I found your blog from your comment on David Curwin’s blog.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/curwin/1228275716988654286/?a=30294#242555

Here is a comment I put on his blog.

Peter Kirk has some interesting observations on computer translations.
http://betterbibles.com/2008/11/01/memories-of-a-lecture-and-thoughts-on-computerised-translation/
or http://tinyurl.com/4yd7tt

He uses an example from Tehillim 23 “translated” from German to English and then from Hebrew to English.

It being Tish’a B’Av, big picture things are on my mind. In a response to a girl that quoted to me an article she happened to read telling Jews… well, this:

“when our emunah is dependant on the strength of our intellect, then we are dangerously exposed to thoughts and opinions of those who know how to present stronger arguments than we do, and our emuna is liable to be destroyed, G-d forbid. For that reason, the way of true Jewish emuna is the way of our forefathers- the simple and uncomplicated belief in Hashem that has been passed down in an unbroken chain from A, I & J.”

(Oy vey, I thought) I answered back something new that came to mind, of relevence to our discussion, if not directly answering the question: R’Bachya ibn Pequda in Hovoth HaLevavoth’s Haqdamah (intro) says it is an obligation on every man of sound mind to confirm and affirm their Judaism philosophically with his power of intellect; others such as children have the luxury of relying on the testimony of the previous generations.
Additionally, as Rambam very often influenced Shulhan Aruch and recommended emunah sheleimah, I wouldn’t be surprised to find the idea of challenging ones beliefs within the realm of actual halachah. Further, one must ‘know what to answer a heretic’ - Pirqei Avoth. This would imply being armed with the right knowledge in any particular intellecual battle. So if today the attack on Judaism comes from science, you would be obligated to know science. This would have interesting ramifications, of course, in places such as Bnei Brak. My full response to the girl can be found on my blog www.themindofmichael.com .

There’s probably no such thing as proof for religious belief (if there was it wouldn’t be religious belief after all) but there are proofs and evidence for more general kinds of beliefs (eg. my belief that right now I’m hungry).

People who mix the 2 often end up saying ridiculous things like “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” (like the Purpose Driven Life guy) [PS. in a Freudian keyboard slip I typed “Driven” as “Drivel” :)]

The problem with the second individual is the assumption that there is such a thing as a proof for the basis of belief. If you consider the fact that many suggest that such things cannot be proven, then the individual must be under-scrutinising any proof, and coming at it with the prior intent to believe. Surely this character is more of a hypocrite than the first: at least the first hasn’t deluded her/himself by looking for “proofs”.

And yes, Simon, I’ll credit your distinction (with a pass? an HD?)

Have I missed what your problem/objection is to the system? That the very sanctity of life demands that we not put anyone to death, ever? As I see it - the alleged murderer cannot be put to death because of the rabbinic stringencies that are there BECAUSE of the sanctity of life. Is it impossible to connect the two?
The very sanctity of life in Judaism necessitates Rabbinic strictures for putting people to death. Whether extant and understood at Sinai or inferred after by the sages, that’s something else.
As I understand it, the Torah informs the appropriate punishment, that as a general rule fulfils G-d’s manner of middah k’neged middah. That is, the murderer should be put to death means that he should be made to endure the same (perhaps one can apply here also ‘who can say his blood is redder’ than anothers’? Murder is one such a statement of value).
G-d being merciful didn’t intend eye for an eye, as we know, but the Written Torah nevertheless intends to teach values. What one WOULD have to pay, so that the gravity of one’s crime can be understood (hopefully before the action). Torah Sh’Biktav is meant to be severe for this reason. However, no one wants to actually do this - sentence a man to death. After all, the sanctity of life is made evident elsewhere in the Torah, and thus it presents the rabbis with some balancing. So they bend over backwards to try get the dude off, and let G-d deal with it later.
And yes, as Michael mentioned, if people become lax, hora’ath sha’ah can be enacted. It could be argued that hora’ath sha’ah should have been enacted more frequently, so that the adequacy and functionality of the law can be maintained. But that’s a harsh thing to say, I’ll admit.

How do you get those cool photos that look like sketches on your website? Its neat.

Yay for Google Reader making staying in touch with my friend’s blogs practical, and yay for my own new blog reminding me that my friends actually have blogs.