Thursday, December 27, 2012

First Blush of SIn

"After the first blush of sin, comes indifference.” - Henry David Thoreau 

 I wanted to share with my readers an article of mine that was published today.
Unpious is a site that really helped me get to where I am today, so it is surreal to see my writing on it.

Read it Here


  1. Just wanted to say hi and that I'm looking forward to reading more of your blog. (I myself am halakhically Jewish without actually feeling/having a Jewish identity. I was told I was was Jewish at the age of 13!)

    1. Welcome Irena! That must be one interesting story! I would love to hear it, if you care to share!

      I hope to add more posts as life goes along. So see ya around!

  2. And after the first blush of sin and after the indifference sets in--then what? (GS)

  3. Past the "indifference." I hope it is a life where you can retain ALL you cherish. All the best for your happiness (GS)

  4. Reading this is very saddening.

    Do you not think it is immoral to lead a double life such as this without your husbands knowledge? In any marriage, veering so much from the premises of the marriage i.e. commitment would be immoral.

    Do you know feel somewhat of a responsibility to those who brought you into this world and raised you to better research their belief system which is the cause and intent of your existence?

    There are plenty of brilliant Halachic Jewish philosophers who addressed your issues that you claim to be at the root of your behavior. Grow up. Be mature.

  5. Anytime one tells people inside a given cult that they stopped believing they counter with "plenty of brilliant chassidic philosophers". To be fair, it isn't an original chassidic thought, but for the plebeians in any religion or cult, the idea that someone out there has the answer is enough for them to keep the faith.

    Better yet, this assumption that these said philosophers exist is enough to allow them to insult, and in certain countries even kill and jail over logic!

    To them chicken + feta is immoral but insults are okay. Forcing a spouse to live a double life is a necessity, but the one forced into this is immoral.

    Grow up and be mature indeed!

    1. I can't say it any better than Shtriemel- But i can add to it- that I find it highly immoral for religious people to play on people's emotions like that whenever a talk about the religious differences arise.

      I do not live a religious lifestyle anymore because I find that it goes against, not only my logic and reason, but it also goes against my own moral compass
      . So perhaps instead of trying to guilt me into continuing to live a lifestyle I find immoral- take a hard look at the life you lead- and see if perhaps there are areas other can find Immoral!

    2. @Shtriemel You've completely misunderstood my point. Do not believe because there are philosophers out there, rather, you have an obligation to those that brought you into existence and raised you in their beliefs to better research it before dumping it.

      As to your second point, no one forced you to get married. You could have ran away and rejected it. When you get married you commit to each other, and in the frum world you commit to each others lifestyles, a commitment is a commitment, and to be playing this double game behind your husbands back is plain wrong and immoral.
      "your moral compass"? Sorry, but it doesn't seem to exist. Your decision to leave your roots is not at all an intellectual decisio .

    3. First- You have no idea what my decisions are based on.
      Second- You have no idea what I have or have not researched.
      Third- I love how you are so quick to get judgmental and passive aggressive in your claim to superior morality.

      Care to make any other assumptions?

    4. Anonymous, I may have misunderstood your thought, but I just read what you WROTE.

      No one has an obligation to research anything based on being born to a religionist. The Mormon progeny, as the Muslim or Jewish child owe it to themselves to question everything they were told. The only obligation is of the religious parent to give the child the proper tools to think.

      Your naivete as to how marriages happen in our community can easily be remedied with a quick google search - I'll just say that selecting a spouse for your teenage child, while not giving them the tools to discern good from bad, isn't just immoral, but counterproductive.

      With regard to your first two points, it is clearly evident that you are not at all proficient in science or philosophy.

      As to your third point, passive aggression cannot at all be related to behavior displayed through this writing, do your research before throwing terms that you don't understand.

      Your compass is way off. Parents have every right to educate their child with the values that they hold to true. It is wrong for children to reject it without consideration to those who are responsible for their existence.

      And an 18 year old is held fully responsible by law for the decisions they make. Proceeding with marriage and the commitment thereof is a decision that the individual is fully responsible for, acting in such a deceitful and disingenuous manner (by secretly reneging on the commitment) is morally reprehensible.

  6. You moral compass must derive from an archaic law book, otherwise i cannot reason why children shouldn't reject wrong beliefs effortlessly. Since only one of the thousands of religions could be true most of the children are falsely indoctrinated, which should be enough for any child who decides to practice krfireh peshita and require the parents or anyone else to prove their, seemingly, wrong proposition.

    I'm not sure what marriage contract you're talking about. I kind of think that you don't know much about chassidic weddings, I can assure you that the only document signed is in Aramaic, and non of the signatories can read it without error. I'd love to see someone using said contract in court.

    As far a the moral value of the said teenager's marriage, once again, people who don't take morals from an immoral book understand that the only one unethical is the person, or system, that creates this problem to begin with.

    1. It doesn't matter what way you spin it, a child owes its entire being and existence to its parent. If the child should choose to stray so far from the parents values and beliefs and its intended way of life, a very strong justification absolutely is necessary.

      Marriage by definition means commitment and obligation. In a religious community that obligation is to live in a religious manner. In any event, it is completely disingenuous to live with someone in one way while secretly living entirely differently.

      As a side point, it is very saddening that someone who seems to have been raised in a "Heimishe" community can't distinguish Yiddishkeit from a thousand other Religions. Sad Indeed.

  7. In a world where children owe their parents more than parents owe their children, arranged marriages for teenagers is a moral absolute.

    In an ethical world, parents owe their children much more than children owe their parents. Much much more.

    In this world too, arranged marriages are distasteful and when a spouse goes apeshit over a turbaned cartoon or cheeseburger we pity the idiot and move on.

    1. @Shtreimel

      I doubt you have kids, and if you do I pity them.

    2. This boys and girls is religious logic for you:

      Pity the children of the one who professes that parents owe children everything!

      Check your logic in at the door and pick any religion. You can then tell your kids that they owe you for bringing you into this world.

  8. Btw, I love how you deduce my having kids, or closet's studies and knowledge based on comments and blog entries.

    Remember boys and girls, once you check on your logic you can create a whole new universe for yourself, even one where we revolve around the sun in a flat earth - if that's your thing.

  9. This is hilarious!

    Anonymous asks Closet to "better research...grew up [and b]e mature," all because she has made some decisions Anon ain't happy with. Yet the mere age of 18, no matter how ignorant or immature one might still be, is enough to enter into one of the most serious of agreements - for life. How about before marrying them off and expecting them to start having as many babies as possible we first give all 18-year-olds a chance to grew up, be mature and research better?


  10. Ok: So children who never had any say in which family/lifestyle/religion they were conceived into are required to continue upholding that religion/lifestyle- no matter how illogical of amoral they feel that lifestyle/religion is. Sounds legit and quite familiar. Reminds me of people who feel they owe everything they have to an invisible god who has never bothered proving his existence or his legitimacy.

    And while you were playing hard and loose with the terms Clearly and Evident- I was busy learning nothing at all in an Ivy League college classroom. Dude- come on, I have no problem seriously discussing legitimate reasons to why religion is authentic- or to hear all that science and the philosophy that I know nothing about. Just don't insult yourself by flinging judgmental bits of debris that hold no substance or value.

  11. The next assertion, that kids are the cattle of their parents because the parents are the cause for their kids' existence, is equally preposterous!

    What exactly would kids miss if their parents didn't indulge in pleasure and as a result wouldn't have existed? Who would have missed that lack of existence? Moreover, while the kid didn't yet exist who did the parents do a favor be generating the existence of a new organism?

    Clearly since only the parents were around when they decided to create a human being, it was created only for the parents' pleasures, short-term as well as long-term, be it social or religious. How exactly does the kid now owe anything to the parents for a self-serving act? If anything, the parents owe that organism they have created a life of the least disturbance and interference.

    I love it when they say, "This is the father who fed you all your life!" Well, he better feed that באשעפעניש he had created! Who else should? What else was his plan that night? Did he really have two choices, to feed his kids or not to feed, and made the altruistic and noble choice of feeding his kids?

    1. @Yoelish

      You obviously do not have kids and have not raised any either.

      From a Mothers pregnancy to a Fathers financial burden to the exhausting effort involved of child raising, the child indeed owes a great debt, and it is healthy for a child to know this, it is very unhealthy for a child to feel compete entitlement it will lead to unproductive member of society.

    2. There you go again with your assumptions...

      But you didn't answer any of my questions. All you gave me was more guilt trip and slippery slope babble.

  12. Yoelish, this Anon fellow just killed off another yiddishe family. Between the two of us don't we almost have a minyen of kids?

  13. Shtreimel,
    Truth be told, we have enough for MANY minyens!