Samson: For Torath Mosheh Jews Only

[Ehav4Ever]

Sorry, @Ehav4Ever, but that doesn't even make any sense.

It actually does. Animals don't contemplate violence. Prey animals don't complain about predators being to violent. Male animals competing for alpha male status doin't complain about the winner being to violent. There is no such concept. Further, no animal that attacked a person is concerned that it is being to violent to a person. Thus, whatever means a person has to use to survive is permissable than moving out of the way of a boulder is about to fall on someone.

Also, what about verses such as Isaiah 11:6-9?

There are a number of Torath Mosheh Jewish sources that state this is a metaphor for how when there is again a Torah based nation in the land of Israel being led by a Torah based Davidic King, it will only happen if it is proven that Hashem is the source of reality. Thus, when that day exists then there won't be any Israeli exiles, there won't be any wars waged against said Torah based nation, and the nations themselves will have a change of character. All because IF it is clear to all Jews and the world that Hashe is

YET, as the Rambam points out the metaphor is not saying that the rules of reality works won't change.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So then why is Samson specifically pointed out in the book of Judges?

Because, the Navi was trying to point out why king from the tribe of Yehudah (Judah) was necessary.

Why aren't other Hebrew text heroes given these kinds of abilities? You seem to lean in the direction of making the events of the book of Samson sound so normal.

Actually, there are a lot of leaders of the Israeli people mentioned throughout Tanakh, the Talmud, Midrashim, etc. The information in the Tanakh was chosen because it has meaning to the future of the Israeli people/nation. Other information not included was not deemed to have the same need, for the future. Besides, Shimshon (Samson) is a good point on why a leader who appears even to be supernatural is not needed.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So, what does the Hebrew text mean by the Hebrew transliterated words El, Eloah, and Elohim?

I cover this in the Avodah Zara video. Starting at 2:01 and ending at 7:03.

Also,

I don't even know how to respond to a comment like that. Plus, it redirects that point made in the video rather than addressing it. Kind of like saying that what he's doing wrong is no better than what Hashem is doing wrong.

The guy who did the video uses a redirect. His comment is 100% applicable to Christianity and not Torath Mosheh. Besides, if someone makes a claim they should themselves be able to hold up to it.

Also, what the guy in the is doing isn't even compariable to the Source of Reality. I.e. the only reason he can make the claim and I can make mine is because something put everything in place. If someone wants to change the reality they also have to accept that the new reality may not fit their own personal wants for how they manage their own lives. So, it is valid to make it clear of what is being talked about and its relevance. His claim, as he stated it, is only relevant to a "god" that "claims itself to have perfect morality." Something that is not a god, has not defined itself by that term and what it means, does not claim to have human concepts of morality, and does not need or answer to its creations doesn't fall within the spectrum of what he was even talking about.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So, is this the same thing that is mentioned at Genesis 1:2, Isaiah 32:15, Psalm 104:30, Psalm 104:30, Judges 3:10, and Isaiah 63:10-11?

Similar to Judges 3:10, not the English you posted. The word spirit is not correct. It carries the Christian concept. It is more like what I posted in the videos I listed.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

A bit off topic, but would that mean that there was or may have been a literal snake talking to Eve? And if so, since Jews believe in the concept of yetzer hara, would that mean that Hashem created the snake to talk? Or is that saying something about Eve if she only thought that the snake talked, but it didn't?

There is a long amount of Torath Mosheh inforamtion on that topic. It would need to be a topic on its own.

In short, there are some sources that state that for Adam's and Hawwah's personal situation there was an actual animal that was allowed to be an external yetzer hara so that Adam would have fee will. Once they made their choices the concept of yetzer hara became an internalized reality for them that they, and all humans, would have to wrestle with as a part of the definition of being human. Yetzer Hatov and Yetzer Hara.

There is also a lot of Torath Mosheh ink that has been onto paper/parchment/etc. concerning what the goal of Adam and Hawwah was by doing all the things they did in relation to the yetzer hara, but again there is a lot views and this and it is too complex to address in a thread about Shimshon (Samson)

BTW, the term used in Hebrew doesn't specifically mean a snake like what is depicted in Christian European drawings.

 

[David Davidovich]

David Davidovich said: ↑

Because isn't that what the Torah laws and the mitzvahs are all about?

No. That is a western concept. The Torah can be summed us like so.

Hashem, the source of all reality and the source of the ability for something to be created, gave the Torah to the Israeli/Jewish people in order to guide Israelis/Jewish to benefit properly from the reality that Hashem created and to create a Torah based nation in the land of Israel. For the non-Jewish nations, he gave the 7 mitzvoth for the same purpose for them but not in the land of Israel.
​

This is mentioned numerous times in the Torah and also is what Dawith Hamelekh (King David) told his son before passed away. Further, a person can use their free-will to do the opposite and not have the beneifit that Hashem gave to address the reality Hashem created.

Well, obviously, you know the Torah and the Hebrew text better than I do, but I thought that the Torah laws were more about distinguishing the Jews from the foreign nations around them. Such as not wearing garments of mixed wool and linen, not eating shrimp and catfish, and not eating pork, etc. Laws that may no longer be applicable or beneficial in the 21st century.

Also, I have an interesting video, which some people may not like about pork eating:

 

[David Davidovich]

It actually does. Animals don't contemplate violence. Prey animals don't complain about predators being to violent.

You know this how? Because I finally got around to watching this video:

and you said something like: or at least animals have never written down complaints about animal violence. And I'm not sure if that was an example of you just kidding around as you mentioned at the end of the video, but either way, there's really no way of knowing how terrified or how much pain animals go through. Because since animals can show tremendous love and affection, it would only seem likely that they can also show pain, distress, and sadness. And as a matter of fact, studies have shown that animals do experience emotions and emotional pain, etc.

And last but not least.>>>>>>>

Male animals competing for alpha male status doin't complain about the winner being to violent. There is no such concept. Further, no animal that attacked a person is concerned that it is being to violent to a person.

And once again, how do you know that?

David Davidovich said: ↑

Also, what about verses such as Isaiah 11:6-9?

There are a number of Torath Mosheh Jewish sources that state this is a metaphor for how when there is again a Torah based nation in the land of Israel being led by a Torah based Davidic King, it will only happen if it is proven that Hashem is the source of reality. Thus, when that day exists then there won't be any Israeli exiles, there won't be any wars waged against said Torah based nation, and the nations themselves will have a change of character. All because IF it is clear to all Jews and the world that Hashe is

I didn't understand everything that you said in your quote above, but from that quote and from other similar quotes, if seems as if the Torah Mosheh Jewish belief is that the coming of mashiach is more dependent upon human behavior and the Torath Mosheh Jew's teachings to others than it is upon Hashem's manipulation or Hashem's timetable. However, you don't have to reply to that because I would rather start a new topic on that.

YET, as the Rambam points out the metaphor is not saying that the rules of reality works won't change.

I didn't understand what you said.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, obviously, you know the Torah and the Hebrew text better than I do, but I thought that the Torah laws were more about distinguishing the Jews from the foreign nations around them./QUOTE]

No, the Torah laws were not "more" about distinquishing Jews from from foreign nations. Being distinquished is a sub-set up of it but mainly to keep Jews on the right track with the Torah and not being influenced externally therefore causing a situation where Jews drop the ball. I did a video about this issue what the goal of the Torah is for the Jewish people.

/QUOTE]Such as not wearing garments of mixed wool and linen, not eating shrimp and catfish, and not eating pork, etc.

These are mitzvoth that are understood to have no connection to a specific generation, timeframe, or changes in society. They are mitzvoth for the same of Jews to develop a particular culture condusive to keeping the Torah in the land of Israel, and even in exile, if that happens.

Laws that may no longer be applicable or beneficial in the 21st century. Also, I have an interesting video, which some people may not like about pork eating:

The video isn't relevant to the Torah. The defintion of what Torah based Jews eat or not eat is not based solely on animal types. There is a defintion of the qualities that the animals must have. Pigs lack one of them.

Those all

 

[Ehav4Ever]

You know this how?

I stated, animals don't contemplate violence. Prey animals don't complain about predators being to violent. The way I know this is the following.

In order to "comteplate" something the book definiton of the word states:

Do animals contemplate their future?.

Further,

 

[Ehav4Ever]

and you said something like: or at least animals have never written down complaints about animal violence. And I'm not sure if that was an example of you just kidding around as you mentioned at the end of the video, but either way, there's really no way of knowing how terrified or how much pain animals go through.

Emotions are not the same as contemplation. Of course animals have emotions of their own type. That is not the same as contemplation. Especially, the contemplation of violence. Of course animals feel pain and of course they have distress about experiencing it, but that is not the same as contemplation. It is obvious with certain types of animals more than others when you see what their response is to being the prey. Yet, they are limited in what they can do about that.

For example, a human can decide they will no longer eat meat because they may contemplate the reasons they longer will do so and they can change their behavior to match their new considerations. A lion, leapord, tiger, or killer whale haven't been proven to contemplate such a concept and change their diet permantely accodingly. Whale are considered to be very intelligent but there is a consideration that they are limited by their physical forms.

Further, prey animals have no way to communicate their distress over being prey to their predators in a way where the predators understand, contemplate their actions against the prey, and then permantely change their behavior. Most often if the prey survives an encounter with their predators it is because they either outrun, excape them, or return with violence that surpasses the violence of the predator.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

And once again, how do you know that?

Because, in order for someone to have a complaint there has to be a statement that something is wrong or not satisfactory. Two males engaging in other in combat for the right to procreate don't exactly have any grounds to complaint at the outcome. Further, try find an example of a male loosing one of these battles and then complaining to something or someone about it.

Look at any

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I didn't understand everything that you said in your quote above, but from that quote and from other similar quotes, if seems as if the Torah Mosheh Jewish belief is that the coming of mashiach is more dependent upon human behavior and the Torath Mosheh Jew's teachings to others than it is upon Hashem's manipulation or Hashem's timetable. However, you don't have to reply to that because I would rather start a new topic on that.

There are statements in the Tanakh that point to the idea that a Davidic king doesn't just appear out of thin air. I.e. Jews (Torah based Jews and non-Torah based Jews) living in the land of Israel need to do things to make such a reality happen. Thus, if the entire generation is not worthy of a Torah based Davidic king it won't happen.

Thus, two possibilities are proposed.

1. The Jews living in Israel, as a whole, desire to keep Torah and start actually doing so.
   • The natural response that Hashem created is that this would cause the ability for there to be a Davidic king who is mashiahh.
   • Would require every Jew in Israel to want such a thing and make steps to keep Torah nationally.
2. Hashem has appointed a deadline for their to finally be a mashiahh, irregardless of what that generation of Jews wants.
   • Even with this deadline their can't be a mashiahh w/o the Jews living in Israel returning to the Torah.
   • Thus Hashem causes/or allows the internally circumstances to take place where Jews living in Israel have no choice to but see that there is a need to return to the Torah.
   • One example of how this could happen is if Israel no longer had any friends in the world and no support. I.e. the Jews living in Israel see that only Hashem has ever really supported the Israeli people and Hashem is a reality.

Thus, if one takes the entire history of the exile and the treatment of Jews in various parts of the world and replace that with a Torah based nation with a Davidic king, and proof that the whole world recognizes that Hashem is protecting the Israeli/Jewish people - then it will be as if the wolf (the nations/religions that have harressed Israel) is at peace with the sheep (Torah based Israeli society). Thus, there are those who say that this is the metaphor.

I didn't understand what you said.

The Rambam and others state that just because the messianic era doesn't mean that laws of reality/nature that we see around us all of a sudden change to something else. I.e. reality/nature as it is stays the same but the Jewish people are able to do the Torah in the land of Israel w/o the threats of war, invasion, or exile.

 

[David Davidovich]

The guy who did the video uses a redirect. His comment is 100% applicable to Christianity and not Torath Mosheh. Besides, if someone makes a claim they should themselves be able to hold up to it.

Also, what the guy in the is doing isn't even compariable to the Source of Reality. I.e. the only reason he can make the claim and I can make mine is because something put everything in place. If someone wants to change the reality they also have to accept that the new reality may not fit their own personal wants for how they manage their own lives. So, it is valid to make it clear of what is being talked about and its relevance. His claim, as he stated it, is only relevant to a "god" that "claims itself to have perfect morality." Something that is not a god, has not defined itself by that term and what it means, does not claim to have human concepts of morality, and does not need or answer to its creations doesn't fall within the spectrum of what he was even talking about.

Well, @Ehav4Ever, there's no redirect. Also, if you want to play semantics games, then that's your choice because you and anyone else reading this thread WELL KNOWS what the narrator of the video is referring to. And just because the NARRATOR doesn't know Torath Mosheh Jewish concepts, I believe that most people reading this thread knows what the narrator is actually saying when he says that his arguments should apply to any god who claims to be morally perfect. And yes, Torah Mosheh Jews don't view Hashem as a god, however, they do view it as the Source of Reality. And yes, Torah Mosheh Jews don't go by the concept of the word "morality," however, Hashem's thoughts, will, ideas, laws, ways, doings, etc. are perfect, right, just, fair, and good by virtue of it being the Source of Reality. However, if you want to disagree with the point that the narrator of the video was expressing based upon semantics, when you can easily 'translate' what the narrator is saying into Torath Mosheh concepts as easily as I did, then that's your choice.

See this link which starts at 2:42 until 3:09.

Also, if anyone has not clicked on any of the links that I have provided for this video, here is the entire video embedded in this post:

 

[David Davidovich]

David Davidovich said: ↑

and you said something like: or at least animals have never written down complaints about animal violence. And I'm not sure if that was an example of you just kidding around as you mentioned at the end of the video, but either way, there's really no way of knowing how terrified or how much pain animals go through.

Emotions are not the same as contemplation. Of course animals have emotions of their own type. That is not the same as contemplation. Especially, the contemplation of violence. Of course animals feel pain and of course they have distress about experiencing it, but that is not the same as contemplation. It is obvious with certain types of animals more than others when you see what their response is to being the prey. Yet, they are limited in what they can do about that.

For example, a human can decide they will no longer eat meat because they may contemplate the reasons they longer will do so and they can change their behavior to match their new considerations. A lion, leapord, tiger, or killer whale haven't been proven to contemplate such a concept and change their diet permantely accodingly. Whale are considered to be very intelligent but there is a consideration that they are limited by their physical forms.

You had already made your point about the word "contemplate" in a previous post, however, I moved on to the word "complaint" which is a point that you made somewhere in your "Human Suffer" Part 1 video.

Further, prey animals have no way to communicate their distress over being prey to their predators in a way where the predators understand, contemplate their actions against the prey, and then permantely change their behavior. Most often if the prey survives an encounter with their predators it is because they either outrun, excape them, or return with violence that surpasses the violence of the predator.

Just because prey animals have no way to communicate their distress over being prey to their predators in a way where the predators understand, doesn't mean that the prey animals don't have any complaints about being preyed upon. But that doesn't even make any sense, @Ehav4Ever.

 

[David Davidovich]

Because, in order for someone to have a complaint there has to be a statement that something is wrong or not satisfactory. Two males engaging in other in combat for the right to procreate don't exactly have any grounds to complaint at the outcome. Further, try find an example of a male loosing one of these battles and then complaining to something or someone about it.

View attachment 71926

Look at any

See my previous post. I was referring more to predatory attacks. However, you did bring up an interesting point that I had been wondering about for a while, but never got around to posting about on the board, and that is in regard to: Why the Source of Reality would bring animals into existence that grew sharp weapons on their heads or bodies in order to have violent battles with other animals of its same kind, which injured those other animals in order to procreate.

CORRECTION: I did also ask about how you knew whether or not animals complained when they battled each other in order to mate with the opposite sex of that animal species. But this still brings up the off topic question that I mentioned above.

 

[David Davidovich]

and you said something like: or at least animals have never written down complaints about animal violence. And I'm not sure if that was an example of you just kidding around as you mentioned at the end of the video, but either way, there's really no way of knowing how terrified or how much pain animals go through. Because since animals can show tremendous love and affection, it would only seem likely that they can also show pain, distress, and sadness. And as a matter of fact, studies have shown that animals do experience emotions and emotional pain, etc.

And last but not least.>>>>>>>

@Ehvar4Ever, I see that you didn't mention or address the last two sentences, which I highlighted in blue, in my paragraph above.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Just because prey animals have no way to communicate their distress over being prey to their predators in a way where the predators understand, doesn't mean that the prey animals don't have any complaints about being preyed upon. But that doesn't even make any sense, @Ehav4Ever.

Thus, if their "potential" complaints consistantely fall of deaf ears and if we humans can't even identify the compliant in a detailed way - one can say that IF they such complaints they have no way of conveying them in a meaningful way. They further, don't have the ability to change the behavior of their predators thus whatever they have, in this theory, is pretty much non-existant.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

@Ehvar4Ever, I see that you didn't mention or address the last two sentences, which I highlighted in blue, in my paragraph above.

I addressed that. Noone claims they don't have emotions. It is clear that they do. The ability to contemplate and lodging complaints about their reality is something else. Thus, thus there are animals who are both predator and prey and have never changed their behavior as predators.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

See my previous post. I was referring more to predatory attacks. However, you did bring up an interesting point that I had been wondering about for a while, but never got around to posting about on the board, and that is in regard to: Why the Source of Reality would bring animals into existence that grew sharp weapons on their heads or bodies in order to have violent battles with other animals of its same kind, which injured those other animals in order to procreate.

CORRECTION: I did also ask about how you knew whether or not animals complained when they battled each other in order to mate with the opposite sex of that animal species. But this still brings up the off topic question that I mentioned above.

Depending on what your view is, you can see it as an organic process or material management that works beyond how humans manage materials. I.e. a method of inusuring that genetic diversity in animals operates on a certain track is acheived by male animals who challenge each other to show who has the genetics to overcome the other. There is a lot humans can learn from observing this reality which also reminds us how similar but different we are from that world.

I can think of how this process is a lot cleaner and environmentally than the processes humans have created.

 

[David Davidovich]

Thus, if their "potential" complaints consistantely fall of deaf ears and if we humans can't even identify the compliant in a detailed way - one can say that IF they such complaints they have no way of conveying them in a meaningful way. They further, don't have the ability to change the behavior of their predators thus whatever they have, in this theory, is pretty much non-existant.

Who says that their complaints fall on deaf ears?

But I looked up some other interesting perspectives on the web.

I also have heard a deer shriek as a pair of coyotes pulled it down and then listened to it making horrible noises, as it kicked and spasmed, while one of its killers began pulling out its guts while it was still quite visibly and audibly alive. Is there any doubt in my mind that that animal was experiencing pain? Absolutely none.

Tho’, unlike with the deer and the coyote incident, I have not personally witnessed it, I’ve certainly seen film and video of predation in Africa - lions trying to pull down a Cape Buffalo, etc., but the one that sticks in my mind is a film or video of a zebra, attempting to cross a river, getting seized by a crocodile. Zebras are not horses, but they are close enough, and having spent most of my youth around horses, I have some sense of them, so when I watched that zebra struggling and heard it braying in fear and panic, as the croc dragged it into the water, I knew that it was in pain. There was no mistaking the fear it was conveying in its raucous screams and every time the croc managed to pull it under, it came back up to the surface more frantic and frenetic than ever.

Do wild animals suffer immensely when hunted by a wild predator, or are there mechanisms at work (such as adrenaline) that alleviate any suffering?

While the effects of stress in domestic animals have been well documented,3 there have been fewer studies on wild animals, and the severity and number of stressors that afflict wild animals have probably been underestimated by scientific research, except for the effects of captivity on wild animals. Wild animals have to face adverse circumstances on a daily basis that are usually stressful: physical trauma, disease, food shortages, conflicts with others of their species or herd, and molting,4 among other circumstances. Here we will cover stress related to predation and social living.

Predator-induced stress seems to arise in two major ways. The first is directly from the predatory pursuit itself, in which animals must face the stress of fleeing or fighting. The confrontation may be so intense that the prey animal dies of stress.5 Wild rats have died of heart attacks after being forced to listen to a tape recording of a cat-rat fight,6 and black-capped chickadees who were forced to listen to the sounds of a predator exhibited long-term stress responses similar to PTSD.7

Psychological stress in wild animals

Also, see How do animals tolerate pain when being eaten alive? I watched a program where hyenas ate a zebra, and the animal was calm.