Proof of God's Existence

ALRIGHTY THEN! Very clever headline for a mundane subject. Was all set to come her to write about why we should or should not require proof the good Lord exists.

Instead we have a will and a family fight! OMG!(SARCASIM)

A will IS about money and property. One can put whatever you want to in it as long as it is legal. So the old gentelman decides how he wants to leave his possessions and money. Either go along with it or not.

I do nor know who does this or not anymore but in the 40s and 50s almost every Jewish Orthodox and other parrents whose kids married outside the faith and were upset by this consideredt the child DEAD. The more traditional even would wear black bands and say kadish. This occured even if the grandkids were going to be brought up Jewish in some cases and the homes would be Jewish. One friend of our family told their daughter they were going to do this. Wedding plans were changed. Instead of a Jewish judge they had a full blown Catholic wedding and she eventually converted before they had kids who were raised Catholic and now have Catholic children. See what these people accomplished!! Ofcourse all contact was lost as well.
So having a will written like this is no big deal. Hope he is looking down upon what he started. Do not know the man but bet he thought this is one way to keep him being important even after death. Sort of like the elehant who bangs it head and almost kills itself when it feels the zoo attendent is not giving it enough attenion-some attention is better then none for this guy and he wants it even after death. I feel sorry for him. His life was undoubtedly one where he used money to keep his family with them and since they were brought up that way they do not have the emotional strength to say the heck with the money!

Interesting story, but like Daniel I do not see what this has to do with the argument for the existence of G-d. Maybe in the using G-d as an excuse there is something a non-believing person could use as an argument by saying - "OK prove to me there is a G-d." In my opinion it is slanderous to HaShem to use Him as an argument in a court of law.
Mixed marriages happen and many result in conversions of the Gentile mate to Judaism.
To bad there is still some "old school" thought that completely cuts off the offender. Yes, we are supposed to marry within the fold, but casting one away will not draw their heart back to the Jewish way and can cause much more harm than good.
Love and acceptance wins hearts and influences people better anger and bitterness.

I also am wryly disappointed about the lack of the proof of G-d's existence.

And Rabbi Brad - while I normally agree with most of your viewpoints I am highly disappointed in the view you have taken here. Would these same judges have struck down this man's right to spend his money as he chose while he was alive? Would it have been even wrong of him to choose to honor those of his progeny who follow in his belief?

I don't understand where the judges had any right to question his will and I especially don't see where you had any right to judge or call into question the man's motives or right to do what he wished with his own money. He withheld nothing from anyone - only chose to honor those who honored what he felt was G-d's express will. More power to him - we need more people who live by their convictions.

Jeremiah

The only valid argument that there is a G-d; and it is just an argument not proof, is this: Man will never be able to prove the existence.............it is beyond his ability to do so because G-d would have created man in such a manner that man would never be able to prove his existence...........If man could prove the exixtence of Hashem, all our rabbis would be out of a job..............All religion is the opiate of the people. Without faith ther is no religion.

You know this story sounds SO familiar.....now let me think....Oh yes i rememeber now. Harry Potter. remember the Blacks? That family was very comparable. they were all pure-bloods. Anyone who married a mud-blood or non-believer got "disinherited" too. They were considered "deceased" My oh my how life loves to immitate art sometimes.

and Susan H,

"And why, when he does so, does he have to be compared to a racist bigot?

Because thats more-or-less comparable to what he was tbh. And he showed that in his will.

Yeah, a person is free to put whatever he or she wants in his will, but that is no excuse for them to be racist/religionist, and for the family to even consider executing the will and keep the clause in, that shows those family member's true values does it not? Greed. Thats all it is. Greed. and i dont blame the "disinherited" for fighting for their share.

I am not going to address the Rabbi's initial comments about the existence of G-d being proven by the existence badly behaving people, because I believe those statement were made tongue-in-cheek. I do, however wish to address some other comments.

Rabbi - You stated, "So once again we have lawyers making a bad situation worse by dragging everyone into court and trying to project their clients' worst failings onto those against whom they brought suit." Did the attorneys on either side of this case make it up? Are they not merely the hirelings of their clients (albeit well educated hirelings)? Isn't blaming the attorneys for this legal fracas somewhat like blaming the generals for the war?

Which bring me to Susan - You stated that ". . . this is a new low for the courts." Isn't that a little like blaming the rabbi when the marriage fails?

The courts and the attorneys are not to blame for a litigious society. That blame lies squarely and solely on the people. People who refuse to do the right thing and instead cross their arms and say, "So, sue me." People who think that they have a right to what someone else has without having gone through what the other person did to get it. People who cannot, or will not, compromise for the sake of peace.

Okay, enough in defense of the legal system. Let's talk about Grandpa. Danny - You stated, "Yeah, a person is free to put whatever he or she wants in his will, but that is no excuse for them to be racist/religionist, and for the family to even consider executing the will and keep the clause in." The family had nothing to do with it. It was Grandpa's will he alone executed it, and he alone is responsible for its contents. As for Grandpa being a "racist/religionist," how do you interpret the commandments of Adonai in the 7th chapter of D'varim where intermarriage was forbidden, or how do you read the warnings of Adonai against intermarriage in the 23rd chapter of Y'housua, or what meaning do you apply to last two chapters of Ezra when the cohanim and L'vi'im sent all the foreign wives (and their children) away to ensure that G-d's wrath would not come? Wasn't Grandpa simply following Scripture?

Just to be clear, I am not say what Grandpa put in his will is right, nor am I saying that it was wrong. I am only saying that it was his choice, based on his interpretation of Scripture, to do so.