The problem is Islam is the greatest threat to the survival of the human race.

There are many verses in the Q'ran calling for violence against unbelievers, the jihadists quote as they behead and enslave. There is a long tradition of scholarly interpretation and military implementation of those verses over centuries - not only by 20 year-olds but by imams, mullahs, sheikhs, and great Islamic empires. 

Those who persist in claiming that Islam is a religion of peace at the least have a lot of explaining to do. They have a huge weight of evidence, textual and historical, to contend with. 


Good luck to those who seek to persuade other Muslims of their "religion of peace" view! I pray for their safety and success. Those Muslims that really believe in the golden rule, I wish them well and pray for their health and success. But they are not following Islam, they are following Western ideals.

The problem is Islam is the greatest threat to the survival of the human race since that volcano eruption 75000 years ago almost wiped out our entire species. That was just one volcano. Imagine what the Islamic Atom Bomb could do to us. People that do not realize this simply have their heads in the sand, teh sands of Saudi Arabia money buying off our politicians.
 Believe me when i tell you the reason Germany has let in the new Islamic invasion, the reason George Bush claimed after the deadliest attack on American soil that Islam is a religion of peace--believe me when I tell you is is all about the Billions of dollars that Saudi Arabia buys our politicians with. Follow the money trail.

Girls, be smart and get a Litvak!

Girls, be smart and get a Litvak! A man who has learned in Ponovitch.

In the Jewish world, the Middle Ages have a different reputation than in the Christian world. In the Jewish world the Middle Ages are looked upon as the peak of Enlightenment. That is to say the "rishonim" are considered unsurpassed and also un-surpass-able.  The best thing we can say about the Gra is he qualified as a rishon. It is considered that rishonim cant be wrong--at least in Torah subjects. But we admit they can be wrong about scientific issues.

This relates to Christians because it has become customary in Christian circles to look at the Middle Ages as the "Dark Ages." Nothing in Christianity has come anywhere near the quality of thought of Aquinas nor Anselm. Not within a million light years. And yet Christians still insist on thinking that they have somehow out-grown the Middle Ages. If only they were smart enough to see the brilliance of the Middle Ages. That would already be a step up.


I should add the the "rishonim" well deserve their reputation. But to see this takes years in yeshiva. Mainly the problem with achronim is fuzzy logic. This is mirrored in the Christian world where the best of philosophical thinkers after the middle ages  show circular logic consistently.







David Hume wrote: The order in nature could equally well result from the intrinsic properties of matter itself. This he thought was an argument against intelligent design. The issue to be decided is whether the order in nature is the result of intelligent design. If it is, then the properties of matter (e.g the bonding properties of carbon and hydrogen) are also the result of intelligent design. Postulating a dichotomy between intelligent design and the properties of matter therefore amounts to postulating a priori that there is no design in nature. Hume (and all who follow him) essentially follow a grand circularity. That is called circular logic and proves nothing since anything can be proved if one is clever enough to conceal the circular nature of his arguments 

Kant

The greatest consideration should be given to the possibility of  graded levels of reason. I mean to say that we have different levels of unconditioned realities. Modes of necessity. So in knowledge of these modes we ought to considered different levels of non intuitive immediate knowledge.

In short: How is a priori synthetic knowledge possible? you could say like the intutionists [Prichard G.E. Moore, Huemer, Bryan Caplan] that it is by reason. They are expanding the areas that reason knows for good cause. They look at Hume's argument that reason has only one function--to `perceive  contradictions.They know that that is wrong. But we do have to admit the kind of reasoning we use to advance a mathematical series is different than the other kinds of intellectual perception that they suggest. That is they ignore Kant's arguments, not just Hume.

So Plato could have answered the question how the forms participate with individuals -he could have answered the representation makes the object possible and the object makes the representation possible. 

Making and keeping friends. Getting married and staying married and having good children. How to do this?

Marriage is great 

marriage and friends is what life is about. 

Making friends, finding acceptance, falling in love, and becoming lovable  present  real and lifelong challenges for human beings in every culture.  Friendship is a philosophic problem because  a man or a woman without friends, real friends, is incapable of the fullest flourishing. Such people will always just miss capturing the deepest sort of happiness. The time to address youthful eroticism is before the wounds of rejection and insecurity become lasting scars. 
How to make and keep friends and a spouse. Two problems everyone thinks about but no one addresses.

Adults are too busy to take a hand in such matters. The youth suffer. They  grow up, reenact the same ineptitude with their own kids, and spend their time browsing the self-help stacks of bookstores.  Where are adults who should care about youths and their ability to channel love and eros to its proper end: making friends and a wife and kids?

So people know they need help but have no where to go. The question is under the surface of consciousness. So it can never be expressed.

To answer this question people get attracted to cults that claim to answer these concerns. They pour their time efforts and money into false leaders that pretend to be able to answer these concerns. 

So the problem of cults is a deeper problem that relates to the very essence of what a human being is.

People in Lithuanian yeshivas will recognize immediately what I am talking about. They know that the Litvak yeshiva is probably the best forum and environment for making and keeping friends and getting married and staying married and having good children. They know it is not a cult. It is the exact opposite. But what bothers me is that sometimes it does not do this function very well.
This fact seems not to be addressed at all anywhere. I found that the effect can be the opposite of what you would except.

Rambam holds with the basic metaphysics as Aristotle

The Rambam holds with the basic metaphysics as Aristotle. But this leaves him in a predicament when it comes to power. [potential] (Potential means able to do something that one is not actually doing.]) Since the Rambam and Aristotle  say the God has no matter that would mean he has no ability to do anything other than what he is doing. You need to get to the idea that action does not use up possibility.
for the Rambam is that universals represent a kind of mode of necessity.



I think that we can see why the Rambam was so firm that God can't have any physical aspect. Not just from a Torah perspective but also from the perspective of Aristotle.  [That is he is not specifically trying to knock Christianity or any specific doctrines. He just holds that matter and the universe is not a part of God. That is what is usually called Monotheism. Pantheism is a different belief system  of Torah which is that God made the world, but is not the world. (This is one reason  the Gra signed the  excommunication.)  After all if "Everything is godliness then maybe it does not hurt so much if their "tzadik"  leader is a little more godly than anyone else.]

As Kelley Ross writes:

 ..In Aristotle ... matter is potential; but then matter is so intrinsically amorphous, merely the passive recipient of actualizing "form," that the Neoplatonists identified it with Not-Being (and evil) -- quite apt when Prime Matter, or pure potential, is not actual at all and so in fact doesn't exist -- and both Aristotle and the Neoplatonists eliminated any material component to God (or the One). 

Rambam holds with the basic metaphysics as Aristotle

The Rambam holds with the basic metaphysics as Aristotle. But this leaves him in a predicament when it comes to power. Since the Rambam and Aristotle  say the God has no matter that would mean he has no ability to do anything other than what he is doing. You need to get to the idea that action does not use up possibility. 


What I am trying to say is what Kelley Ross is saying and what I think we have to consider as going for the Rambam is that universals represent a kind of mode of necessity.



I think that we can see why the Rambam was so firm that God can't have any physical aspect. Not just from a Torah perspective but also from the perspective of Aristotle.  [That is he is not specifically trying to knock Christianity or any specific doctrines. He just holds that matter and the universe is not a part of God. That is what is usually called Monotheism. Pantheism is a different belief system introduced by the cult that the Gra signed the  excommunication on to get people to worship their leaders.  After all if "Everything is godliness then mybe it does not hurt so much if their "tzadik"  leader is a little more godly than anyone else.]

As Kelley Ross writes:

 ..In Aristotle ... matter is potential; but then matter is so intrinsically amorphous, merely the passive recipient of actualizing "form," that the Neoplatonists identified it with Not-Being (and evil) -- quite apt when Prime Matter, or pure potential, is not actual at all and so in fact doesn't exist -- and both Aristotle and the Neoplatonists eliminated any material component to God (or the One). 

Bava Metzia

Bava Metzia page 14b.  ideas in Bava Metzia chapters 8 and 9

 On the way to the bank it occurred to that there is one significant difference between Rashi and Tosphot concerning Shmuel and that that difference may very well indicate some serious revising of how to understand the Tosphot. The difference between Rashi and Tosphot is in area of Shmuel. To Rashi when Shmuel says the buyer gets the price he paid for the field but not improvements it means he does not get the improvement from the owner nor the thief. (I have a remarkable proof for this but I can't write it this minute.)
There is no difference between Rashi and Tosphot that is true as far as the opinion of Rav is concerned.


But now this reflects on Tosphot also. For Tosphot says the law on page 14 is the same as the law on page 101. So in fact as I wrote before in the opinion of Tosphot the owner would pay the buyer the lesser amount, improvement or expense. So as far as that goes everything is OK. But lets looks then at the opinion of Tosphot concerning Rav. If the thief did no work why would the owner pay anything to the thief? The arrows I wrote were correct as far as Tosphot in concerned but my point is the cases are different. The case where the owner pays the thief the lesser amount is when the thief did the work on the field. The case where the owner pays the buyer the full amount of the improvement is when the buyer was the one to do the work.

Bli'neder if I get a chance I will try to present the whole subject in more detail.
_______________________________________________________________________________
בבא מציעא י''ד ע''ב

There is one significant difference between רש''י and תוספות concerning שמואל. The difference between רש''י and תוספות is in area of שמואל. To רש''י when שמואל says the לוקח gets the price he paid for the field קרן but not שבח it means he does not get the שבח from the בעל השדה nor the thief.


So when I wrote there is no difference between רש''י and תוספות that is true as far as the opinion of רב is concerned.
But now this reflects on תוספות also. For תוספות says the law on page י''ד ע''ב is the same as the law on page ק''א ע''א So in fact as I wrote before in the opinion of תוספות the  בעל השדה would pay the buyer the lesser amount, שבח or יציאה. So as far as that goes everything is OK. But lets looks then at the opinion of תוספות concerning רב. If the גנב did no work why would the בעל השדה pay anything to the גנב? The arrows I wrote were correct as far as תוספות in concerned but my point is the cases are different. The case where the בעל השדה pays the thief the lesser amount is when the thief did the work on the field. The case where the בעל השדה pays the לוקח the full amount of the שבח is when the לוקח was the one to do the work.


בבא מציעא י '' ד ע''ב יש הבדל משמעותי אחד בין רש''י ותוספות בנוגע לשמואל. ההבדל בין רש''י ואת התוספות הוא בתחום של שמואל.  לרש''י כאשר שמואל אמר שהלוקח מקבל את המחיר ששילם עבור השדה, קרן אבל לא שבח, זה אומר שהוא אינו מקבל את שבח מן בעל השדה ולא את הגנב.  אין הבדל בין רש ''י ותוספות בנוגע לדעת רב. אבל עכשיו זה משקף על תוספות גם. לתוספות החוק על דף י''ד ע''ב זהה לחוק בעמוד ק''א ע''א.
 שלדעת תוספות בעל השדה ימשלם לקונה הסכום הפחות, שבח או יציאה.  אבל בואו נראה אז על דעתו של תוספות בנוגע רב. אם הגנב לא עשה שום עבודה מדוע בעל השדה ישלם כלום לגנב? החיצים כתבתי צדקו אבל הנקודה שלי היא שהמקרים שונים. במקרה שבו בעל השדה משלם את הגנב את הכמות הפחותה זה כאשר הגנב עשה את העבודה על המגרש. במקרה שבו בעל השדה משלם לוקח את הסכום המלא של השבח הוא כאשר הלוקח היה זה שעשה את העבודה.