I think that part of your shock is that you limit yourself to just the Torah. You look at this passage as if I am a Christian (not intentionally I'm sure, and I don't blame you. Everyone does it) and that I abide by "Sola Scriptura" whereas I look at this passage from the perspective of the Jewish tradition....
...So, all you see is "Jewish men being seduced by women of a different faith and the women put to death for it." There's a lot more to it than that. There's a lot more to everything in the Torah than the simple reading of it.
I'm glad to see at least an attempt at what I perceive as a rationalization. The truth is, I look at the scripture as I look at anything else, not as if I were a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim. Furthermore, the Chatolic church also has its "sacred tradition" and does not consider the Bible to be the
only infallible authority. But surely, even in your view, the Bible is the
highest authority and everything else (including tradition) comes second.
Perhaps you could argue that the story in the bible is not "the whole story", some believers will even argue that the passages are not accounts of historical events but rather only meant as moral lessons, parables. I would guess you fall into the first category - that the passages in the Bible must be explained by other sources, "enhanced" and added to in order to be understood properly.
For me, the difference is not really that relevent in determining the "value" of the lesson, either in looking at it as a historical event or as a parable. In both cases I am left with the conclusion that there is nothing moral about it. That no amount of "explaining" or "softening" will make genocide compatible with the notions of morality, mercy and justice - the attributes you ascribe to god, the supposed author of these "lesson". And this is just one in a long series of atrocities god commands. By any standard, the character described in the OT should be in Hague answering for his crimes against humanity.
And from a more practical standpoint, if the Bible is not clear enough to be understood without assistance, I'm faced with two nagging questions:
1. Why not?
2. In what way can it then be considered infallible?
It's nearly impossible to stone someone in Jewish law...
And does this not prove my position to a degree?
It's very clear what god expect us to do, clear what he finds "just":
"And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, .....and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die."
"...Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."
There is not a lot of room for interpretation here. Yet we twist the law in such a way that it makes it almost impossible for someone to be punished - to do as god deems fit. Does this not prove how despicable we find such actions and how immoral (amoral) the character described in the OT really is?
But this is not the only punishement you need to worry about, is it? Don't forget about god's punishement. Don't even try to pretend there are no consequences for the "sin" of skepticism.
The only reason it is designed that way is because this way is the way that is optimal for the outcome that God desires (the Messianic Age).
Bingo! Well, took some time, but we got there eventually. Disregarding the absurdity and egocentricity of "God's final solution", here are the problems with that:
1. There is no "optimal" with god. Optimal strategies only exist when limitations exist - and for your Omnimax there is no such thing.
2. Since there are no limits to what he can do, he could have chosen from an infinite subset of equally sufficient strategies (in other words, he could have chosen anything he wanted). Clearly the one he chose is not compatible with our ideal of "good" as he has chosen a path of violence and vengefulness.
Either he is not omnipotent, or he is not fit to be a "moral authority".
I believe that such, in itself, is reasonable. It is reasonable to obey the law regardless of the reason. For instance, the purpose of a stop sign is to protect motorists from accidents at intersections without lights. Does that mean that if you're driving and can tell that there is no one coming it is OK to run the stop sign? No, it doesn't. It's still against the law to run the stop sign.
That's not what I was saying at all. I agree with you - we cannot arbitrarily choose when to stop at a stop sign and when not to. It's interesting that you mentioned the purpose (one of them) for this particular law, because that is at the crux of the issue. If the purpose of the law were something more sinister (for instance, "floor it at the stop sign so you can hit as many motorists as you can), one could legitimately object to that and not follow the law - that would be the ethical thing to do. This is a completely separate issue than choosing in which situation to follow a particular law and in which situations to disobey it. This is about deciding which law is resonable and which goes completely against all our principles - like slavery.
That's my point. We obey laws because they are the law. We makes laws for certain reasons, but after they are made we obey them because they are the law. If we obeyed laws for their reasons, then we would disobey them when the reason does not apply and that's not acceptable.
No, again - it's important to look at the reason the law was created, not in order to decide in which situations those reasons are applicable and pick and choose when you obey the law and when you don't, but to judge whether the law is resonable at all. Once you establish it as resonable (or at least not something completely unresonable), you follow it each and every time (there are some exceptions in emergencies, etc...).
I don't really see how your question of "how could you" applies to "I have not found any moral situation that is not addressed by Jewish law". The majority of Jewish law is not specific "X is wrong, don't do it." The majority of it is concepts that are applicable to various situations. Hence, you have in the Torah all these story-like descriptions of law. For instance, "If you see your brother's donkey or his ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it. Help him get it to its feet." (Deut 22:4) This law is a conceptual law. It could mean and apply to a number of situations. In essence, it means that if you know someone who needs help with something they are trying to do and you have the means to help them, help them. Most of Jewish law is like that, which is why there are so many different opinions on what to do in certain situations.
Still, if you were not able to find a comparable situation which you could apply the example to, you could not argue it was wrong, you would simply have to accept the stance that it was right. To say that you have not found a situation which you could not decide on using this principle is a truism - of course not, once you except the stance that what is mentioned as "wrong" is wrong and everything else is right, you're pretty much covered on both ends.
You would have to prove that the person who is being hired would alter their normal pattern of behavior in order to get that thing. For instance, they will work really hard to earn more money to go buy it. "Value" would mean something that the person desires and would do something to get. It can't be something that they normally get (like food) because then you'd have to show that the employer's giving of the food to the hiree caused the hiree to kill the person.
So basically it is whatever the person you're hiring decides is valuable. I mean, I don't know what "proof" has to do with it, that's another matter. Just because you can't prove something in a court doesn't make it right, right?
I suppose that halakhically there could be other opinions. But from my perspective, the son is not responsible for her death. He may be responsible for some other crime, but it isn't murder. My objection to your argument is that you believe that the son would be just as guilty as the father. I am willing to admit that they might both be guilty, but the son would not be just as guilty as the father. After all, he didn't do as much.
Well, you see, you look at it from a perspective of the law. I do as well, but I also look at it from a personal perspective. What if I were in that position - if I knew which action would provoke which response, what kind of an effect each action would have.
And when I consider it in such a manner, the only way I could imagine eating that hamburger would be if I had intended for my mother to die. I would hold myself wholly responsible for her death - I would consider myself a murderer. And by that token, I would consider anyone in the same situation a murderer.
And, to somewhat go back on topic, the fact that God knew before hand and let it happen anyways only proves that God is responsible (if it is true). However, that doesn't mean anything. We already know and believe that God is the cause of everything that happens (either directly or indirectly).
Yes, and many of the attributes you claim god has are incompatible with that realization. It makes him into an amoral (or even immoral) tyrant, not a benevolent and beneficent character.
