Fear of the Lord

[Vajradhara]

b'shalom BB,

does that mean "in peace"?

thank you for the post.

ah.. yes.. i can see how some philosophical positions would be inconsistent with the overall theme..

if we're getting too far afield.. let me know

so... let me ask you... presuming that one held an...how to say.. unorthodox position regarding, say... G!D, in this case. is that individual subject to the same type of sanctions that one that was actively asserting such a heretical view? that's not a very well phrased question.. but maybe you see my meaning...

Originally Posted by bananabrain

on the nosey. however, there are certain philosophical positions that are definitely *not* fine to hold, such as those which overtly conflict with, say, maimonides' thirteen principles. an example would be to believe that jesus was the messiah, or that G!D Is not One, heaven forbid.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[bananabrain]

yep, that's what it means.

so... let me ask you... presuming that one held an...how to say.. unorthodox position regarding, say... G!D, in this case. is that individual subject to the same type of sanctions that one that was actively asserting such a heretical view? that's not a very well phrased question.. but maybe you see my meaning...

the point is that if someone doesn't know what's in your head, they can hardly sanction you for it. in terms of the actual position, depends what it is, what halacha it contravenes, what you do as a result and who knows about it.

there is halacha about the "rebellious elder", who refuses to stop promoting a dissenting view. i'll see if i can't dig it up.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Vajradhara]

b'Shalom BB,


just wonder if you've had a chance to look that information up yet? no rush

[bananabrain]

hi vaj,

turns out that the law of the "zaken mamrei" or "rebellious elder" also depends on the person taking the position. if it is a scholar with authority to render legal decisions who defies the sanhedrin and encourages others to disregard their ruling, he can (under certain circumstances) be put to death. if it's just a normal person who holds this opinion, he can probably be considered either a "benoni" ("ordinary", which in Talmudic terms is tantamount to being called an ignorant bastad) or at worst a heretic. either way, it would be more likely that a non-scholar would be treated as an ignoramus ("if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't hold this opinion") than any sanction be taken against him.

i think in these terms, someone who holds the unorthodox opinion but keeps it to himself has only the Celestial Court and his own conscience to answer to. it's the same as breaking other laws - if there isn't a prescribed penalty (usually death, lashes or a fine) then you're pretty much responsible for your own self-discipline. whether your community sanctions you is a different matter. you may be refused community honours (such as being called to the Torah) or have some other privilege removed.

either way i think the basic principle is "the more shocking the opinion, the more powerful the sanction", ranging from idiots at one end ("what do you expect from such an idiot?") to prominent heretics at the other end, who might at worst be put under a herem (excommunicated) which is the worst community sanction we have.

does that clarify things?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Vajradhara]

b'Shalom BB,


yes, that puts it clear for me. thank you very much for the information and the research on this topic, it is appreciated

[bananabrain]

*bow*

no problem matey. this is the sort of thing i love researching in a comparative religion forum.

b'shalom

bananabrain