Past Articles

The Rejection of Reason?

How did we get to this topic? What does this have to do with: Torah? Tanakh? Today?

Rejection of Reason was referred by Caroline Glick in “Why the Jews?  Caroline Glick explains the roots of genocidal Jew hatred”. There she presents the Rejection of Reason as a rejection of personal responsibility, where one is to make a personal discernment between good or evil, Then to choose good each time. At the root of blood lust since the beginning, is this rejection of reason; a rejection of individualism; a rejection of responsibility; a rejection of the notion that we have to be good which makes life a struggle. . . . (Paraphrased)

I add to that, the rejection of the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, the LIVING GOD OF ISRAEL. Initially,  I arrived at this conclusion as part by my review of Caroline Glick’s works and has become a tremendous concern the more I search out works of philosophy, and thought.

While this is something of which I have been aware existed for many years, I have not been able to identify the real issues. I Thank and Praise the LORD for this information. However, painful this knowledge is to me. Do not get me wrong, I actually hold no hatred for anyone, only sorrow at the loss of so many souls and the person(flesh) of that soul. (Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said: ‘My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.’)

I found this article: “We enter the Age of the Postmodern, a term in use in the arts long before, having its roots in Dadaism and Surrealism, but being essentially a revolt against all form. In literature, postmodernism is the abandonment of any pretense of rationality, standards, meaning, language, because it essentially says you can put any words you like into an author’s mouth, and make him say whatever you want, and then dismiss his work via argumentum ad hominem.” In

“The traditional arguments for the existence of God have been fairly thoroughly criticised by philosophers. But the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit that no rational proof of God’s existence is possible. . . . . He must now be prepared to believe, not merely what cannot be proved, but what can be disproved from other beliefs that he also holds.”  ― John Leslie Mackie

[This piece attempts to declare that the philosophers seemingly have proven that there is no direct or rational proof of GOD; this is only because that are unwilling to look even at science;astrophysics; physics; mathematics; molecular and cellular biology; atomic; sub atomic particles and The Tanakh including the Writings of Moses and the Prophets. Obviously there is too much they do not want to know or see. A true shame, at the loss of such valuable possessions.]

Okay, so this leads me to the conclusion that: the majority of mankind neither wants, nor accepts personal responsibility. Instead most are ready willing and able to reject anything where they would be responsible for an outcome, instead looking for others to tell them what to do; to think; to act, thereby enslaving themselves by their own choice.

Do you think I am wrong? Let us take a moment and consider this:

Most people want to be saved. This they choose to or desire to believe: someone is able to remove sin from themselves and that their god will accept them with open arms, bringing everyone to heaven. Sadly, that does not work with the LIVING GOD OF ISRAEL. Simply put, a person must consider right from wrong, judge their own actions, and do right and not wrong with every choice. That makes you Righteous. The Return!

We really have arrived at the Last Day, for we are the same type of people found at the time of Noah. You could learn what happened then.

IT is to our benefit to HEARKEN until the LIVING GOD OF ISRAEL, and to our pain and shame to do otherwise.

My prayer is that The LORD grant you eyes that see, ears that hear and an understanding heart, then you return unto HIM soon!(Isaiah 69 And He said: ‘Go, and tell this people: hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they, seeing with their eyes, and hearing with their ears, and understanding with their heart, return, and be healed.’)

If you have questions, write me or submit a comment.

Please Donate, if you Can, use the button in the Left Column.

It is not required, but needed and appreciated.

Thank you.



Definition to aid understanding:

Argumentum ad hominem:
Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
Argumentum Ad Hominem

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

The personal attack is also often termed an “ad personem argument”: the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor’s character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of “getting personal.” The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

The source:

***************** OR ****
ad hominem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Personal attacks” redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.



I have included this one as a definition of rejection, as an “ad hominem” attack is a rejection of the person being attacked and what ever they have to say, which is a social rejection.


Social rejection
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social rejection occurs when an individual is deliberately excluded from a social relationship or social interaction. The topic includes interpersonal rejection (or peer rejection), romantic rejection and familial estrangement. A person can be rejected on an individual basis or by an entire group of people. Furthermore, rejection can be either active, by bullying, teasing, or ridiculing, or passive, by ignoring a person, or giving the “silent treatment.” The experience of being rejected is subjective for the recipient, and it can be perceivedwhen it is not actually present. The word ostracism is often used for the process (in Ancient Greece ostracism was voting into temporary exile).[not in citation given][2]
Although humans are social beings, some level of rejection is an inevitable part of life. Nevertheless, rejection can become a problem when it is prolonged or consistent, when the relationship is important, or when the individual is highly sensitive to rejection. Rejection by an entire group of people can have especially negative effects, particularly when it results in social isolation.[3]
The experience of rejection can lead to a number of adverse psychological consequences such as loneliness, low self-esteem, aggression, and depression.[4] It can also lead to feelings of insecurity and a heightened sensitivity to future rejection.[citation needed]



Full Definition of modernism

1:  a practice, usage, or expression peculiar to modern times

2often capitalized :  a tendency in theology to accommodate traditional religious teaching to contemporary thought and especially to devalue supernatural elements

3:  modern artistic or literary philosophy and practice; especially :  a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression


Full Definition of postmodern

1:  of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one <postmodern times> <a postmodernmetropolis>

2a :  of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature)b :  of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language <postmodern feminism>


Comments are closed.