The cult that the Gra signed the excommunication on change their story depending on whom they are talking to

There are several reason that I think you should get a set of  Avi Ezri.
One reason is that fact that it shows how to learn Torah in a very simple and understandable way.

But also there is the fact that he (Rav Elazar Menachem Shach) was the only one to stand up and oppose the false god of the the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on.

That already says a lot about the quality of his character and intelligence.


I should mention that the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on change their story depending on whom they are talking to. They definitively serve a false god, not the God of Israel, but they get away with it because they are extraordinarily excellent in doing rituals. And to other groups that have obsessive compulsive needs to be doing ritual all day long this is  a big plus. So they get a pass at serving a phony deity.


Of course there are levels of how bad things can be. This we see in the Eitz Chaim of Rabainu the Ari. The problem with the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on is they worship the crown of darkness, the crown of the Sitra Achra. So their evil is not apparent. It is the higher root of evil.
The way I see things based on the Ari is there are planes of evil. Not all evil is the same. The root --or from where evil comes from is not the same as the evil itself. And I do see it as a metaphysical reality. See the part of the Eitz Chaim after Shar HaNukva and you will see what I mean.



Appendix: Just to get back to Rav Shach. The point of the whole school of the Litvak Gedolim was global. It was to understand how the subject in front of you fits with the rest of Shas and with the Rambam. The trouble is that most of that school is hard to understand. It is easy to finish an essay of Reb Chaim Soloveitchik and think you still do not get it. With Rav Shach, that never happens. He makes the deepest concepts crystal clear.

The book Ideas in Shas and a piece of Music

Ideas in Talmud updated   R38 G major I think this piece is OK but I am not really sure.
Ideas in Bava Metzia

Wisdom of crowds=Wisdom of the mob.

Wisdom of crowds. This was an issue addressed by  my Dad. After a career in science, he went into the stock market. He told me once the best way to lose money in the stock market is to listen to advice of the experts or the crowd. That was pretty much in accord with the general world view of Californians  in those days of the importance of  finding your own path and not listening to the wisdom of crowds.

He was in those days working with the best stock brokers of Merrill-Lynch. But that was what my Dad said even abut the top experts--not to listen to their advice about what to invest in.

Today I would have to temper (modify) this advice. Sometimes. Sapolsky mentioned on one of his utube videos  [#22. min. 45 ]that if you take a lot of experts and take the average of all their estimates about the thing they are expert in then the medium turns out to be very close to the true value more than any one expert. But the caveat [condition] is they have to be experts in that field. For example given to Navy geologist temperature and some other variable the question was asked, "Where in the world would this be?" Take the collective answer of all and take the average. It came out within 300 meters of the right spot.

So you really have to be expert enough to be able to tell who is a real expert and who really has just assumed expertise.


[Mainly the reason my Dad went into business instead of continuing in science was as far as I understood was the his project of creating satellite communication by lasers was completed for NASA and he no longer wanted to be under the thumb of an any employer. He wanted to be self employed. He was tired I think of taking orders and thought he could do better n his own.

pantheism means making the whole world into an idol.

The major problem with pantheism is that you do not want to turn the whole world into an idol.

While God is beyond this world and also since he made place and time so the world is not empty of Him. Still that does not mean the world is a god or godliness.
he is infinity close and infinity far but that does not mean pantheism. You can understand this by ontological undecidability.

The Rambam dealt with this problem in several ways First he wrote the whole second volume of the Guide  to show God made the world something from nothing--not from Himself. The world is not godliness, nor condensed godliness according to the Torah. (But it is according to Advaita Hinduism.) Thus the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on teach Advaita Hinduism.


________________________________________________________________________________



הבעיה העיקרית עם פנתאיזם היא שאתה לא רוצה להפוך את העולם כולו לאליל. בעוד שהאלוהים הוא מעבר לעולם הזה וגם מאז הוא עשה המקום וזמן, כך שהעולם הוא לא ריק ממנו. עדיין זה לא אומר שהעולם הוא אלוהים או אלוהות. הוא קרוב ורחוק  אבל זה לא אומר פנתאיזם. רמב''ם התמודד עם בעיה זו במספר דרכים. הוא כתב את הכרך השני כולו של המורה  להראות אלוהים ברא את העולם יש מאין, לא מעצמו. העולם אינו אלוהות ולא אלוהות מתומצתת על פי התורה.

But as far as left wing politics goes I think there is one unifying principle: the desire to feel moral at other people's expense.

Michael Huemer holds that people are irrational about politics  and religion and decide their beliefs based on group affiliation and other principle that have nothing to do with reason. But as far as left wing politics goes I think there is one unifying principle: the desire to feel moral at other people's expense.

political power in the hands of the unjust

Socrates once had a chance to debate a person of great political power in Athens. Socrates thought that political power in the hands of people that do not know the difference between justice and injustice is a bad thing. He brought an example of Cleon an orator that had convinced the Athenians to execute all the males of some city that had rebelled. The decree was recalled when the Athenians came to their senses and sent a ship to overtake the first ship that had the first set of orders.

Religious teachers are stupid. It is possible to generalize about groups of people. To say one can't is absurd. You might as well say you can't generalize about child pornographers. Or you can't generalize about pedophiles. How can you say they are all bad. No. I can say they are all bad.

Religious teachers claim to be able to understand the Talmud.That is clearly false to anyone who has ever asked them a question about anyplace in the Talmud.

They always lie about what the Torah says because they are trying to change Torah into a recipe for making people give them money. They will claim whatever clams people like to hear about anything besides this one basic point.

It is possible to generalize about groups of people. To say one can't is absurd. You might as well say you can't generalize about child pornographers. Or you can't generalize about pedophiles. How can you say they are all bad. No. I can say they are all bad.


People in Litvak (Lithuanian) yeshivas certainly do know the material well, but all practicing religious teacher not only are stupid when it comes to the Talmud but also do not care what it says. They just want to continue their pretense in order to preserve their status quo in which they get all the perks and the working people have to bow to them. They make good money off of rituals.
{See Animal Farm in detail by George Orwell.}



There are two reasons for saying this. One is Rabainu Yona. That is his is the opinion that Lashon HaRa (slander) does not apply to truth unless the damage caused by it would not be according to the din (law) of the Torah. That is in plain English Lashon Hara (slander) to him is specifically on lies. Truth (true slander) is only forbidden because of collateral damage. [See the Chafetz Chaim Vol I chapter 4 and Vol I chapter 7.] In this case, the damage the religious teachers cause is so vast and encompassing of every single Jewish home, that there is no choice but to make this public. And the Chafez Chaim decided like Rabainu Yona.[That is in chapter 7 he makes this clear even though he uses the language of the Rambam in the beginning of chapter one. For some reason I do not understand the Chafetz Chaim did not mention this argument between the Rambam and Rabainu Yona openly. This is very curious to me.]

But I think that even the Rambam would agree here. Even though to him Lashon Hara is on truth still to warn people about a danger that they otherwise would not be aware of I think he would agree is permissible and even praiseworthy. [Otherwise the only time you could even warn someone would be in Bet Din. You could not even warn your own teenage children about avoiding some bad cult. What the Rambam might do is go a completely different route than Rabainu Yona. That is he might say מומר לדבר אחד אינו מומר לכל התורה כולה a person that does not keep one mitzvah is not a person that keeps no mitzvot. But he is still a "mumar,"  and thus lashon hara on him is allowed. It is allowed not because it is true but because the prohibition of lashon hara does not apply.]

That is to say: You have trusted the religious teachers until now. How did that work out for you? If you think they ruined your life, you are not alone. And they get this power from the pretense of knowing the Talmud.


Stupid is not the same as dumb. Dumb is just Dumb. But Stupid implies a kind of damage that they do. Stupid jerks telling others about Morality and ethics just can not have a good end to it.

______________________________________________________________________________


There are two reasons for saying this. One is רבינו יונה. That is his is the opinion that  לשון הרע does not apply to אמת unless the damage caused by it would not be according to the din (law) of the Torah. That is in plain English לשון הרע  to him is specifically on lies.  אמת true slander is only forbidden because of collateral damage. See the חפץ חיים חלק א' פרק ד'  ופרק ז. In this case, the damage the religious teachers cause is so vast and encompassing of every single Jewish home, that there is no choice but to make this public. And the חפץ חיים decided like רבינו יונה. That is in chapter שבע he makes this clear even though he uses the language of the רמב''ם in the beginning of chapter one. For some reason I do not understand the חפץ חיים did not mention this argument between the רמב''ם and רבינו יונה openly. This is very curious to me.

But I think that even the רמב''ם would agree here. Even though to him  לשון הרע is on truth still to warn people about a danger that they otherwise would not be aware of I think he would agree is permissible and even praiseworthy. Otherwise the only time you could even warn someone would be in בית דין. You could not even warn your own teenage children about avoiding some bad cult. What the רמב''ם might do is go a completely different route than רבינו יונה. That is he might say מומר לדבר אחד אינו מומר לכל התורה כולה a person that does not keep one מצווה is not a person that keeps no מצוות But he is still a מומר  and thus  לשון הרע on him is allowed. It is allowed not because it is true but because the prohibition of  לשון הרע does not apply.


________________________________________________________________________________

And  you could ask but he is still בכלל עמיתיך? So לשון הרע still applies to him? Answer Yes לשון הרע still applies to him but not on that one מצווה that he is not doing.