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.

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

Hitchens was a genius orator and a brilliant author. In debate he was formidable. Had he not fallen prey to alcohol and tobacco, which ultimately took his life in the form of throat cancer, can you imagine how he might weigh in on the issues of today? I wonder what he would have to say to Trump, Netanyahu, Biden, and Jordan Peterson. Can you imagine him debating Tovia Singer or doing the rounds on atheist KZfaq? Hitchens was like a knife made of diamond, able to cut through any argument with ease as if slicing through air. We are poorer for the loss of him. Alex is awesome too. However, to claim that he is better is well wide of the mark. What Alex has that Hitchens did not, is hindsight. We can see much more clearly now what the errors of the War on Terror were, and how the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan were doomed to fail from the start. Similarly, in ten or twenty years from now, we will see more clearly who was in the right in the War in Gaza. Those who have now staked firm positions may find themselves as Hitchens did, having to defend a stance that became increasingly apparent to be wrong. And some future podcaster will have the benefit of critiquing them, just as Alex has the ability to critique Hitchens.

​@@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.

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!

He was possessed by Douglas Adams for this one

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Or how are the believers required and able to follow the "sometimes" inspired laws?? When they can't be sure, which ones were inspired??" That's where Rabbis and Priests, Ministers, Imams, and Gurus come in. THEY ALONE know how to interpret the holy books! They have a direct line to the big guy! At least that is what they want us to believe.

@@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Smh

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.

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.

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.

@@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"

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

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.

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

@@Spoonforkbowl 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.

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.

Some Americans have in history and today believed god inspired our constitution. Our founding documents are filled with religious sentiments. Yet no one is obligated to believe in religion to ascribe validity to our central founding documents. Same thing with Torah.

@booksquid856 yes and don't forget the catch in that, the establishment clause. Also we have learned and know a great deal more now

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I agree. Very well put.

very insightful

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.

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.

I am so glad this Rabbi came on because Alex always brings up the Canaanites, and the way he understands it just causes Christians to question their faith because he paints God as a monster. There are so many ex-Christians because of the erroneous way people like Alex interpret the Bible. It can do a lot of damage. I am glad this Rabbi came on to undo a lot of the damage Alex did when talking to Dinesh, William Lane Craig, and Ben Shapiro on topics like slavery and Herem Warfare. These are hard topics to discuss because they can only make sense in light of Christ and have to be seen through the lens of faith. I was beginning to see Alex as the worm in C.S. Lew Screwtape novel -- unknowingly dangerous.

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.

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."

"Going back thousands of years, countless men circumcised right after birth assert that it does not dull sexual pleasure"... find the error.

@@moochgoestube The error is that there is no reference point as a baby doesn't have a baseline for sexual pleasure.

​@@moochgoestube I found the error. You made the mistake of thinking we would be talking about an infant's sexual pleasure. Obviously we are talking about the results experienced in adulthood.😊

@@booksquid856 No, the point is that if you never experienced sexual pleasure before the circumcision, you obviously won't be able to tell the difference between circumcised and not circumcised. Wolpe downplaying the impact like this is just a poor argument.

@@moochgoestube He never made a comment comparing those experiences. He simply said this practice had not eliminated pleasure. I get what you are saying, but it doesn't seem to be the point of his statement. Edit...keep in mind that he contrasted this to the removal of a cl*t which certainly does eliminate pleasure.

I noticed several religious theists saying they liked Christopher Hitchens. Namely a Muslim KZfaqr.

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

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m7N3qsaLtciweKs.html

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.

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.

That's a very important point that I hope will become clearer to people as they realize their current labels and assumptions for Judasm do not work.

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.

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

same here, saw 2 seconds ago and instaclicked

I know your post is purposely simplified, but I would say that the the first 'break' is from Temple Judaism to Rabbinical Judaism and then the second 'break' is well, Spinoza. In other words, it's three distinct phases of Judaism, rather than two.