<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Cantor Wolberg <<a href="mailto:cantorwolberg@cox.net">cantorwolberg@cox.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="">The umpires have the authority to call it and thier p'sak STANDS. it<br>does NOT mean they are infallible...<div><br></div><div><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 16px;">So, I have an interesting questioning regarding the above mashul.</span></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 16px;">With modern technology being what it is (as well as what it potentially can be),</span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 16px;">if there was invented a type of machine that could infallibly call a ball or a strike</span></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 16px;">and obviate the need for an umpire, would anyone be against that? </span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 16px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 16px;">I anticipate the argument against doing away with human intervention, but isn't the ultimate goal <span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> </span></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 16px;">for "truth." This machine would not be like a <i>baas kol</i>; it would be to baseball what forensic science </span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 16px;">has been to uncovering crimes that could never be solved prior to modern miraculous technology.</span></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 16px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 16px;">Would anyone be against a GPS because triple A doesn't have to be contacted to make a travel map?</span></font></div>
<div><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 16px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 16px;">K.T.</span></font></div><div>ri</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br>I am not sure we need an absolutely infallible umpire or poseik. <br>
But given authority w/o infallibility then<br><ol><li>The authorities should be humble about what they do</li><li>The austerities should be flexible when realising their error</li><li>People should not DEIFY authorities</li>
<li>Nor should people DEMONIZE those authorities either</li></ol>I heard a "new age" interpretation of the "Gospels" go like this:<br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">First we Defiy X<br>then we crucify X<br>
</div><br>This certainly has happened with: <br><ul><li>Elliot Spitzer who was supposed to clean-up Albany. First he was made into a hero [lionized aiu the expression] then vilified. </li><li>
Many Jews first said kaddish at FDR's death then they learned how impotent he was in prevent Jewish deaths in the camps etc. </li><li>How about Roger Clemens?</li><li><br></li></ul>
You get the idea. If we stopped putting these people on pedestals then
we would not need to demonize them either. It's part of a human
pathological cycle.<br><br>Of course Talmdiei Chachamim are different, but attributing to them infallibility is a sure way to EVENTUALLY cause them much criticism.<br><br><br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>
see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>