. But I am certain that much of my cultural attitudes trouble others. Not saying I have answers here. Just saying it is complicated. Rabbi's appeal to the WHO wouldn't be my go to response though since I don't think the organization has much credibility. I also don't think we can or should make decisions for the whole globe. I think we both agree there.

The idea that "many if not most Israelis would not consider Rabbi David Wolpe as a religious jew" and "The difference between conservative Judaism and orthodox Judaism is quite wide unlike what the Rabbi wants to claim" are both inaccurate. Conservative Judaism never really existed in Israel. The divisions of Judaism that Rabbi Wolpe discusses (Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox) make sense in an American context -- and Pre-WWII in a German context -- but really nowhere else. In most places, like Israel, there are Secular Jews, who are less religious than Reform Jews, and Orthodox Jews. As a result, there is a wide gulf but that's not between Conservative and Orthodox but between Secular and Orthodox. The rest is accurate.

@@oremfrien I believe you are very uninformed. In Israel there conservative as well as reformed comunities. They are seen for the most part as non religious Jews, secular Jews in Israel as a whole tend to more identify with the orthodox stream of Judaism than the reformed or the conservative. In America, many secular Jews identity with the reformed or conservative movement for the sole reason that it grants them a sense of cultural community without forcing them to alienate their non Jewish soroundings. In Israel, Jews do not seek a Jewish community their sole interaction with Judaism is through the prism of orthodox Judaism that impacts their day to day life. Culturally, reformed Judaism is seen in a very bad light within Israel especially as the country tends to lean right on political issues that conservative as well as the reformed movement have sought to empower. You tell most Israeli's that a female rabbi exist they will tell that is not "real Judaism". Secular Jews in Israel for the most part tend to be pretty traditional they celebrate the high holidays in orthodox communities, they celebrate their barmitzva within an orthodox environment and so on..

​@@dylansevitt You can count the number of Conservative and Reform synagogues in Israel on one hand. To say that in a country of 6 MM Jews that a few synagogues will shape local opinion is bizarre. Orthodox Judaism has a functional monopoly on religion and, accordingly, Secular Jews see that as the antipode.

What do Israelis have to do with this more than other members of the Jewish community? What about Italians or French people or …? Israel is not the Vatican.

@@petermsiegel573 Israel is not the Vatican. It is way more for the Jews. if the majority of Catholics lived in the Vatican, if the majority of Catholic teaching were studied and published today in the Vatican, if modern Catholic thought promoted moving to the Vatican, if the Vatican was tied to catholic culture and history for over 2000 years, if almost all Catholics had direct family and friends or lived in the Vatican then the Vatican would approach what Israel is to the Jews.

I would go further and say that Judaism is not only Christianity-minus-Jesus but that many of the hallmarks and beliefs of Christianity are direct refutations of Judaism. Judaism venerates and promotes the ceremonial law as a way to merit salvation and minimizes the question of proper belief whereas Christianity venerates the Sacrifice Upon the Cross as a way to merit salvation and minimizes the question of proper actions. Judaism holds to a tribal organization whereas Christianity sees itself as universal. Judaism is about life in this world and the afterworld is an unimportant thought whereas Christianity is about the afterworld and this life is just a test to gain entry. There are numerous other examples but this should be sufficient to show that these are two very different belief/community systems. Judaism was never waiting for a Jesus. If anything, David Ben Gurion looks much more like a Jewish Messiah than Jesus does.

⁠@@oremfrien The idea that Christians are saved by simply accepting Jesus as the savior is merely one form of Christianity. Calvinists, for example, believed “God chose a limited number of people for salvation at the beginning of time, and nothing a person can do can change their eternal fate.” Catholics, on the other hand, believe you need both faith and good works to go to heaven. Judaism’s take on this is a bit more convoluted. The Bible says all righteous nations and individuals have a place in “the world to come.” Maimonides argued one needed to adhere to the Noahide Laws to be considered righteous. One of those laws is monotheism, which obviously means you have to believe in G-d. But the meaning of “righteous” is STILL an ongoing debate. Some Rabbis argue it means simply seeking and acting according to a system of justice. Yad Vashem anointed gentiles as righteous who resisted the Nazis or saved Jews - which doesn’t fit either definition! Perhaps the most confusing apart about Judaism’s moral philosophy is the demand that people must act righteously without the expectation of any reward, but merely because it’s the right thing to do. This is what Wolpe was alluding to in the undeserved suffering part of the conversation. Interestingly enough, this notion forms the core of Adlerian psychology. Adler, of course, was Jewish. Anyone who has read “The Courage to be Disliked” will recognize this precept.

@@tymo747No, you misunderstand Wolpe and his form of Judaism- the rabbi doesn’t claim to have any hidden knowledge, just knowledge you can acquire. Like Brian in “Life of Brian”, he’d say THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Let's respond to the questions: "How will [Wolpe] discern, what is inspired and what is not?" -- He will use the fundamental ethical pillars of a modernist understanding of Judaism (as informed by the Jewish Philosophers like Martin Buber, Jewish Historians like Benny Morris, Jewish Ethicists like Moses Mendelsohn) and evaluate which parts of the Bible align with those perspectives. The value of a belief is in its effects and those that have negative effects are not desirable. "Were the ~613 laws inspired? Or merely what people understood that God might want from them, and then uninspired written down, with mistakes included?" -- The 613 Laws is literally a set of injunctions created by the Rabbis roughly 1000 years ago. Quite a number of the things that the Rabbis designated as the 613 Laws are not things where God commanded someone to do something but reflections themselves of the Bible. If such reflection can be done to even derive the Jewish Law that is currently followed, wht can't Jews today engage in the same process. "Their God, who focuses on obedience to the law etc. a lot, lets it happen, that scriptures were recorded uninspired and maybe misleading the people?" -- Wolpe would argue that God revealed himself and allowed those humans who wrote the Bible to document their understanding of it. There is a meaningful delta between an actual sunset and a written description of it and what it means. More Orthodox Jews would contextualize the passage rather than negate its meaningful divine origin. "So does the Jewish God has the will and the power to display himself in clear words?" -- Power, yes. Desire, no. Judaism holds that a clear presence of the divine would compel belief (in much the same way that the clear presence of gravity compels belief) and to preserve libertarian free will, God cannot display himself clearly. "Or how are the believers required and able to follow the "sometimes" inspired laws?? When they can't be sure, which ones were inspired??" -- The analysis I mentioned above is a complicated one, which is why Jews have always stressed study and education. Following the law requires the fortitude to determine what the law is when it is, in your words "chaotic".

@oremfrien Thank you very much for taking the time and the effort to answer my questions. While I understand the thoughts in your responses, I still wonder for example, that, even if Wolpe is now decerning based on modern ethical pillars of a modalist understanding of Judaism and Jewish philosophy.... when he says God did not give the command for the taking of Canaan, including the problematic manner, but the people understood it to be God's command... isn't that problematic (I mean, this can happen in the future, and harm society a lot). Yet apparently God admitted the Canaanite issue. He did not intervene, so that the supposedly wrong command was not carried out. God has the power, but not the will...? Would that mean God is not all-benevolent? I am sorry, I am not so articulate and English is not my native language. I am just so perplexed, that Wolpe seems to say, the Scriptures are not really reliable - yet, their beliefsystem is built on the Scriptures, right? So how can one know, if God commands something or not. It seems a bit careless of this God, not to clearly show his people what he wants/doesn't want. And my conclusion would be... if you have the "maybe sometimes" inspired Scriptures, but one has no real chance to know if sth was truly inspired by God ---> AND you decide on ethical pillars now, is there really a need for the Scriptures.... and this God, if he doesn't even intervene to save his creation? If he doesn't intervene into bad things, and we don't know what he says and commands ---> what is the difference whether he even exists or not, if he is not manifesting in our world in any detectable and at least reliable way? But thanks again for your reply!

@@SeekingTruth2023 Let's respond in kind. -- "I still wonder for example, that, even if Wolpe is now decerning based on modern ethical pillars of a modalist understanding of Judaism and Jewish philosophy.... when he says God did not give the command for the taking of Canaan, including the problematic manner, but the people understood it to be God's command... isn't that problematic (I mean, this can happen in the future, and harm society a lot)." Absolutely. I believe that Wolpe would argue that there are very troubling sections of the Bible. The story of Jephthah was one that kept me up as a child. There are several reasons that these stories are important, though: (1) It prevents the people from having a sanitized view of their past and the arrogance the comes with it, (2) it creates points of conversation and interpretation, and (3) it demonstrates the fallibility of the human-divine relationship, making it something that the religious person always has to tend to. -- "Yet apparently God [permitted the Israelites to massacre the Canaanites]. He did not intervene, so that the supposedly wrong command was not carried out." Correct within the narrative. (Archaeologists like Israel Finklestein argue that this never actually happened because the Israelites never conquered Canaan since they never left Canaan, but that's outside of the narrative.) The answer would be that in order for God to stop the massacres, someone would have to be denied free will and, ultimately, God guarantees that over preventing suffering. -- "God has the power, but not the will...? Would that mean God is not all-benevolent?" Omnibenevolence, like omnipotence, is an incoherent concept and most advanced theologians will say "omnibenevolence to the extent logically consistent". For example, it is loving to affirm someone's actions and it is also loving to confront someone for actions that may be harmful, but both acts cannot be performed simultaneously. A person/entity must choose which forms of benevolence to support. To the extent that God is omnibenevolent, he would prioritize free will over protection. This is what I mean by saying that God has the power (e.g. he could stop it) but lacks the will (e.g. he chooses to preserve people's ability to choose rather than their survival). Note that the Jewish God is very different from the Christian God which robs people of choice by creating eternal salvation and eternal damnation -- neither of which exist in Judaism. Note that the Jewish God is very different from the Islamic God who robs people of choice by using predestination -- which Judaism also rejects. -- "I am sorry, I am not so articulate and English is not my native language." I wouldn't worry about your language skills. You are much more articulate than most native speakers I have engaged with in my life. -- "I am just so perplexed, that Wolpe seems to say, the Scriptures are not really reliable - yet, their beliefsystem is built on the Scriptures, right? So how can one know, if God commands something or not." Quite simply, religious leaders like Wolpe would argue that if you are using a divine morality text as a set of Google-Maps instructions, you're doing it wrong. In Jewish tradition, there is a strong opposition to asceticism (going off into the hills by yourself as a hermit to study the Scriptures and/or meditate for years) because Judaism argues that the meaning of a text requires a community to interpret and discuss it together. It's not about how the text is literally posed but how the community interprets it. Many common elements of Judaism have roots in these community discussions (such as not mixing dairy with white meat and the acceptance of Non-Jewish national laws as being binding unless they compel (a) belief in other gods, (b) acts of murder, or (c) acts of sexual immorality). Of course, the implication is that you don't have a clear "yes-no" answer on most topics that will be firm and unyielding, but since when were the answers to moral questions supposed to be "yes-no" answers? -- "It seems a bit careless of this God, not to clearly show his people what he wants/doesn't want." Rabbis like Wolpe would describe the Bible as a human reaction to divine revelation. Imagine trying to describe a sunset to a blind person. You might say things like "the cascading lines all converge at a central orb" or "the sky becomes filled with the glory of a glowing ball". He could interpret these sentences to apply to Sputnik just as easily as a sunset. I would ask how you would explain the ineffable in words? Perhaps God could, but if He did, how would that not make people incapable of believing in his Divinity? -- "[With the lack of clarity from the Bible] is there really a need for the Scriptures." Yes. They start the conversation; they just don't finish it. -- "and this God, if he doesn't even intervene to save his creation? If he doesn't intervene into bad things, and we don't know what he says and commands ---> what is the difference whether he even exists or not, if he is not manifesting in our world in any detectable and at least reliable way?" All of this is ultimately why Judaism doesn't focus its attention on belief as paramount. As Wolpe pointed out, Judaism values communal affiliation more than belief and the general non-presence of God in the world makes it harder to believe.

@@oremfrien any book that has a moral quandary can start a conversation, you don't have to be bound to just a specific set of books. I can be a fan of Lord of the Rings and join that community to interpret those texts and also be a fan of the Harry Potter and join a separate community to interpret these texts. I agree with @SeekingTruth2023 that there should be no need for Jews to be bound to just these texts, if what they are looking for is the interpretation of these moral quandaries to decide on what is the best way to live your life in accordance to god. If they are not a reliable source of objective truths or laws coming from god, then why give these texts so much importance over any other book? As Sam Harris and others put it, if you or your community get to decide which parts of the bible are something to follow and which parts are not, it is not the book that gives you morality, it is your brain.

I agree. Very well put.

very insightful

@@kidsyx Tribe and clan is the same as family, all are related

I’m also a devoutly Secular Jew and I’m glad that Alex had made this video. As my adopted grandfather used to say, “we’ve been trying to figure out what Judaism is since that schmuck Moishela schlepped down the mountain.”

A tribe or clam is shared genetic familial relationships. To a lot of Jooos nowadays being Jewish is yes about the blood, not the religion.

I'd say it's a cult more than anything else.

Oh yeah, the idea of a tribe existed before what he called "the invention of the West"

If circumcision is allowed by are trans people not allowed to choose their bodies?

@@forplaylistsetc It’s fundamentally an argument from the reactionary mental illness side of humanity. All religious are delusional but not all are reactionary.

Okay, but think of this another way. People can have very different perspectives for reasons having nothing to do with religion. Many cultures consider what we call "mutilation" to be an essential beauty treatment. And here in America, we don't call cosmetic surgeries now done on any and every part of the body to be "mutilation" either. Or tats. Or branding. See how we use different language for that? On the other hand, I've also witnessed some people offended by the practice of infant ear piercing that is prominent in many Latin communities. We could technically call that ear mutilation. But we don't. Considering all the unhealthy practices in American culture, we may have to start grappling with that first before judging the naturalization process of an ancient living nation.

He probably just sees it as removing the hood of your penis. 😅

people don´t call trans surgeries mutilation either. or at least some. don´t.

Let's say the God literally promised the land to the Jews. So what? That's not a valid legal argument (which is why no Israeli government has ever used this in a defense of their country's legitimacy). It's also not particularly relevant since Jews have an ancestral civilization there that is relatively well-documented.

the people who wrote the book honestly believed that this was what god said. yeah, it doesn't do it for me, either.

@@gabiailincai exactly.

Did god really appoint Americans to be a free nation on the eastern sea board, a light on a hill? Did god really call us to manifest destiny? Does the answer to that question in any way erase the validity of our nation and its right to function on current soil? The individuals who brought forth a modern nation of Jordan and a modern nation of Irael are not the same people of some very ancient and fabled past. Britain had a colonial territory that contained mixed groups of people all generically labeled Palstinians. Then two mordern nations were incorporated by means absolutely legimitate in any sense we could say such things. And it wasn't based on a religious story despite lengthy historic connections to a land which like most places is filled with religious sentiment. The stories of the promised land were actually written far after the time period they supposedly allude to and the archeology shows the nation grew very much organically in the region in ancient times rather than by a miraculous deliveranc and conquest. There may have been internal conflicts the stories were based on. Regardless, these are separate times and separate issues.

Archaeology shows the nation of ancient times grew up organically in the region. So the fabled stories of conquest and miraculous deliverance were more likely based on internal conflicts. The modern nations of iRael and Jordan were incorporated according to modern laws. Edit: Regarding Exodus narratives it is worth noting that Egypt was repeatedly an expansive power. So repeatedly "Canaan" WAS Egypt. Just another bit of fun trivia when considering the idea of internal regional conflict.

Judaism and Buddism are much more open and non-fanatic compared to other religions in my opinion.

What if I tried converting to secular Judaism

@@rayneweber5904you can convert to Judaism, but usually you have to be dedicated

​@@rayneweber5904reform Judaism??

​@@furiousinsects6386 Judaism is fanatic, lol. Buddhism is primitive and irrational.

@@marcusshakur3481 But that doesn't have a culture or ethnicity. Or maybe it does. Please educate me.

@@marcusshakur3481 So if you converted to Islam, you’re still a Catholic?

this one was totally different! oh my oh my, i wonder why...

@@tymo747 Sure, partly it's because it's not a Christian nor an atheist, but I've listened to rabbis before, however I never had this kind of new thought even though, generally speaking, I'm familiar with views of Judaism on these matters. For example Shapiro is Jewish and presented different view of the Tanakh, however, I did not hear anything new there, whereas here, I have. On multiple occasions.

From the outset the Rabbi Wolpe described the unbreachable chasm between human thinking and the concept of an unlimited divine being. That by default makes it clear we cannot ascribe god's desire to such statements...unless we understand it to mean an element that exists in the generic will of god for humans to simply decide for themselves what god desires so as to have complete moral freedom. Whether religious or atheist, we make decisions with a mind that both allows us to project into the future and interpret the past. These stories referenced were not even written during the context they claim to describe. Similarly, we tell stories about ourselves on an individual level that reinterpret our past. We judge and act as if our fleeting sentiments align with an eternal higher moral cause or consistent identity...despite all the growth and changes in our lives. So when we ask what "god" wants, Judasm teaches us to investigate our own motives and thoughts. We can be projecting some very limiting and destructive thoughts all to protect a wound we never addressed or a fear we have not acknowledged. Making the unconscious conscious is part of solving that problem. That's why the word for prayer in Hebrew actually means to judge or inspect oneself.

I think that actually was partly the point he was making when saying the definition of Judasm predates our modern sensibilities of nation and religion as distinct categories. Also the Jewish world has spent 90 percent of its existence as a nomadic people (even before the most recent Temple's destruction), so it has some fascinating and unique traits that contribute to her longevity and continuity despite despite very spread out communities. For one thing, her "religious" texts are actually her constitutional narratives and have been subjected to ages of legal scrutiny, debate, and adaptation.

That's the point he was making.

What a strange thing for a comment bot to write.

@@openmind5973what’s even stranger is how I made millions getting into crypto! Send me your banking information and I’ll help you make millions too!

@@openmind5973 They're evolving self-consciousness.

​@@rigelb9025 😂

@@rigelb9025 It's part of they're program to try to throw us off their trail.

I noticed several religious theists saying they liked Christopher Hitchens. Namely a Muslim RU-vidr.

It's worth watching Hitchens' lecture on antisemitism. On this occasion he is showing genuine passion.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eMGwcZPbLHw.html

How's the documentation work when two different priests disagree as to whether a given person should have been "automatically" excommunicated? Can a person get the outcome they want so long as they're able to find 1 priest that agrees with them, or is there some reliable institutional process to ensure so-called "eventual consistency"?

The excomunicated are still considered Catholics by the Catholic Church they're just officially excluded from participation in the sacraments and services of the Catholic Church.

@@codegeek98 It's an ideology, not a government (unless you live in the vatican or something). They have no authority to 'keep you in' the faith if you're not interacting with them on the regular whether or not there's a process to "officially" recognize your departure

People's Jewishness can be taken away as well. Israeli Rabbabut (Supreme Jewish authority in Israel) is stripping people's Jewishness left and right.

RAmen!

I interpret the events literally so your mind tricks don’t work on me, now if you excuse me I’m going back to work on debunking the theory of evolution

I think that makes sense; God is aligned with Truth and with Good, and those are things which greater experience of the world convey. It makes sense that absolute experience of the world conveys absolute truth and defines absolute good, by definition of absoluteness entailing testing every ethical dynamic that ever comes to pass. And it especially makes sense for a community based in a hierarchy where the elders lead.

You might want to learn about Jungian archetypes, particularly the hero, to develop this thought. Jordan Peterson does a lot on this idea of ‘God’ being an amalgamation of everything we might admire in laudable individuals who have come before us.

Considering God's infinite existence, God should be perceived by all as the epitome of moral evolution, yet the Old Testament showcases, Yahweh, a jealous, oppressive despot who seems to enjoy manipulatively lording over the hebrews. Even with their meager lexicon of about 6000 words, the hebrew could certainly write about an illuminary God of love, peace and mercy, and diplomacy amoung all nations, but that's a different kind of God and religion not found in the OT

​@@virtuosa69 Could it not be said - from a Christian perspective - that this simply shows man needed Christ to help him find (understand) God?

@@windywindmill98 No. Christ literally told the pharisees that your God is the devil, ergo NOT GOD. The Hindu didn't and don't need Christ to tell them what's good or bad, that's been worked out 1000s of years PRIOR to Christ or the old testament. Only people who have no true knowledge of historical mankind have tunnel vision when it comes to Christianity.

That is essentially what he called it so not sure what you are upset about.

I think a chabad rabbi (such as manis freidman) may be the most likely to come on such a show.

@user-dz8vs5cj7r I think that's true, but there are many complicated and lofty concepts in Chasidut. It would either become a class on Chasidut, or they would be talking past each other. Or maybe the Chasidic Rebbe can try to answer questions with a watered down Chasidut. Either way, Alex wouldn't be able to fully access the Chasidic Rebbe

@@rain6 As someone whose had much more contact with Sephardim, I would argue that you wanted a religious Sephardi Jew to discuss anything with Alex, it should be someone (as is the Sephardi tradition) who is a lay scholar (e.g. a religious person in the business world as opposed to a Rabbi). I agree that most Sephardi Rabbis would not be in the position to provide a rational-style discourse that Alex would respond to. However, I also doubt that most Mitneged Rabbis of today (as opposed to maybe 300 years ago) can engage in that way either.

@oremfrien The most famous disputation from the Sephardim (and all of Judaism) was between the Ramban and a Christian. I've never heard of sending a non-Rabbi to a debate/ interview. I'm not sure what Mitneged means, but if it is Chasidic, then I think the Rebbeim would be great. Chasidut can be explained as esoteric philosophy/ theology. If it means Ashkinaz, then I think the overall secularization of the Ashkinazim would benefit them in their more philosophical view of things. I do not wish to put down Sephardim. Actually, I think their simple faith is the greatest. Also ofc they also have great Mikubalim, and no one can put one of them down

@@oremfrien There are many modern orthodox rabbis who would do a great job.

Well idk if the point is that Israel good Palestine, but rather that he didn't really consider the merit of the other side

@@anonymouseicecube91 Yeah I'm definitely open to the possibility of me misunderstanding here. Thanks for sharing

Inheritance, citizenship, nationalism, differing state and tribal jurisdictions are part of our own national existence in America as well, yet I don't hear anyone decrying it as ethnocentric. Most of us recognize that people of all races and cultures have joined America. What most do not seem to know is that people of all races and cultures join the Jewish nation as well- not only in the stories of the Tanach itself but throughout history and still now today. Yes, ANYONE can naturalize to become a Jew. And people all over the world of different backgrounds do right at this moment. Thus you find Jews of every color, dress, food pallette, and custom. Edit: Just a reminder though as Rabbi mentions the naturalization process involves more than an ancient symbolic snip. It involves lots of dedicated study! The "religious" texts of Judasm are her constitutional narratives. And citizens of the Jewish world have a much more intimate and rigorous connection to their study, debate, adaptation, and ongoing interpretation.

@@booksquid856 but then it seems you have a very flexible non literal interpretation of the Tanach. Cause the Tanach literally says jews shall not marry gentiles. And, i also understand one is not considered a jew if not born from a jewish mother

This is all about making your sect look good from the outside and then doing all kinds of hideous stuff while whose who you consider lesser humans defend you.

Catholicism has a similar exegesis on the OT. We don't take it in a literalistic way as Alex does. The Rabbi was amazing.

What did Alex not track exactly?

@@jozefglemp8011 Alex was really quite slow to grant the idea of seeing the bible as humans sincerely grappling with god. There were two or three minutes where Alex seemed to struggle to forgo the idea that the fundamentalist Christian reading is in one way the most natural interpretation

@@perplexedon9834 I believe he understood the idea. Alex does this often, asking questions that might seem to be repetitive or circular so that he can have the guest clearly articulate their beliefs and views. I think it's more for the viewers sake than for Alex.

@@acrostiic5623 that is why included "at least at a conversational level". I do think Alex was at least playing the role of a viewer that wasn't tracking what the guest was saying in a way that I haven't really seen before

Sure and an even sharper contrast would be with Rabbi Manis Friedman. His take on the controversial Bible texts are very different from Rabbi Wolpe's.

Secular, philosophical rabbinical Judaism.

Well...that was never stated or even suggested in this video. As Americans today we don't all believe in "Providence" but we do hold our founding documents as valid...and this despite the errors in our own national history, errors which yes some people thought were divine purposes. People can always imagine things with sincerity and still be wrong. That doesn't erase the overall validity and purpose of our constitutional narratives. Neither does it do that for the Jewish constitutional narratives, the Torah...Rabbi Wolpe's point.

@@booksquid856you could say this about any historical fiction or mythology.

​@@calenhoover1124 Historic fiction and myth are found in every nation's story, yes. Creative tales are frequently used in Judasm for relaying and debating constitutional principles.

Completely off-topic. *I love it* .

As an orthodox Jew I agree. He was making stuff up. He's intelligent. But it's his own views. Not Judaism views. He just happens to be jewish

May I ask what you mean in particular? I don't have extensive knowledge about Judaism.

@@SeekingTruth2023 the comment above says it well. He doesn't give Jewish views. It's his own. He kind of makes it up. He isn't a traditional Jew. He doesn't practice traditional Judaism. It's his own version and philosophy.

@@konandaga9380 thank you.

​@@konandaga9380There are countless interpretations and forms of Judaism and his is one of them

Made-up narratives!

A tribe of people *pretending to be descendants of Jacob.

@@thecannibalrobot In the Qur’aan, his name was delivered to to both his grandfather's and grandmother's presence and both his father's name Isḥaaq and his name Yaᶜquub were directed to his grandmother messengers of Angels in human form. And Yaᶜquub has another name in the Qur’aan called Israa’iil. And both names are permanent Yaᶜquub represents the particularity of his biological and religious descendants, whereas the name Israa’iil as a certain descendents that are the core backbone or soul backbone of (called Banuu-Israa’iil = Sons of Israa’iil) the humanity at large (called Banuu-Aadam = Sons of Aadam) (Yaᶜquub being the younger of the two sons, Ismaaᶜiil the elder was directed as unnamed son to his father Ibraahiim, as a representative symbolism of Aadam was lowered back, so as to Aš-Šayṭaan carry his threat once he refused to obey Allaah’s command to prostrate to Aadam, something meant to happen to fulfill the opposite destiny of Allaah’s creation, a very complicated to describe). So the point is, the descendents of Yaᶜquub applies only to religious descendants as a selection of the Creator of all: Allaah, and no-one else knows except false hearsay narratives that is told both of people of Judaic faith as a consequence the narratives of Christianity's faith, and the Muslim faith as the people's or more precisely as men's narratives. And on reliant on the Biblical narratives rather than the accurate narrative of the Qur’aan. And here it is the Biblical narrative declaration of uselessness of the names of Jacob and Israel (disconnectednnes of humanity’s identity, of creation and evolution, and the lost humanity’s concept of the Creator God as struggling with his humanism in their false narratives about themselves: God the human, God the Father, God the son among Gods the children) as you call them! Genesis 32, translated NLT 28 "Your name will no longer be Jacob," the man told him. "From now on you will be called Israel, because you have fought with God and with men and have won." 30 "Jacob named the place Peniel (which means "face of God"), for he said, "I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been spared."

This is exactly how I explained it to a Saudi many years ago. You are spot on.

It's a quote that does a good job of addressing the problem of evil without appealing to faith or divine mystery. But then the question becomes, as they mentioned, is it preferable to have a world with suffering but true moral goodness or a world that lacks true moral goodness but also has no suffering? The quote also immediately fails as an explanation if one accepts determinism.

@@lexaray5 deep! didn't think about it. Thanks !

I m a spiritual Hindu btw n I feel much better being spiritual then religious

To a lot of people, I think the two are one in the same. If something is practically necessary, there is a lot of lee-way in interpreting that as God’s will.

​@@boaz2578 Like American politicians did with "manifest destiny."

@@booksquid856 Yes

Catholicism has a similar exegesis on the OT. We don't take it in a literalistic way as Alex does. Alex has a fundamentalist understanding of the OT, particularly on Herem warfare and slavery. Most seasoned Catholic theologians and scholars use the historical-critical methods and other modern scientific methods to understand Holy Scripture and tradition.The Rabbi was amazing.

He did mention clearly that he does not view this as the same thing. Female mutilation involves removing the entire cl*t, thus removing all pleasure. The same is not the case for circumcision, at least not Jewish circumcision which is a small ceremonial snip. Still a huge pain though. And there have been debates about updating this to an alternative. Some facets of American Jewry officially abandoned it for a while. It is worth noting that circumcision is a tradition that originates in Africa and that many tribes to this day use various forms of bodily scarring to mark membership. Long ago, and still in places today, people did not have passports and IDs and biometrics and thumbprint scans.

What do you think Hamza Yusuf can offer the conversation, mate?

Yes normally Alex just picks the topics out of the Bible that play on the emotion. Glad this Rabbi was able to explain the more proper way to understand the Old Testament as most Catholic theologians do. His debates in the past have just been a lot of gotchas and zingers.

By Jewish law you have to believe to GD to become a Jew in the Jewish court. Otherwise it's not a proper convertion

No, you don't have to believe in god as a Jew. It's an ancient and living and diverse nation. Similarly, you as an American do not have to believe in God despite any religious sentiments that founding Americans ascribed to. The Torah is the central constitutional corpus of the Jewish nation. It has been expanded and adapted for ages with huge libraries of various legislation, debate, precedent, and overruling. The reason it is necessary to convert via a religious process is for the basic fact that this is the best manner in which to learn the constitutional narratives of the Jewish nation. The naturalization process is very ancient. Afterwards though even an Orthodox convert need not remain religious without this in any way erasing their citizenship.

I think you nailed it!

same here, saw 2 seconds ago and instaclicked

The Jewish constitutional library extends far beyond the Torah. Just as our American legal experience extends far beyond the founding documents we hold sacred. Regardless of whether one is an atheist or not in America or the Jewish people, our national identity still revolves around texts which often do contain religious sentiments. That doesn't invalidate their significance. The arguments within them have been expounded upon and adapted for ages in Judasm.

@@booksquid856 So in other words, there are better sources of morality than the Torah?

​@@jozefglemp8011 Do you read the US constitution as your sole source of moral inspiration? I hope not. The Jewish world is overflowing with books and inquiry beyond the pages of whatever KJV you have been introduced to. And there is far more to America than any single set of founding documents. So it'a a bit of an odd question that you are asking, but I guess I can imagine where you are coming from since Christians clearly thinks of the Bible as a closed canon of religion instead.

A Rabbi who can’t tell you the definition of Judaism has about as much credibility as a woman Supreme Court Justice who can’t tell you the definition of a woman.

What is it that allows a person to call themselves an American? What is the construct that American identity is based on? We have arguments in our own context about who a true American is, and yet virtually none of Americans today share the religious sentiments of earlier founding generations. We certainly don't go around using the term "Providence," unless trying to be quirky. The Torah is the ancient constitution of the Jewish nation. It has been expanded and expounded upon and adapted for thousands of years and in huge growing volumes of recorded precedent, legislation, inquiry, overruling, and debate. A Rabbi is a well-studied and overworked mix of a Jewish constitutional legal expert, motivational speaker, mediator, counselor, community advocate, and encyclopedia of dry humor. Rabbi Wolpe is an excellent example of exactly what a Rabbi is. There are countless skeptics, mystics, critics, and divergent thinkers among Jewish sages throughout history because it is a living evolving people and not a dead religious creed. You may be pleasantly surprised to discover all the rich diversity of thought on this subject.

@@booksquid856 Wolpe is an excellent example of what a Rabbi is NOT. Listen to him speak. He doesn't even believe in the divinity of the Torah--the Jewish constitution. He might be smart and a great debater and speaker. A Rabbi he is not. Why does he even call himself Jewish if he doesn't believe in the divinity of the Torah.

​@@chatisawasteoftime I did listen to him and I enjoyed it quite a lot. And over the years I have listened to and enjoyed hearing from many rabbis from various perspectives in Judaism. So let's clear up the problem...You seem to think that the correct definition of a rabbi is whatever your assumption might be. Fact...There are LOTS of rabbis who do not believe in the divinity of Torah, especially not in the sense that a modern fundamentalist christian would. And among those who view the words as divinely transmitted, there are many nuanced and detailed and divergent opinions in Judaism of how humans absorb that higher inspiration. Can the mind of an incomparable being actually be transmitted to paper? And how does that matter in terms of the use of the Torah? It is still her constitution. Analogy... It's not necessary to believe what founders of America did to serve in public office today or educate people about constitutional law, nor would it be possible since a closer inspection reveals many and conflicting views gave birth to our country. And that continues to be the case for both America and the Jewish nation.

​​@@chatisawasteoftime Why does he call himself Jewish? Because he is. I just explained why. And I explained the gist of what being a rabbi entails. And no, he is not alone in being both a Jew and a rabbi who does not believe the Torah was a direct divine revelation. Don't know what else to say. Just is what it is.