posted
For the record, starLisa, not caring what King of Men thinks about your religion is a very wise position to take:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I am indeed Jewish (and Orthodox, for that matter).
I am familiar with all the arguments you just made. I happen to disagree with several of your conclusions. Moreover, I am not familiar with any rabbanim (that I would consider mainstream) who agree with them.
I am not interested in debating the point. But you answered my question, thanks.
I respect your not wanting to debate the point, but you did accuse me of "publicly flaunting your violation of a pretty significant prohibition". As a courtesy, and without any intent on my part of debating the point with you either, would you explain what the "pretty significant prohibition" is that you're referring to, and in what way I am violating it?
I ask this in all seriousness, because if I am violating a prohibition, pretty significant or not, I want to know, so that I can stop it.
If I'm not, I will limit myself to a simple statement to that effect (silence is considered tantamount to agreement, as I think you know), and will not debate the issue with you unless you change your mind at some point.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: As a courtesy, and without any intent on my part of debating the point with you either, would you explain what the "pretty significant prohibition" is that you're referring to, and in what way I am violating it?
I ask this in all seriousness, because if I am violating a prohibition, pretty significant or not, I want to know, so that I can stop it.
I forgot to add that you can e-mail me a reply, if you'd rather not even clarify your statement here on the forum. My e-mail address is lisa at starways dot net.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dude, I hardly think that God's word is comparable to suicide cults. He made the world, He gets to make the rules. I have no problem with that.
Quite so. And if you really, truly believed that God had made rules that required you to die, right at this moment - would you drink the Kool-Aid? Also, just why is "God made rules about what I can wear" different from "God made rules about how long I can live", except as a matter of degree and popularity? Faith is faith.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dude, I hardly think that God's word is comparable to suicide cults. He made the world, He gets to make the rules. I have no problem with that.
Quite so. And if you really, truly believed that God had made rules that required you to die, right at this moment - would you drink the Kool-Aid? Also, just why is "God made rules about what I can wear" different from "God made rules about how long I can live", except as a matter of degree and popularity? Faith is faith.
I've never understood the idea of faith. I don't profess any, myself. I think there's a major difference between faith and conviction. Evidence means nothing to someone operating on the basis of faith. But conviction is different. Show me that Judaism isn't true, and I'm gone. It's not like I particularly enjoy not being able to do as I wish.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, that's a whole separate discussion. But I'm curious to hear how you think dietary requirtements and whatnot differ in kind from a requirement to die at a certain time.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I respect your not wanting to debate the point, but you did accuse me of "publicly flaunting your violation of a pretty significant prohibition". As a courtesy, and without any intent on my part of debating the point with you either, would you explain what the "pretty significant prohibition" is that you're referring to, and in what way I am violating it?
Since you already expressed your view on the matter in question without me being specific, I see no reason to rehash.
Your view on certain halachic issues is very different than mine. I leave the issue between you and God, as it should be.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're wrong. We do know this. The studies followed established, reliable procedures of statistical population sampling. You may want to believe that they didn't, but you don't actually know anything about the studies, do you?
Well? What procedures? Tell me about these established procedures, please.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: OK, that's a whole separate discussion. But I'm curious to hear how you think dietary requirtements and whatnot differ in kind from a requirement to die at a certain time.
The question is a loaded one, but I'll bite. The difference is the source of the requirement.
If someone comes up to me, places a gun to my head, and says, kill King of Men or I'll kill you, I'll do my level best to avoid it, but if left with no alternative but to kill you or die myself, I'll choose the latter.
If someone comes up to me, places a gun to my head, and says, here's a pagan idol. Get down on your knees before it and pray, or I'll blow your brains out, the same thing would apply. I'd try and kill the person with the gun, but if the only way I could save my life was to worship that idol, I'd say Shema and die.
As far as drinking the Kool-Aid, well, number one, God wouldn't require that, and number two, Kool-Aid isn't kosher anyway.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd try and kill the person with the gun, but if the only way I could save my life was to worship that idol, I'd say Shema and die.
Really? Hm. See, I'd much rather throw myself on God's mercy and understanding by pretending to worship a false idol than be the agent of someone else's death.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
People jump so quickly to the "would you drink the Kool-aid?" question like it's supposed to stump religious people or prove them wrong, which I don't quite understand.
People are responsible for their choices. Religion can inform those choices, but what you do is still always up to you. If someone would rather die than risk violating their faith, then that's a decision they made. If for some reason, that question came up for me, I suspect that I would probably raise an eyebrow and question why my faith would demand such a pointless sacrifice. It's totally out of character for the religion I believe in, so it would take some kind of massive change in my own perspective to get me to make that choice. In other words, if it happened right now, I wouldn't do it, because it wouldn't fit with what I already believe.
But either way, what does the anti-religionist posing the question gain from my answer? Either I would drink it or I wouldn't. That says something about me, but since it's a hypothetical situation, it says absolutely nothing about my actual beliefs. Does my answer somehow make my beliefs particularly true or false? Not as far as I can tell.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, really, what does anyone gain from any discussion at all on the Internet? But apart from that, I am not trying for any gain to myself; I am trying to help you, from purely altruistic motives. (Well, almost purely altruistic; obviously, the more atheists we have, the better off society is. But it's a pretty indirect benefit.) The point is to realise that the rituals demanded by various religions are almost totally arbitrary, and rather silly.
quote:As far as drinking the Kool-Aid, well, number one, God wouldn't require that, and number two, Kool-Aid isn't kosher anyway.
I'm sure you could get the cyanide in water instead. But how do you know that your god wouldn't require that? After all, many people have had gods who demanded exactly such things - not only recent suicide cults, but the Aztecs on a vast scale, and indeed Yahweh before Abraham, if the OT is to be trusted on this. How do you know some prophet won't appear tomorrow and say "OK, show's over, time for some human sacrifices for appeasement again." (This is especially relevant to the Mormons, who believe in ongoing revelation.)
I think, quite honestly, you are being rather glibly defensive here, and refusing to think about the question. As you pointed out, your god makes the rules; fine, why can't he make a rule requiring you to kill yourself, or your firstborn son, or whatever? And if he did, how is that any different from a rule requiring you to wear long pants?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a valid question; one of the big reasons why religion is often dismissed is that its practitioners either A) follow blindly or B) pick and choose whatever doctrine they feel like following, revealing self-interest rather than real faith.
Though this tangent came up regarding Jewish belief, I've no knowledge of it. I'll not speculate one way or another, as it's not my place.
At the same time, this idea that people simply do things just because "God told them/told them not to do it" is patently absurd. This simplistic approach to spirituality is as silly as the assumption that those who support gay marriage are all anti-religion.
I can only relate my own experiences on the matter. I follow my belief system because I recieved a change of heart independent from influence, it makes sense to me, and I am reassured time and time again when those choices I make lead to greater happiness and harmony. My belief in the big picture means I trust the source more than those who see it done.
If a commandment came that was contrary to everything I knew and believed, I have the right to ask for divine confirmation and I have faith I will receive it. I've asked before, and I've received my answers. I trust that same pattern will work as it has throughout my life.
Commandments, though, are not all created equal. Some are to keep us consistent with divine law. Some, IMHO, are simply to encourage good habits and to remind us for blessings and promises we made. Wearing long pants and killing oneself will never have equal footing...
...Nor do I believe such a comparison will ever be required.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As you pointed out, your god makes the rules; fine, why can't he make a rule requiring you to kill yourself, or your firstborn son, or whatever? And if he did, how is that any different from a rule requiring you to wear long pants?
What you're not taking into account is that starLisa believes that her people received these instructions in person from God, that he passed them on, and there are (to them) clear preconditions that must be met before any of them can change.
It's not a question of whether or not God can make any old rule he wants. It's a question of what rules God did make. And the rules, as starLisa believes he made them, quite simply do not allow for a suicide command (if I understand Orthodox teaching on continuing revelation correctly). Even if I'm wrong about whether new rules are possible, it's still a question of starLisa believing these particular rules are straight from God. Literally.
quote:As you pointed out, your god makes the rules; fine, why can't he make a rule requiring you to kill yourself, or your firstborn son, or whatever? And if he did, how is that any different from a rule requiring you to wear long pants?
Because God doesn't determine right and wrong. I believe that "good" and "evil" are eternal concepts that function independent of God. The God I believe in will not arbitrarily change the rules in a conscience-defying way without explanation. If it ever appears, outwardly, that He has done so, I'll deal with it as my own conscience dictates while seeking an explanation for the incongruity.
quote:The point is to realise that the rituals demanded by various religions are almost totally arbitrary, and rather silly.
I've already realized that you believe this. I've also found a great deal of value and meaning in my own faith. So clearly, from my perspective, you are both wrong, and narrow-minded Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But how do you know that your god wouldn't require that?
Here's another weird thing, King of Men ... why should I make a determination about my own beliefs based on what YOU suppose MIGHT happen? If my God DID require something like that, it would be REALLY REALLY out of character. It would fly in the face of everything I have learned about Him so far. I love, serve, and trust the God that I believe in, to a large degree, BECAUSE His character is so different from the arbitrary God you imagine.
So what would I do if my God demanded such a thing? That's just a bizarre question. I believe in a God that, as far as I can imagine, WOULDN'T.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet we have experimental evidence that people do start out believing in moderately reasonable gods, and end up as suicide cults. But getting a bit away from suicide, how about human sacrifice? You can't say your god wouldn't demand that, because he's already done so. Indeed, isn't there something in Leviticus about buying the life of your firstborn son? (Which maybe isn't so relevant for Mormons, but still applies to the Jews as far as I know.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yet we have experimental evidence that people do start out believing in moderately reasonable gods, and end up as suicide cults.
Give me an example of a religion as established as my own becoming a suicide cult.
quote:But getting a bit away from suicide, how about human sacrifice? You can't say your god wouldn't demand that, because he's already done so.
I believe that our understanding of God has evolved steadily over time. Not everything you might attribute to "my god" necessarily applies to my beliefs about Him today.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you could make a good case for the Aztecs being a suicide cult on a large scale; estimated population, about 20 million. Apart from that, all the modern ones that I'm aware of, plus the medieval ones, were offshoots of Christianity.
Do you believe, then, that Abraham did not receive a commandment to kill his firstborn, or that he misunderstood it? If so, how can you oppose homosexuals in your church? (Assuming that you do; note that I'm not talking about gay marriage here, but open, practising homosexuals being members and priests of the LDS.) The writer of Leviticus could have misunderstood just as easily. And if you do believe Abraham received such an order, then how can you say that Yahweh has not demanded human sacrifice in the past?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mormons don't reject homosexual practice because of Leviticus. We reject it because it is incompatible with our beliefs about eternal families. You can find a more detailed explanation if you read my earlier posts in this thread.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. I'd still like to hear the Catholic and Jewish perspective on this. (I might ask, though, why two men can't form a family? Apologies if you already explained this.) Anyway, returning to the point about human sacrifice, did Abraham receive an order to kill his firstborn, or not?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My personal interpretation of the Abraham-and-Isaac story is that the Lord was intentionally putting Abraham through an experience in which there was no good choice. Humans face countless similar experiences every day, but rarely any as clear-cut and dramatic as this one. It was a difficult learning experience for Abraham, but you'll notice that God rescinded the commandment without giving Abraham the opportunity to obey it.
I do not believe that Abraham would have been condemned had he failed to lay his son on the altar because he loved him too much. But the experience would have been different, and both men would have grown into different kinds of leaders than they did. I believe that God sometimes uses difficult experiences like this as means of shaping a leader's development, and making future tasks and sacrifices more surmountable for them.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a tangent, I think that some of the most telling choices that people make are the ones in which EVERY option has immeasurable "good" and "bad" implications. Such choices, in my opinion, do not serve to consign a person to heaven or hell, but rather help to define the specific character of that person.
Not everyone sees the world that way, of course. To some people, it is necessary to believe that Abraham either made "THE right choice" or "THE wrong choice", and that the other choice would have had the opposite value.
I don't think that life is always that simple and straightforward. I believe that it is necessary for a good person to strive to build rather than to destroy, and to provide joy for others rather than suffering. But that lifelong struggle can only be judged by God. On a choice-by-choice basis, it can sometimes be difficult to separate each decision into "right" and "wrong".
Many decisions, of course, ARE pretty clear cut. I REALLY shouldn't kill the guy in the office across from me right now. That would be TOTALLY pointlessly evil.
But how do you measure, for instance, the constant choice to either (1) run out and perform some kind act of service for another person, or (2) keep posting on Hatrack? Clearly, choice (1) is good, but does that make choice (2) bad? I don't think so.
I believe that God will judge us on the lifelong goals and struggles we have made for ourselves, and by how we have developed as individuals throughout those struggles. Some of the choices will not necessarily weigh in as "good" or "evil" ... but they will define us as individuals with certain unique skills or capacities that will qualify us for ... whatever lies ahead.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My personal interpretation of the Abraham-and-Isaac story is that the Lord was intentionally putting Abraham through an experience in which there was no good choice.
Wow, now I'm even quoting myself This thread has become The Puppy Show!
I just wanted to mention that I consider the choice Adam and Eve made in the Garden of Eden to be a very similar kind of impossible choice.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I guess I should post something just so you won't feel ignored. So you are contending that God never intended for Abraham to go through with the sacrifice; I have to say, that kind of mindf*ck doesn't convey a gentle and reasonable god to me, but your taste may differ.
However, what about the aforementioned bit of Exodus (I said Leviticus above, but I had remembered wrong) where the faithful are commanded to buy the lives of their firstborn? Doesn't that imply a tradition of human sacrifice, Baal-style?
Exodus 34 : 19-20 (Revised Standard Version)
All that opens the womb is mine, all your male cattle, the firstlings of cow and sheep. The firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the first-born of your sons you shall redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get the impression that God is saying they should kill their sons if they don't sacrifice an animal for them. Is that how you're reading that passage?
Or are you simply suggesting that God is replacing a previous tradition of human sacrifice with a tradition of animal sacrifice in those verses? If that's the case, then sure. Why not take a people's preconceived harmful assumptions and turn them to something more positive?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he has just specified what you are to do with an ass that is not redeemed; why should the rules be different for humans? In Numbers he makes quite a point of treating animals and humans the same, at least when it comes to killing.
But even in your milder version, I think you are having it both ways : You are assuming that when people did human sacrifices, that was their misconception; but when they were commanded to go over to animals, that was the Word of God. Why the one, but not the other?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, he has just specified what you are to do with an ass that is not redeemed; why should the rules be different for humans?
Um ... because they're humans? Whatever unrelated passage you might have found in Numbers, I'm pretty sure that the ancient Hebrews assumed that different rules applied to humans and animals. They didn't EAT humans, for instance ...
And I find it odd that you expect religious people to be bound by your extrapolations, rather than the holy text itself, as it stands
quote:You are assuming that when people did human sacrifices, that was their misconception; but when they were commanded to go over to animals, that was the Word of God. Why the one, but not the other?
Because the other is recorded as a revelation from God within the canon of scripture, while the one is merely extrapolated as a custom that MAY have existed BEFORE God's documented intervention.
And beyond that, I've drawn a general impression of God's character and practices from all the holy writ that my religion accepts as part of the canon, and from my personal spiritual experiences. It's pretty easy, from that position, to draw tentative conclusions about what God might or might not have sanctioned. Human sacrifice doesn't make the cut.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: However, what about the aforementioned bit of Exodus (I said Leviticus above, but I had remembered wrong) where the faithful are commanded to buy the lives of their firstborn? Doesn't that imply a tradition of human sacrifice, Baal-style?
As someone of the group who actually practices this (not personally, since my first-born was female), might I interject?
The "redemption" is not from being sacrificed. (What a ghastly -- and in my experience, unique -- interpretation!) It's from serving in the Temple. Since the Cohanim (Priests) have that responsibility (as of the sin of the Golden Calf), those with the original responsibility must redeem their obligation. It's a bit like hiring an agent to act on your behalf.
Since the child is generally 30 days old when this is done, and not usually possessed of much in the way of assets (or manual dexterity), his father usually does so on his behalf.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd try and kill the person with the gun, but if the only way I could save my life was to worship that idol, I'd say Shema and die.
Really? Hm. See, I'd much rather throw myself on God's mercy and understanding by pretending to worship a false idol than be the agent of someone else's death.
Not me. Forget the idol part. Judaism says "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first". Not only is killing in self-defense not immoral; it is *highly* moral.
As to the idol thing... in most instances, saving a life takes precedence over just about anything. You can desecrate the Sabbath to save a life, and in fact, you *must* do so, if it's necessary to save a life. But there are three things that you can't violate, even to save a life. These are murder, idol worship, and a set of sexual prohibitions called arayot (incest, ~adultery and the like).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: People jump so quickly to the "would you drink the Kool-aid?" question like it's supposed to stump religious people or prove them wrong, which I don't quite understand.
People are responsible for their choices. Religion can inform those choices, but what you do is still always up to you. If someone would rather die than risk violating their faith, then that's a decision they made. If for some reason, that question came up for me, I suspect that I would probably raise an eyebrow and question why my faith would demand such a pointless sacrifice. It's totally out of character for the religion I believe in, so it would take some kind of massive change in my own perspective to get me to make that choice. In other words, if it happened right now, I wouldn't do it, because it wouldn't fit with what I already believe.
But either way, what does the anti-religionist posing the question gain from my answer? Either I would drink it or I wouldn't. That says something about me, but since it's a hypothetical situation, it says absolutely nothing about my actual beliefs. Does my answer somehow make my beliefs particularly true or false? Not as far as I can tell.
Thank you, Puppy. I agree with every word of what you said. And you said it much better than I could have.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, really, what does anyone gain from any discussion at all on the Internet? But apart from that, I am not trying for any gain to myself; I am trying to help you, from purely altruistic motives.
How incredibly condescending and obnoxious. Leave aside the absurdity of anyone doing anything for "purely altrusitic motives"; I don't believe I asked for your "help".
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: (Well, almost purely altruistic; obviously, the more atheists we have, the better off society is. But it's a pretty indirect benefit.)
That's hardly obvious. Like I said, I have little interest in, or respect for, belief, as such. That includes your beliefs. I've seen enough in my studies that I'm convinced that God is real, and that He really did give us the Torah, and that it really is in my best interests to keep it. You, on the other hand, may merely be convinced that there's no God, but you certainly sound more like a true believer in atheism.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The point is to realise that the rituals demanded by various religions are almost totally arbitrary, and rather silly.
quote:As far as drinking the Kool-Aid, well, number one, God wouldn't require that, and number two, Kool-Aid isn't kosher anyway.
I'm sure you could get the cyanide in water instead. But how do you know that your god wouldn't require that?
"Know"? Who said anything about "knowing"? I don't "know* that God exists. There are a lot of things people don't "know". You don't "know" that gravity is a constant throughout all areas of space. For all you "know", the earth could move into a region of lower gravity ten minutes after you read this. But it's reasonable and rational to operate on the assumption that it's going to stay the same.
The same thing applies here, but even more so. God did something fairly cute. He gave the Torah, both the written part (the Pentateuch) and the oral part, along with the system by means of which we are to operate the whole thing, and then told us that it was all irreversable. That even if a prophet should come along -- and I don't mean a charlatan, but a genuine prophet who has proven that he is in direct contact with God -- and this prophet tells us to do something that is in the least bit contradictory to what we've already been commanded... that we kill the guy. Dead.
God set it up so that even He can't change the Torah He gave us. And that's not too strange, because God's omniscient, remember? If He had to make a change, He'd have known that in advance, and would have taken that into account when giving us the Torah in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: After all, many people have had gods who demanded exactly such things - not only recent suicide cults, but the Aztecs on a vast scale, and indeed Yahweh before Abraham, if the OT is to be trusted on this.
The Torah says no such thing. Give me a break.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: How do you know some prophet won't appear tomorrow and say "OK, show's over, time for some human sacrifices for appeasement again." (This is especially relevant to the Mormons, who believe in ongoing revelation.)
Maybe it's an issue for them. I can't address that. But for us, such a person would either be a nutjob or -- if he'd previously established his credentials as a real prophet -- a corpse.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I think, quite honestly, you are being rather glibly defensive here, and refusing to think about the question.
Heh. Not so much. I just wasn't taking you seriously. But you asked again, so I gave you a more lengthy answer. Two of them, in fact. Do you feel better now?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: As you pointed out, your god makes the rules; fine, why can't he make a rule requiring you to kill yourself, or your firstborn son, or whatever? And if he did, how is that any different from a rule requiring you to wear long pants?
Well, He *could have* made such a rule, but He didn't. And now He can't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by estavares: It's a valid question; one of the big reasons why religion is often dismissed is that its practitioners either A) follow blindly or B) pick and choose whatever doctrine they feel like following, revealing self-interest rather than real faith.
Right. Like I said myself. I follow my religion because I'm convinced that God really gave it, and that it's in my best interests to go along with it.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Though this tangent came up regarding Jewish belief, I've no knowledge of it. I'll not speculate one way or another, as it's not my place.
At the same time, this idea that people simply do things just because "God told them/told them not to do it" is patently absurd.
Why?
quote:Originally posted by estavares: This simplistic approach to spirituality is as silly as the assumption that those who support gay marriage are all anti-religion.
Why?
Unsupported assertions can be fun, but it's often better to actually make an attempt to support your assertions. You know, just for the novelty of the thing.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: I can only relate my own experiences on the matter. I follow my belief system because I recieved a change of heart independent from influence, it makes sense to me, and I am reassured time and time again when those choices I make lead to greater happiness and harmony. My belief in the big picture means I trust the source more than those who see it done.
Oh. And you think anything you do, ever, is "independent from influence"? I think that's naive.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: If a commandment came that was contrary to everything I knew and believed, I have the right to ask for divine confirmation and I have faith I will receive it. I've asked before, and I've received my answers. I trust that same pattern will work as it has throughout my life.
Faith again... <sigh> What is with people who rely on gut feelings instead of using their brains?
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Commandments, though, are not all created equal. Some are to keep us consistent with divine law. Some, IMHO, are simply to encourage good habits and to remind us for blessings and promises we made. Wearing long pants and killing oneself will never have equal footing...
Perhaps not, but that's not a judgement I get to make. My Creator (and yours) is the only One who gets to do that.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: ...Nor do I believe such a comparison will ever be required.
quote:As you pointed out, your god makes the rules; fine, why can't he make a rule requiring you to kill yourself, or your firstborn son, or whatever? And if he did, how is that any different from a rule requiring you to wear long pants?
What you're not taking into account is that starLisa believes that her people received these instructions in person from God, that he passed them on, and there are (to them) clear preconditions that must be met before any of them can change.
It's not a question of whether or not God can make any old rule he wants. It's a question of what rules God did make. And the rules, as starLisa believes he made them, quite simply do not allow for a suicide command (if I understand Orthodox teaching on continuing revelation correctly). Even if I'm wrong about whether new rules are possible, it's still a question of starLisa believing these particular rules are straight from God. Literally.
Dagonee
Thanks, Dagonee. New rules aren't an option, at least not divine ones, but other than that, you were 100% correct.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As you pointed out, your god makes the rules; fine, why can't he make a rule requiring you to kill yourself, or your firstborn son, or whatever? And if he did, how is that any different from a rule requiring you to wear long pants?
Because God doesn't determine right and wrong.
Wow. Okay, we differ on this.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I believe that "good" and "evil" are eternal concepts that function independent of God.
That would imply something greater than God. To me, good and evil are concepts that God created, and which are defined relative to Him.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And yet we have experimental evidence that people do start out believing in moderately reasonable gods, and end up as suicide cults. But getting a bit away from suicide, how about human sacrifice? You can't say your god wouldn't demand that, because he's already done so.
The story in which that happened beings by telling us God was about to test Abraham. I mean, you can't dismiss our saying that it was a test as some sort of apology. It's right there in the same place.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Indeed, isn't there something in Leviticus about buying the life of your firstborn son?
<sigh> It really is true that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. There's nothing of the sort. Originally, first born sons were the priests in Israel. When God gave that role to the tribe of Levi, there weren't enough Levites to replace all the firstborn males. So there was a "redemption" done to free the first born males of that responsibility.
"Buying the life". Right...
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: (Which maybe isn't so relevant for Mormons, but still applies to the Jews as far as I know.)
The last five words of your post are correct.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That would imply something greater than God. To me, good and evil are concepts that God created, and which are defined relative to Him.
Adjectives like "good" and "evil" are simply ways of describing something. They never needed to be created themselves, like rocks or trees or monkeys. But once beings with independent volition were created, the words "good" and "evil" became useful in describing their motivations.
So whether or not God created them isn't the issue ... rather, the issue is whether anything was relevant for them to be applied to before God began creating things.
For instance, the word "blue" did not need to be created. It just described something. BUT if you believe that God created, from nothing, the properties of light and the parts of our eyes that interpret that light, then you can say that "blue" depends on God to exist, because everything that the word "blue" applies to was created by God.
In the case of Mormons, we differ from many Judeo-Christian traditions in that we do not believe in creation ex nihilo. We believe that all matter and the raw stuff of intelligence have existed for eternity, uncreatable and undestroyable, and that God found them and gave them shape. God also has existed for eternity, though not always in His present condition.
IF you believe that intelligence is eternal, and that things can exist independent of God, then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that concepts such as "good" and "evil" which are used to describe the motivations of intelligent beings (including God Himself) would similarly apply independent of God's actions.
I recognize that this belief sets my religion apart from most others. But you can also look at it this way. If God decided to do or command something evil (which I actually believe is impossible, for various unrelated reasons), would that change the definition of "good" and "evil"? Is the word "good" defined as "stuff that God approves of", and is the word "evil" defined as "stuff that God prohibits"?
I don't think so. Those words have meanings to us that describe the qualities of various actions and motives. Their definitions aren't determined by God. These are human words that we define ourselves. While certainly, the capacity to use language was given to us by God, still, God does not tell us how to use these words, and we can certainly decide to use them to describe eternal concepts without tying them specifically to God's actions.
Look at your own doctrinal position. There are parts of orthodox Judaism (as practiced by most Jews) that did not resonate with you, and so you adopted your own stance on certain issues. To you, right and wrong (which are slightly different concepts from good and evil, but still) are defined, not by the arbitrary will of a faith, but by your own conscience. If God seemed to do something that clashed with your conscience, I suspect from what I've seen that you would be inclined to follow your conscience, rather than redefining your ideas of good and evil to match what God had apparently done.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Fair enough. I'd still like to hear the Catholic and Jewish perspective on this. (I might ask, though, why two men can't form a family?
Two men can, but the obstacles are immense. Anal sex between men (whether gay or straight) is prohibited by the Torah. It's included in that group of things that you have to die rather than violate.
I know some Orthodox Jewish gay men who are celibate. Given my impression of men and sex, I can't imagine how they do it. But it's important enough for them to keep God's law that they do do it.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Apologies if you already explained this.) Anyway, returning to the point about human sacrifice, did Abraham receive an order to kill his firstborn, or not?
Well, it depends. If you accept what the Torah says, then yes, he did. But if you accept what the Torah says, it was a test. If you don't accept what the Torah says, then neither one is necessarily true.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: My personal interpretation of the Abraham-and-Isaac story is that the Lord was intentionally putting Abraham through an experience in which there was no good choice. Humans face countless similar experiences every day, but rarely any as clear-cut and dramatic as this one. It was a difficult learning experience for Abraham, but you'll notice that God rescinded the commandment without giving Abraham the opportunity to obey it.
True. Although I will say that as much of a test as it was for Abraham, it must have been a pretty major one for Isaac, too.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I do not believe that Abraham would have been condemned had he failed to lay his son on the altar because he loved him too much. But the experience would have been different, and both men would have grown into different kinds of leaders than they did. I believe that God sometimes uses difficult experiences like this as means of shaping a leader's development, and making future tasks and sacrifices more surmountable for them.
quote:My personal interpretation of the Abraham-and-Isaac story is that the Lord was intentionally putting Abraham through an experience in which there was no good choice.
Wow, now I'm even quoting myself This thread has become The Puppy Show!
I just wanted to mention that I consider the choice Adam and Eve made in the Garden of Eden to be a very similar kind of impossible choice.
How so, if you don't mind my asking?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That would imply something greater than God. To me, good and evil are concepts that God created, and which are defined relative to Him.
Adjectives like "good" and "evil" are simply ways of describing something. They never needed to be created themselves, like rocks or trees or monkeys.
Um... this may seem like a silly question, but are you the same person who posts as Puppy? I ask, because your style seems very similar, and you appear to hold the same positions.
Combine that with you responding to a comment I made to Puppy (which isn't unusual on a forum like this, but still...), and I'm just a little confused, is all.
Anyway... Isaiah does say that God is the creator of evil. We (in Judaism) view the verb bara', usually translated as "created", as denoting creation ex nihilo. The verb yatzar, usually translated as "formed", would be creation of something from something that exists but hasn't yet been made into anything, and the verb asah, usually translated as "made", means making something from other made things.
Anyway, the verb used in Isaiah is bara', but any way you slice it, it does seem that the prophet is claiming that God creates evil.
Also... and I guess this is a theological difference between us, we consider everything, from good and evil, to rocks and trees and monkeys, to concepts such as kindness and mercy, to be creations of God.
We don't see God as supreme *within* our universe, but rather the Creator of everything in existence.
From the little I've read about your religion, assuming that I understood it correctly (how much can you really understand a religion from the outside?), I can see how this would be an area in which we'd disagree.
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: But once beings with independent volition were created, the words "good" and "evil" became useful in describing their motivations.
So whether or not God created them isn't the issue ... rather, the issue is whether anything was relevant for them to be applied to before God began creating things.
Well, I guess we see good and evil as almost a dimension. Where the far end in the good direction is God. To the extent that one comes closer and closer to emulating God (which means by doing His expressed will, rather than the WWJD kind of thing), one is more and more good. And vice versa.
This is the meaning of our being created in God's image.
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: For instance, the word "blue" did not need to be created. It just described something. BUT if you believe that God created, from nothing, the properties of light and the parts of our eyes that interpret that light, then you can say that "blue" depends on God to exist, because everything that the word "blue" applies to was created by God.
Right.
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: In the case of Mormons, we differ from many Judeo-Christian traditions in that we do not believe in creation ex nihilo. We believe that all matter and the raw stuff of intelligence have existed for eternity, uncreatable and undestroyable, and that God found them and gave them shape. God also has existed for eternity, though not always in His present condition.
So I gathered. As I said, we differ on this.
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: IF you believe that intelligence is eternal, and that things can exist independent of God, then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that concepts such as "good" and "evil" which are used to describe the motivations of intelligent beings (including God Himself) would similarly apply independent of God's actions.
It's consistent. But as you said, it's very different from what Jews believe.
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: I recognize that this belief sets my religion apart from most others. But you can also look at it this way. If God decided to do or command something evil (which I actually believe is impossible, for various unrelated reasons), would that change the definition of "good" and "evil"? Is the word "good" defined as "stuff that God approves of", and is the word "evil" defined as "stuff that God prohibits"?
Yep. God told us to commit genocide against the Amalekites. That was right. The concept of "accepting the yoke of Heaven" in Judaism means what I quoted from Pirkei Avot -- Chapters of Principles -- before. If God says to do something and it runs counter to my moral sense, that means that I have work to do on my moral sense.
Of course, everyone has work to do on their moral sense and their values. It's sort of what life is all about. Striving to perfect oneself doesn't mean that one has to attain perfection or be a failure. We all do the best that we can.
If I were faced with a 2 year old Amalekite, knowing 100% for certain that it was indeed an Amalekite, would I be able to kill the child? Possibly not. I hope never to find myself in that situation. But if I did find myself in that situation, and I raised my sense of what's right and what's wrong above what God says, I wouldn't be following God anymore. I'd be following me.
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: I don't think so. Those words have meanings to us that describe the qualities of various actions and motives. Their definitions aren't determined by God. These are human words that we define ourselves.
Perhaps that's what's commonly done. But our defining something as good or evil only affects our usage. It doesn't affect what is good and evil.
There've been societies in which good and evil were assigned very differently than they are in 2005 in the United States. And even in that narrowed-down context, there is hardly a consensus view.
Some people would say that a woman having an abortion is doing something evil. Others would say that not allowing her to have one is doing something evil. What does God say? Well, according to the Catholics, God says it's murder. According to Judaism, it's forbidden except when the mother is in danger from the fetus. I don't know about Mormonism, but I suspect that it's somewhat closer to Catholicism.
If I look at the text of the Torah, it's clear even there that it can't be murder, so I don't know how to explain the Catholic claim that God says it is.
Ultimately, I don't see how a human being can claim to be able to have a higher moral sense than God.
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: While certainly, the capacity to use language was given to us by God, still, God does not tell us how to use these words, and we can certainly decide to use them to describe eternal concepts without tying them specifically to God's actions.
Sure. But we take their definition from God.
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: Look at your own doctrinal position. There are parts of orthodox Judaism (as practiced by most Jews) that did not resonate with you, and so you adopted your own stance on certain issues.
Hmm... I'm not sure that I'd go along with that characterization. As a major rabbinical figure once said, "Don't confuse Orthodox Judaism with Orthodox Jews."
To give you an example, when I first came to terms with the fact that I was gay, I was living in New York. I got the number of an Orthodox rabbi in New York and called him. I asked him what I was supposed to do. He told me that while there is nothing two women can do together that is actually forbidden, it's considered highly inappropriate.
I was a little taken aback. I mean, I know that's not true. I know that there is a prohibited act between women. And yet, I was hardly going to debate it with this rabbi.
So I called another one. He told me that while there's nothing that two women can do together that is actually forbidden, and despite the fact that women aren't commanded to procreate (in Judaism, that obligation is only on the men, though they obviously need us to help), there is a general requirement to "build the world", which can be seen as an obligation on women to marry and have children.
I was blown away. I mean, I know that most people with the title "rabbi" aren't overall experts in Jewish law. My cousin is two years younger than me, and he used to call me to discuss things after he was ordained, because there were areas in which I knew more. But I would have expected these men to at least say that they weren't well versed in the applicable laws.
I didn't try a third time, because I thought that would have been a little over the top.
You have to understand: given the way that Judaism and Jewish law works, I am entitled to follow the rulings I received from these rabbis. I don't, because I happen to know that they're wrong.
It's not as if I'm taking the easy way out. I just am honestly convinced that the anti-gay sentiment in the Orthodox community is something that came into being as a result of almost 2000 years of close contact with Christianity.
And you know, in Judaism, it's really easy. If I say that I think I can eat chicken parmesan and someone says I can't, I can ask them to show me where it says so. If they can, they're right. If they can't, I can do as I see fit. In the case of chicken parmesan, I can't. But I've discussed this with some very learned people, and no one has, as of yet, been able to refute my reading of the relevant sources. The most they've been able to do is to claim a public policy need, given the pressures being applied by the "liberal" Jewish movements which have thrown off the yoke of Heaven.
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: To you, right and wrong (which are slightly different concepts from good and evil, but still) are defined, not by the arbitrary will of a faith, but by your own conscience.
I don't think so. I'm not saying that as an automatic reaction, either. I've given it a lot of thought, and I honestly don't think I'm doing that.
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: If God seemed to do something that clashed with your conscience, I suspect from what I've seen that you would be inclined to follow your conscience, rather than redefining your ideas of good and evil to match what God had apparently done.
I can see, given your beliefs about homosexuality, and given the fact that I'm gay and unapologetic about it, how you'd think that.
I don't know any way to prove to you that you're wrong about me, and I'm sorry for that. All I can do is say that you underestimate me.
quote:Um... this may seem like a silly question, but are you the same person who posts as Puppy? I ask, because your style seems very similar, and you appear to hold the same positions.
Yes, they are the same person. Dog is very confusing that way - most multiple screenname people switch in spurts; Geoff (which you will see him referred to as often) likes to do so daily.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting tangential question: if you did kill someone because God told you to, would consider the civil authorities right and just to convict and punish you for it, assuming God was silent on the subject? Would you submit to such punishment, or feel justified in resisting it violently?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Interesting tangential question: if you did kill someone because God told you to, would consider the civil authorities right and just to convict and punish you for it, assuming God was silent on the subject? Would you submit to such punishment, or feel justified in resisting it violently?
Like everything, it depends on the context. In most cases I can envision (postulating my killing someone), they'd be completely right and just to convict and punish me on it. Though I'm not sure what you mean by God being silent on the subject. We don't hold by personal communications by God that allow you to do things that the Torah forbids.
However... suppose that the US were to make killing in self-defense illegal. Suppose they decided that doing so is first degree murder. And then suppose that I was attacked and killed my attacker.
If they were to try and convict me for murder under those circumstances, they would be wrong and unjust, and I would do what I could to avoid or evade being victimized in that way.
Provided, of course, that the Jewish community wouldn't be victimized as a result.
See, there are always lots of things to take into consideration.
quote:Um... this may seem like a silly question, but are you the same person who posts as Puppy? I ask, because your style seems very similar, and you appear to hold the same positions.
Yes, they are the same person. Dog is very confusing that way - most multiple screenname people switch in spurts; Geoff (which you will see him referred to as often) likes to do so daily.
Ah. That explains a lot. Thanks.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though I'm not sure what you mean by God being silent on the subject. We don't hold by personal communications by God that allow you to do things that the Torah forbids.
I meant God being silent on the subject of whether to resist arrest and conviction. My question assumes you've received some pretty direct communication from God.
Also, my understanding is that it would have to be an order to do something which God commanded at some point when revelation was ongoing, not something that contradicts clear edicts of Torah. Am I understanding that correctly?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
So you are contending that God never intended for Abraham to go through with the sacrifice; I have to say, that kind of mindf*ck doesn't convey a gentle and reasonable god to me, but your taste may differ. 
