Accuracy of the Bible

[Dirty Penguin]

Even though the Bible is not a science book, every place where it mentions anything about science it is 100% accurate.

No it doesn't. This is such a dishonest statement. Trained theologians and scholars don't even make this claim...:sarcastic

Some people seem to believe in what is called TWOFOLD TRUTH. They believe that truth may be different for Theological things and Philosophical things........TRUTH is always truth, ans false is false.......

Not me. Your bible says that Adam and Eve existed and are the parents of the human race. Even though science shows that is genetically impossible. Others here believe them to be allegory even though people of the day believed they were real people. All evidence is to the contrary of their existence. The flood never happened..regardless of how much detail is in the story, the story is FALSE. The dead rising and moving about the city after your messiah was supposedly crucified..NEVER happened. If truth is truth, as you say, then your bible is lying.

The Bible was INERRANT when written. This means that it had NO errors

We all know what the word means and your bible DOES NOT fit that definition. No religious text is free from error....

The Bible, or parts have been copied thousands of times. Since it is impossible for any man to copy the Holy Scriptures entirely without error, some errors crept in God's word.

Then you can't make a claim that it "was" free from error when it was written if all you have in your possession is copies, of copies, of copies, .......of copies....

Bible scholars today know that the Holy Scriptures today have the correct message given to man by God.

No they don't. At best all they have is "their" interpretation of text that are based off of copies of copies that contain altered words and meanings through translation as well as some obvious interpolations.

The only errors that ever crept in were numbers and names, and many people in ancient times had several names so it is not really known for sure that errors about names were really errors at all.

Are you serious? You, yourself don't even know so how can you even make this claim? The book of Kings, The book of Samuels and the book of Chronicles are prime examples. In every Old Testament I've seen the verses are pretty much identical. There are some obvious contradictions.

 

[TheKnight]

What does "selfless" mean to you, Knight? Describe to me a selfless act.

Selfless means to do something that is not motivated by or that is contrary to your own desires.

Well, it would not matter if your arguments did not hinge on some very strong assumptions (like, god created everything) that have no basis. I mean, even if I believe the Sinai story, there's nothing to warrant that assumption. There is no evidence that god provided which would suggest that he is the creator of the universe. I mean, if we take things in perspective, how great was the miracle? Was is any greater then events that have already transpired up to that point. Was it any greater than a supernova? Was it greater than an earthquake? Was it something even we, stupid mammals, could not replicate today? I mean, think about it, how does it warrant all those very specific assumptions.

Well, I consider it resonable to not believe claims by default. My starting position is always disbelief (at least regarding non-trivial matters).

I see. Well, I would conjecture that it could not be repeated. After all, the Torah says (indirectly) that it won't ever happen again. The events following and preceding the Torah are the specific legacy of the Jewish people. No other people have or will have a story similar in magnitude to theirs. That's the reason I believe. Because of their testimony and the fact that they have predicted that no other nation/group will have a similar testimony, and that none has.

No, it's not really about that, you're missing the point. It's that it came to that situation that is unnecessary, not that once they were in that situation it was unnecessary.

What is wrong about it becoming necessary? If they put themselves in that position?

Tell me, Knight, did you choose to exist or was it imposed upon you? Did you choose not to be able to fly? Your "free will" gives you, at best, the choice to choose between the available options. Just as you have no option to start flapping your hands up and down and fly away, so should there not be an option in which a people gets killed, their children murdered and their women raped. Things like that are easily avoidable without sacrificing "free will" if you are god.

The solution is simple, do not "install" the option.

If there is not option to the contrary, then it isn't free will. If the Midianites don't have the option of doing wrong, then they don't have free will.

Possibly, sorry. Are you objecting to my assumption that "everything has a purpose"?:help:

I'm objecting to the statement as a whole. I object to "He must have, otherwise He would have chosen a different path" and to "if everything has a purpose, then this must have been one of their purposes." Your assumption is not that everything has a purpose. But that this is one of their purposes.

That's...ludicrous. That's like saying that a gun is responsible for killing, even though you pulled the trigger. You have willingly caused the death of your mother. That your father was "the murder weapon" is incidential. (of course, this only applies if you had a complete insight into what would happen). You would go ahead and empty the fridge, knowing it would result in your mother dying, and not feel guilty? And not be guilty? If prior knowledge could be proven in a court of law, you can be sure you'd be serving a looooong prison sentence. (of course, such knowledge would probably be impossible to prove in this hypothetical case.)

Are you saying that my father is a gun that had no choice but to kill my mother? Well that's absolutely ridiculous. My father is not a tool to be used like a gun. He is a human being with choices. All I would have to do is present all the cases where children eat the food in the fridge and the father doesn't kill the mother to prove you wrong.

A gun has no choice. A gun is an inanimate object. My father is a human being and he has a choice. He is responsible for his decision to kill my mother. Not me. Even if he says he is doing it because of something I do. If I shoot your mom 16 times and say "well it's only because you ****** me off." should you got to jail too?

Imagine the mess that your logic would create. I guess we should blame my parents for having me. After all, if they hadn't had me then I wouldnt have eaten the food and my father wouldn't have killed my mother.

Well, you won't be able to, but if you were able to, YES!

That is absolutely ridiculous. If he kills anyone it is because he chose to do so. The fact that I know he will do it because of me isn't relevant. He isn't supposed to kill other people regardless of what I do.

No, of course not. Unless you knew what was going to happen and did it anyway, even though you could have avoided it.

That's ridiculous. Even if you could have avoided it. They are completely 100% wrong and you are not. There is not a kangaroo court in the world that convicts people based on your non-logic.

No, of course you're not responsible in this case. You had no idea I would kill your mother if you ate the burger. But what if I took out a gun and told you, "eat that burger and your mother get's it"? If you believed my threat and ate the burger anyway, you're responsible as well.

What makes that case and the one you mentioned different?

A lion (or a psychopath) is not forced to kill if you let him out of a cage. But he will, you know he will and you do it anyway. Try and find a courtroom that would not convict you.

Does a lion have free choice? You are operating based on the false assumption that people have no choice in their actions.

The only examples you have are those where animals or inanimate objects (things without freedom to make their own decisions) do things as a result of my prodding. Human beings always have a choice. Yes, if the Midianites were a gun, or a lion, then I would agree. However, they were human beings and human beings are able to decide what to do. Which makes each individual completely responsible for his actions.

See, you're missing the point. The guilt comes from the fact that you had perfect prior knowledge (such as an omniscient god would have) and that the event could have been avoided. If such knowledge could be proven, yes - a court would convict you both! Absolutely! Your father is no less guity than he was, but you are guilty as well.

First of all, I'm not even going to argue with you about the fact that it could have been avoided (I believe that it could not have been avoided). Even if it COULD be avoided. My father has a choice to make his own decisions. He is not a gun, he is not a lion, like in your other examples. He is a human being with choices and intellect and freedom to decide. And as a person who works in law enforcement, I can tell you from first hand experience that absolutely no court, no human being, no logical person, no police officer, and no intelligent computer would convict me because I ate a hamburger. There is not a legal system in the world designed on such a flawed terrible disgusting non-logic as you are suggesting here.

 

[MountainHumanist]

I haven't reviewed all 17 pages of this thread but am only attempting to respond to teh base question.

I would think if one wanted to base one's life decisions on a sacred book then said sacred book must be somewhat accurate to them. That is one reason I rejected fundamentalist Christianity, I saw the Bible for what it is — a collection of ancient and very fallible myths cobbled together to justify and empower a power/ego-based hierarchy.

 

[sojourner]

I haven't reviewed all 17 pages of this thread but am only attempting to respond to teh base question.

I would think if one wanted to base one's life decisions on a sacred book then said sacred book must be somewhat accurate to them. That is one reason I rejected fundamentalist Christianity, I saw the Bible for what it is — a collection of ancient and very fallible myths cobbled together to justify and empower a power/ego-based hierarchy.

Except that's not what it is...

Yes, the Bible contains ancient mythological accounts that are allegorical in nature. They were never intended to be anything other than that. But the reason for the Bible's existence is not to "justify and empower a power/ego-based hierarchy." The writings were around long before Xy became a powerful and "ego-based hierarchy." That that hierarchy used the Bible as such does not make the Bible "for that purpose." It merely means that the Bible was used in such a manner.

 

[Humanistheart]

Except that's not what it is...

Yes, the Bible contains ancient mythological accounts that are allegorical in nature. They were never intended to be anything other than that. .

So you admit the bible has no accuracy to it? Then your faith must be misplaced.

But the reason for the Bible's existence is not to "justify and empower a power/ego-based hierarchy." The writings were around long before Xy became a powerful and "ego-based hierarchy." .

How do you mean and what evidence do you have for this?

That that hierarchy used the Bible as such does not make the Bible "for that purpose." It merely means that the Bible was used in such a manner.

Given that this 'heirachy' is responcible for collecting and sometimes writing the books that comprise the bible, how can you then say that this was not that purpose?

 

[sojourner]

No it doesn't. This is such a dishonest statement. Trained theologians and scholars don't even make this claim...:sarcastic




Not me. Your bible says that Adam and Eve existed and are the parents of the human race. Even though science shows that is genetically impossible. Others here believe them to be allegory even though people of the day believed they were real people. All evidence is to the contrary of their existence. The flood never happened..regardless of how much detail is in the story, the story is FALSE. The dead rising and moving about the city after your messiah was supposedly crucified..NEVER happened. If truth is truth, as you say, then your bible is lying.



We all know what the word means and your bible DOES NOT fit that definition. No religious text is free from error....



Then you can't make a claim that it "was" free from error when it was written if all you have in your possession is copies, of copies, of copies, .......of copies....



No they don't. At best all they have is "their" interpretation of text that are based off of copies of copies that contain altered words and meanings through translation as well as some obvious interpolations.



Are you serious? You, yourself don't even know so how can you even make this claim? The book of Kings, The book of Samuels and the book of Chronicles are prime examples. In every Old Testament I've seen the verses are pretty much identical. There are some obvious contradictions.

Thank you! With the exception of what I've bolded and highlighted in red in your second statement, I applaud your efforts at debunking the Bible.

The Adam/Eve story was written as a mythical, allegorical story. As such, it is honest, because in allegory, facts are largely immaterial to the truth portrayed by the story.

Fact is, even the ancient people didn't believe the flood story to be "fact." It was allegory for them, too.

Allegory does not = "false." The story is not "false." It's allegorical.

Other than those three small things, I think you're pretty well on the right track here.

 

[MountainHumanist]

Each book was not written for the reason stated (that's true)..but it was collected together to bolster the institution (see the list of NT books compiled by Ananathus...and the Nicene debates). The reason for the Bible existence, in its current form, is indeed to provide authority and justification to the pre-Nicene church. When each part was written it was to achieve a certain goal. Pentateuch was an attempt to establish and legitimize a theocracy among a group of desert peoples — the Hebrews. The monarchial books (Kings, Samuel, Judges, Chronicles, etc.) were written to provide Israel with a rich, powerful history that most scholars agree never existed (at most Jerusalem was a small trading post rather than some grand kingdom). The prophetic books were used to explain how such a godly nation could have been subjugated by eastern invaders (it was their fault of course because they dissed Yahweh; yeah that's the ticket). The Messianic prophecies were used to provide the diasporic Jews with a hope for the future. But ultimately, I stand by my statement that the Bible, as it stands now, was compiled in a way that would lend legitimacy to the institution of the church (I give unto you the Keys of the Kingdom..Upon this Rock, etc.). Like any book, people will tend to use it for whatever purpose required —just like the Buddhist sutras, the Koran and other spiritual texts. Example: The American South used the Bible to justify slavery.

 

[Commoner]

Selfless means to do something that is not motivated by or that is contrary to your own desires.

I would argue then that acting on objective reason is a selfless act. It might be in accordance with ones desires, yet they are not the motivation for the action. That is more or less my position regarding everything and there's no need for a god to explain to me why acting on objective reasons is optimal. There is every reason for an atheist to act selflessly.

I see. Well, I would conjecture that it could not be repeated. After all, the Torah says (indirectly) that it won't ever happen again. The events following and preceding the Torah are the specific legacy of the Jewish people. No other people have or will have a story similar in magnitude to theirs. That's the reason I believe. Because of their testimony and the fact that they have predicted that no other nation/group will have a similar testimony, and that none has.

Yes, I understand why you believe the story and that could be arguments for trusting the accounts (maybe). Let's say I accept the account as completely factual - as if I were there, or at least watching a video of it, something along those lines. How do you get from that point to "god is all-powerfull", just to name one. How do you get from "these guys really saw that and really received this message which said this and that" to "the content of the message is true".

On a related subject, I've always wondered how one could know they knew everything. Seems almost a bit self-defeating.

What is wrong about it becoming necessary? If they put themselves in that position?

You really don't seem to grasp the logical consequences of omniscience. I don't know if I can really explain it any clearer.

If there is not option to the contrary, then it isn't free will. If the Midianites don't have the option of doing wrong, then they don't have free will.

Then you have no free will, since you have no option to the contrary to:

1. Existing
2. Dying
3. Having free will (which I find particulary ironic)
...etc...

You're assuming that one must have a moral (right) and an immoral (wrong) option in order to have a choice, in order to exercise free will. Not only could there be a third option - amoral (which is neither moral nor immoral), the options could be different.
You have a very "black and white" outlook.

And was it not you who argued that situation exist in which there is no "doing wrong", a situation in which contradictory options could both be equally good. Have you been robbed of your free will in that instance? If you are put in a situation where neither killing nor not killing someone is wrong, you have no wrong option to choose from. :sorry1:

I'm objecting to the statement as a whole. I object to "He must have, otherwise He would have chosen a different path" and to "if everything has a purpose, then this must have been one of their purposes." Your assumption is not that everything has a purpose. But that this is one of their purposes.

Well I didn't say that was what you religion says, I presented it as a logical conclusion of teh assumption that everything happens for a reason.

Are you saying that my father is a gun that had no choice but to kill my mother? Well that's absolutely ridiculous. My father is not a tool to be used like a gun. He is a human being with choices. All I would have to do is present all the cases where children eat the food in the fridge and the father doesn't kill the mother to prove you wrong.

I'm not saying your father had no choice nor that he is not guilty. I'm saying that if you knew that would be his choice and had the chance and the necessary knowledge to avoid it, and you chose not to avoid it - you would be guilty as well. You keep comparing this to situations in which the children had no knowledge of what would transpire if they ate the food. These are simply not comparable as you have no knowledge of how to avoid the horrible outcome.

In law, such an action would be classified as criminal recklessness:

Recklessness(law) usually arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt. Criminal law recognizes recklessness as one of the mens rea elements to establish liability. It shows less culpability than intention, but more culpability than criminal negligence.

I would agree that it would be hard for someone to prove you had prior knowledge, but that's not the point here - there's no doubt that you are guilty of manslaughter if you proceed with an action despite knowing its consequences.

A gun has no choice. A gun is an inanimate object. My father is a human being and he has a choice. He is responsible for his decision to kill my mother. Not me. Even if he says he is doing it because of something I do. If I shoot your mom 16 times and say "well it's only because you ****** me off." should you got to jail too?

No. Again, you had no prior knowledge of what would happen.

Imagine the mess that your logic would create. I guess we should blame my parents for having me. After all, if they hadn't had me then I wouldnt have eaten the food and my father wouldn't have killed my mother.

No prior knowledge.

That is absolutely ridiculous. If he kills anyone it is because he chose to do so. The fact that I know he will do it because of me isn't relevant. He isn't supposed to kill other people regardless of what I do.

Incorrect.

Recklessness(law) usually arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt. Criminal law recognizes recklessness as one of the mens rea elements to establish liability. It shows less culpability than intention, but more culpability than criminal negligence.

That's ridiculous. Even if you could have avoided it. They are completely 100% wrong and you are not. There is not a kangaroo court in the world that convicts people based on your non-logic.

Recklessness(law) usually arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt. Criminal law recognizes recklessness as one of the mens rea elements to establish liability. It shows less culpability than intention, but more culpability than criminal negligence.

But I would agree it would be hard to prove prior knowledge in this case, since my example was purely hypothetical and meant to be analogous to god's omniscience.

What makes that case and the one you mentioned different?

No prior knowledge.

Yes, if the Midianites were a gun, or a lion, then I would agree.

And if they were psychopaths and you let them "out of the cage"? In this case, even if you were not sure of what they were going to do, you have put people into a considerable danger by letting them out. But if you knew exactly what they would do (kill a bounch of people) before you let the out, that would make things even worse.

And as a person who works in law enforcement, I can tell you from first hand experience that absolutely no court, no human being, no logical person, no police officer, and no intelligent computer would convict me because I ate a hamburger. There is not a legal system in the world designed on such a flawed terrible disgusting non-logic as you are suggesting here.

Not because you ate a burger, because you proceeded with an action you knew would result in a murder. This is reckless manslaughter. I agree you would not be convicted, since it would be impossible to prove that you knew what would happen (usually people aren't omniscient ). But if it were possible to prove that you knew what would happen, you would be convicted of manslaughter. That there would be a problem in proving guilt in practice has no bearing on establishing your guilt in a hypothetical situation.

 

[linwood]

Except that's not what it is...

Yes, the Bible contains ancient mythological accounts that are allegorical in nature. They were never intended to be anything other than that. But the reason for the Bible's existence is not to "justify and empower a power/ego-based hierarchy." The writings were around long before Xy became a powerful and "ego-based hierarchy." That that hierarchy used the Bible as such does not make the Bible "for that purpose." It merely means that the Bible was used in such a manner.

But in all fairness they weren`t compiled and codified as "The Bible" until they were needed to justify a powerful and ego based hierarchy.

 

[TheKnight]

I would argue then that acting on objective reason is a selfless act. It might be in accordance with ones desires, yet they are not the motivation for the action. That is more or less my position regarding everything and there's no need for a god to explain to me why acting on objective reasons is optimal. There is every reason for an atheist to act selflessly.

I guess.

Yes, I understand why you believe the story and that could be arguments for trusting the accounts (maybe). Let's say I accept the account as completely factual - as if I were there, or at least watching a video of it, something along those lines. How do you get from that point to "god is all-powerfull", just to name one. How do you get from "these guys really saw that and really received this message which said this and that" to "the content of the message is true".

On a related subject, I've always wondered how one could know they knew everything. Seems almost a bit self-defeating.

If God says "These are my laws to you" then it only makes sense to believe that those are His laws to us.

You really don't seem to grasp the logical consequences of omniscience. I don't know if I can really explain it any clearer.

You're trying to explain something that isn't applicable because it's fallacious. Knowing that something will happen and having the power to prevent it does not make you responsible for it if it happens because someone else did it.

If that were the case, then parents should be prosecuted for having children because they know that the child will eventually die. They could prevent that by not having children.

Then you have no free will, since you have no option to the contrary to:

1. Existing
2. Dying
3. Having free will (which I find particulary ironic)
...etc...

I agree. I have no free will as far as those things are concerned. However, I do have free will to decide whether or not I can go outside and kill someone.

You're assuming that one must have a moral (right) and an immoral (wrong) option in order to have a choice, in order to exercise free will. Not only could there be a third option - amoral (which is neither moral nor immoral), the options could be different.
You have a very "black and white" outlook.

I never said that one must have a moral and an immoral option. However, in the case of the commandments (which are morality) the only options would be immoral or moral. If God says to you "Do not kill" you have two options. You can kill or you can not kill. Is there another option to that?

And was it not you who argued that situation exist in which there is no "doing wrong", a situation in which contradictory options could both be equally good. Have you been robbed of your free will in that instance? If you are put in a situation where neither killing nor not killing someone is wrong, you have no wrong option to choose from. :sorry1:

One of them is wrong. It's simply up to you which is wrong. Besides, not killing, from an official Jewish standpoint, would be wrong. I say that I would object and that that would be OK. But I don't know that. That's my own conjecturing and not an official position that Jewish sources would endorse.

Well I didn't say that was what you religion says, I presented it as a logical conclusion of the assumption that everything happens for a reason.

I'm not so sure that everything happens for a reason. That's an assumption that you made and it's not one that I really agree with. And even if I did, then your conclusion isn't necessarily the only logical conclusion.

I'm not saying your father had no ...but more culpability than criminal negligence....in proving guilt in practice has no bearing on establishing your guilt in a hypothetical situation.

I'm sorry, but I'm really not going to sit here and argue this. There are very few things that I am unwilling to argue. But I'm not going to argue about something that is so obvious. It would be dishonoring to the obviousness of it. If you go out and kill someone, you are responsible for it. Period. Even if I knew that by my doing X, you would go out and kill, you are still responsible for killing the person. If anything, I would be guilty of something else. But it wouldn't be killing the person. It would be something like...Idleness....or maybe recklessness (as I saw you mentioned). But honestly, your examples are terribly pathetic. If I knew that by eating a hamburger my father would kill my mother. And I do and he does, then I would not be convicted in any court for the death of my mother. Neither am I responsible for her death.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Thank you! With the exception of what I've bolded and highlighted in red in your second statement, I applaud your efforts at debunking the Bible.

Just telling it like it is....

The Adam/Eve story was written as a mythical, allegorical story. As such, it is honest, because in allegory, facts are largely immaterial to the truth portrayed by the story.

That's just it...It WASN'T written as allegory. The writers of the OT and NT believed they were real people....so much so they built a genealogy tracing it back to Adam. You may view it as allegory but they didn't.

Fact is, even the ancient people didn't believe the flood story to be "fact." It was allegory for them, too.

From the beginning of the book almost to the end of the book (bible) The writers thought Noah, his family and the supposed flood was a literal event.

Isa 54:9 (God talking)
Hebrews 11:7
1Peter 3:20
2Peter 2:5

No one back then, that I can tell, thought Noah's flood was an allegory. They all believed it to be a literal event. Heck, even "God" thought it was literal and not allegory.

Allegory does not = "false."

Nor does it = Fact. But really, who, but you are arguing it to be allegory. The text of your bible don't indicate an allegorical story. It's describing the events as though they actually happened. This is also what what other testament writers believed.

 

[Dunemeister]

That's just it...It WASN'T written as allegory. The writers of the OT and NT believed they were real people....so much so they built a genealogy tracing it back to Adam. You may view it as allegory but they didn't.

"Allegory" is probably not the best word. "Poetry" would be better. But I'd still agree with the main thrust of sojourner's comments.

Tracing genealogies back to Adam don't have the rhetorical force of "hey, I'm related to the first human." If that's all it meant, it would be a ridiculous exercise because WE CAN ALL SAY THAT. What would be the point? The fact that not one but two authors took the trouble of pointing out Jesus' connection with Adam (actually Shem is more important, but I'll save that for another day) should alert you to the fact that there's something bigger here than mere genetic relationship. I'll let you dig around some Genesis commentaries for a while to see what that might be. Let me know what you find.

From the beginning of the book almost to the end of the book (bible) The writers thought Noah, his family and the supposed flood was a literal event.

Isa 54:9 (God talking)
Hebrews 11:7
1Peter 3:20
2Peter 2:5

No one back then, that I can tell, thought Noah's flood was an allegory. They all believed it to be a literal event. Heck, even "God" thought it was literal and not allegory.

Here I agree with you. Where historicity is concerned, the question is the extent of the flood.

 

[Commoner]

If God says "These are my laws to you" then it only makes sense to believe that those are His laws to us.

Well, it's not a matter of belief at that point, I think. If someone told me he had a message for me and then gave me that message, I would "believe" he has given me that message - it was "His message to me". This says nothing about whether or not I should trust the content.

Knowing that something will happen and having the power to prevent it does not make you responsible for it if it happens because someone else did it.

You've misrepresented my case. It's knowing in advance that a certain action will result in person A killing person B and deciding to proceed with that action regardless of the risk involved for person B (in this case it's not even "merely a risk", since you know with absolute certainty) that without a doubt makes you responsible for endangering B's life.

If that were the case, then parents should be prosecuted for having children because they know that the child will eventually die. They could prevent that by not having children.

That's a good argument until you consider it closely. It's a matter of determining which one is better - living a life and eventually dying or not having lived at all. In this case you have a positive consequence to consider as well as the negative. And the positive consequences (living) for the "new person" far outweigh the negative consequences (dying) for that "new person". The parents are certainly responsible for the, overall, positive outcome.

I agree. I have no free will as far as those things are concerned. However, I do have free will to decide whether or not I can go outside and kill someone.

Yes, why? Why is it an option and the others aren't? And why would not having this one somehow affect your "free will" to a greater extent than other options that are not available?

I never said that one must have a moral and an immoral option. However, in the case of the commandments (which are morality) the only options would be immoral or moral. If God says to you "Do not kill" you have two options. You can kill or you can not kill. Is there another option to that?

There is not and it's a shame there's not another option - but that was up to god, there could have been another option. I reserve my right to criticize the rules of the game.

I'm sorry, but I'm really not going to sit here and argue this. There are very few things that I am unwilling to argue. But I'm not going to argue about something that is so obvious. It would be dishonoring to the obviousness of it. If you go out and kill someone, you are responsible for it. Period. Even if I knew that by my doing X, you would go out and kill, you are still responsible for killing the person. If anything, I would be guilty of something else. But it wouldn't be killing the person. It would be something like...Idleness....or maybe recklessness (as I saw you mentioned). But honestly, your examples are terribly pathetic. If I knew that by eating a hamburger my father would kill my mother. And I do and he does, then I would not be convicted in any court for the death of my mother. Neither am I responsible for her death.

Well, I'll admit my example was a bit...divorced from reality, but then again so is the concept of omniscience. Clearly I've not presented my points well as you keep misinterpreting them. So let me take another whack at it and try to present my case again, this time with a more structured and hopefully less pathetic argument. The burger example stays, however. My basic assumptions:

1. How responsible we hold a person to be for doing something depends strongly, among other factors, on their ability to understand the situation correctly and to accurately determine the consequences (or potential consequences) of their actions.

2. That ability depends primarily on the amount of information available to that person and on their mental capacities.

3. When someone understands the consequences of their actions and is not coerced into acting a certain way, his action are intentional.

For instance, if someone were to decide to take a drive in a car without brakes and cause an accident, we would hold him responsible only if he knew the car had no brakes (or should have known - for instance, the car wasn't regularly serviced). Driving a car without breaks clearly presents a relatively high risk to the lives of others so the person intentionally engaging in such an activity is endangering those lives. I think we can agree on that. Conversly, driving a normally functioning car is still somewhat risky, but the risk is relatively small and it is therefore "tolerated".

There are two main factors in which this example differs from my previous one:

1. The activity in my burger example does not represent a risky behaviour under normal circumstances.
2. The son is not the person physically commiting the crime.

OK, let's explore that:

1. We establish the level of risk of an activity based on the information we have about it. Driving a car without brakes will cause, on average, a much higher number of accidents than driving a normal car. That's about the amount of information that we normally have, so we must act accordingly. If we had more information - let's say, if we had an insight into the future and could establish that a trip in a car without brakes would not endanger lives in that particular situation, the activity would cease to present a risk in that situation and there would be no direct reason to avoid it. Similarly, if we could establish that a trip in a normal car would result in a loss of lives in that particular situation, the activity would represent a risk and there would be reason to avoid it.

Similarly, eating a burger is not normally a risky activity. However, if one had enough information to establish that in a particular situation it would result in a loss of life (while not eating it would not), the activity could then be deemed risky in that situation and there would be reason to avoid it in that particular situation.

2. Yes, there is that. Another person is actually commiting the murder - and is guilty of murder without a doubt. Again, the level of the son's responsibility hinges on whether or not his actions could conceivable provoke such a reaction in the father - an action which the son could assume would increase the risk of his fathers criminal behaviour. And again, determining what would count as such an action depends on our ability to assess its risks. Saying something like "She had an affair with the mailman" after a heated argument could perhaps be considered risky enough to be "provocation", althought determining that under normal circumstances is practically impossible, since there is no really good way to assess the risk in saying something like that. Even less in doing something that we could not directly predict as potentially provoking an attack - like eating a burger. But, if the risk in that particular situation could be established (again, with some sort of insight into the future), the action - no matter what risk it would involve under normal circumstances, would become risky.

Taking all that into account I would argue that having perfect information about the future, knowing without a doubt the exact consequences of eating the burger, knowing the risk in that particular situation, the son is just as responsible for the death of his mother as if he had pulled the trigger himself.

The fact that under normal circumstances (on average) the act of eating a burger does not represent a risk is completely irrelevant once you can establish the risk in that particular situation. The fact that his father commited the crime is also irrelevant to assessing the son's responsibility, since he was able to establish that by eating a burger he would risk provoking an attack. The chance of such an action in that particular situation provoking an attack and resulting in loss of lives is not only high, it's 100%.

The father still chose to react as he did and should be locked up forever alondside other psychopaths. But the son, perhaps inheriting his fathers traits, showed the same disregard for human life - he too decided that engaging in a trivial activity is worth endangering his mothers life (in this case even forfeiting his mothers life).

Do you disagree? Can you disagree?

 

[TheKnight]

Well, it's not a matter of belief at that point, I think. If someone told me he had a message for me and then gave me that message, I would "believe" he has given me that message - it was "His message to me". This says nothing about whether or not I should trust the content.

So you're saying that just because it comes from God doesn't mean that we should trust it? Even if He says "Obey this and you will have life"? I mean, everything else He'd told them/done for them at that point was legit. Why, all of a sudden, would they question Him on something that is much much more minor than all the other things?

You've misrepresented my case. It's knowing in advance that a certain action will result in person A killing person B and deciding to proceed with that action regardless of the risk involved for person B (in this case it's not even "merely a risk", since you know with absolute certainty) that without a doubt makes you responsible for endangering B's life.

You're trying to argue that I caused person A to kill person B. But that's not true. Person A cannot go into court and say "He made me do it." He'll be laughed at and then convicted. I, on the other hand, will not be convicted of anything.

That's a good argument until you consider it closely. It's a matter of determining which one is better - living a life and eventually dying or not having lived at all. In this case you have a positive consequence to consider as well as the negative. And the positive consequences (living) for the "new person" far outweigh the negative consequences (dying) for that "new person". The parents are certainly responsible for the, overall, positive outcome.

In the same way that God is responsible for the positive outcome of the Midianites getting to exist and have a choice as to whether or not they sin?

Yes, why? Why is it an option and the others aren't? And why would not having this one somehow affect your "free will" to a greater extent than other options that are not available?

Are you asking why because you don't know? Or are you asking why for the sake of your argument? Because I am astonished that this wouldn't make sense to you...

There are things that I cannot control. I agree with you. That does not mean that everything is outside of my control. Yes, I can't control the fact that I exist. I can control what I do with my existence. The free will that God doesn't want to compromise pertains to what we do with our existence here. What do we do with our time here on Earth?

There is not and it's a shame there's not another option - but that was up to god, there could have been another option. I reserve my right to criticize the rules of the game.

Well, that's fine. You may have wanted a third option. But in the case of the Midianites, they had two. And one resulted in their death when they could have chosen the other.

Do you disagree? Can you disagree?

OK. My disagreement with you is not in the actual example, but in what makes an action wrong. You believe that if the consequences of an action outweigh the potential benefit, and the person committing the action knew the consequences and did it anyways, then the person is responsible for the consequences.

I don't see actions that way. Let's take your brake example. From my point of view, driving without brakes is not wrong because it will cause accidents. Why? Because driving without brakes (at least in CA) is illegal whether or not you get into an accident.

That being said, driving without brakes is wrong because it's against the law. Not because of the potential accidents that might occur.

Similarly, with the hamburger example. The son is not held responsible because eating a hamburger is not wrong. The father is at fault for murdering the mother because murder is wrong. Whether the child eats the hamburger or not. When he does eat it, he has not done anything wrong. Even if he knows that by eating it, the father will be provoked to kill the mother.

Why? Because each person is responsible for his own action. I am not responsible for what you choose to do, no matter what I do. It's like in a classroom. The teacher tells child A to stop laughing. And child A says "but child B made me do it!". Is the teacher then going to castigate child B? I would hope not. Because what child B did isn't at question. In a court, the actions of the son are not the ones being prosecuted. The actions of the father are. The father will be held accountable for what he did. All the son did was eat a hamburger, and there's nothing wrong with that.


In essence, I believe that something is either wrong/not wrong because it is inherently so. Not because of what it might cause to happen. Not because it will have a certain result. It's wrong because inherently it's wrong. In the case of humanity, right and wrong are based on the commands of God.

 

[Commoner]

So you're saying that just because it comes from God doesn't mean that we should trust it?

I'm saying that just because the source that it comes from claims to be a god, doesn't mean it is a god. I mean, it's a tricky question the way you put it. If you meant "god" as in "the one who gave the message", then sure - I'm saying you shouldn't trust it just because it came from god (or John, or Lilly). But if you meant "god" as in "all-knowing, all-powerful all-loving supreme being, creator of the world, etc..." then of course you'd have to trust it. The real question is, how do you establish God is "God".

Even if He says "Obey this and you will have life"?

Well, I don't really go for that whole "reward" thing. I try to have better reasons than that for my actions (and even more for my beliefs). I do have my poorly evolved mammalian brain to rely on.

I mean, everything else He'd told them/done for them at that point was legit. Why, all of a sudden, would they question Him on something that is much much more minor than all the other things?

Was it legit? Which part could they have really confirmed? I don't think you can really say that.

You're trying to argue that I caused person A to kill person B. But that's not true. Person A cannot go into court and say "He made me do it." He'll be laughed at and then convicted. I, on the other hand, will not be convicted of anything.

Well... not exactly, but in a sense, yes. This argument of mine is only applicable to a situation in which the son has perfect information. And by choosing the only action that would not prevent it, he caused his mothers death. You ("you" is easier) didn't cause A to kill B, you caused the death of B. A caused A to kill B. because he's a *******.

You have no direct control over B, it's not like you forced him to do it. But in an indirect sense you did. I mean, this is a situation in which you know the outcome with certainty - B's choice has already been made in a sense and you can't control that. What you can control is the circumstances that lead to that choice. And really the only thing that's required of you to achieve a positive result is inaction. It's like standing in from of a lever that, if pulled, will send an electric jolt to B that will make him so mad that he'll start swingin'. The only difference is that the stimuli here is seeing the son eat the hamburger. Just don't pull the lever, it's that simple. If you do, I hold you responsible

Look this whole, "I wouldn't be convicted in court" things is silly, since we don't have a law that deals with omniscience, for obvious reasons. But in similar situations, if someone knowingly behaves in such a way that endangeres the lives of others (as I have presented in my last post), that makes them liable - that's a fact. That doesn't make the killer "not the killer".

In the same way that God is responsible for the positive outcome of the Midianites getting to exist and have a choice as to whether or not they sin?

No, not exactly. God, in this case, is more like a game programer - he can choose all the options, make all the options, add options, take options away. I still have every chance to play the game my way (within the rules). The question is, why are the rules the way they are? Not all games are violent - and they're just as fun. Why is this a shooter, not a chess game? You know?

Parents have no such control.

Are you asking why because you don't know? Or are you asking why for the sake of your argument? ...There are things that I cannot control.... That does not mean that everything is outside of my control.

I'm asking why you would argue that taking away one option would impinge upon one's free will while taking away another option would not.

Well, that's fine. You may have wanted a third option. But in the case of the Midianites, they had two. And one resulted in their death when they could have chosen the other.

Well, like I said before, it's not black and white. It's not like one action of one person in one instance lead to what happened. Many choices of many people in many instances. You don't need to take away "doing bad" to shape that kind of process in a different way

OK. My disagreement with you is not in the actual example, but in what makes an action wrong. You believe that if the consequences of an action outweigh the potential benefit, and the person committing the action knew the consequences and did it anyways, then the person is responsible for the consequences.

In a nutshell, although there's not always a benefit to even consider (in my example).

I don't see actions that way. Let's take your brake example. From my point of view, driving without brakes is not wrong because it will cause accidents. Why? Because driving without brakes (at least in CA) is illegal whether or not you get into an accident.

No, no, - it's illegal because you might get into an accident and the chances of that happening are very high. I'm not arguing that you'd have to get into an accident in order for it to be a crime.

We don't have the luxury of knowing what will happen in every single instance in order to decide when it's safe and when it's not. On average, it's more risky, therefore it's not tolerated. But if each of us could simply turn on our omniscience glasses in the morning before driving to work and check if we were going to be in an accident, there would be no need for a law against driving without brakes and similar laws. There would be only one law to cover them all - if you see yourself in an accident, don't drive - if you do, you will have commited a crime.

That being said, driving without brakes is wrong because it's against the law. Not because of the potential accidents that might occur.

1. Driving without brakes is against the law because there's a high potential that an accident might occur.
2. Driving without brakes is wrong because it's against the law

Therefore: Drivinng without brakes is wrong because there's a high potential that an accident might occur.

Similarly, with the hamburger example. The son is not held responsible because eating a hamburger is not wrong. The father is at fault for murdering the mother because murder is wrong. Whether the child eats the hamburger or not. When he does eat it, he has not done anything wrong. Even if he knows that by eating it, the father will be provoked to kill the mother.

You wouldn't be syaing that if it were a cheeseburger. That would be the real crime, right?

Being provoked is an actual defense in a murder trial, you do realize that, don't you? It could never be a defense in my example as there is no rational connection between the hamburger and the action. A normal person shouldn't ever react in that way (but an otherwise normal person can react badly to certain things, like being shouted at, etc...), the father is a complete whacko and must be removed from society. But this has no impact on the fact that the son was certain this was going to make his crazy father kill his mother. It is a reason to hold him responsible, without it being a defense for the father.

Why? Because each person is responsible for his own action. I am not responsible for what you choose to do, no matter what I do. It's like in a classroom. The teacher tells child A to stop laughing. And child A says "but child B made me do it!". Is the teacher then going to castigate child B? I would hope not. Because what child B did isn't at question. In a court, the actions of the son are not the ones being prosecuted. The actions of the father are. The father will be held accountable for what he did. All the son did was eat a hamburger, and there's nothing wrong with that.

It's interesting that you keep invoking this notion that my considering B responsible somehow makes A not guilty. But imagine B is tickling A and making him laugh - you'd have to reconsider your "punishement", wouldn't you. But this is because we see a connection between the two - laughter is the usual consequence of tickling. If it were unusual for someone to laugh when tickled, we would not consider them connected - we simply must rely on our experiences here as to what "usually" causes what and act accordingly. If we knew for each specific situation, we could act differently.

In essence, I believe that something is either wrong/not wrong because it is inherently so. Not because of what it might cause to happen. Not because it will have a certain result. It's wrong because inherently it's wrong. In the case of humanity, right and wrong are based on the commands of God.

Ok. In that way, wouldn't causing unnecessary harm be inherently wrong? And wouldn't you say that, while you might get certain rights and wrongs from god's commands, that doesn't mean those things are the only things you can consider right and the only one's wrong. If killing is immoral and observing the Sabbath is moral, that says nothing of watching a movie in 3D or eating a hamburger (or pulling a lever, if you will). Shooting a gun is not immoral, is it? But pointing it at a person and shooting it is. The consequences matter as they decide what the action actually is - is it shooting or is it killing? In the same way, eating a hamburger can be "eating a hamburger" or it can be something else. This is not a violation of your principles, I believe. Eating the hamburger is not wrong because it's "eating a hamburger", it's wrong because it's "killing someone". Do you see even a glimmer of common ground here?

 

[TheKnight]

I'm saying that just because the source that it comes from claims to be a god, doesn't mean it is a god. I mean, it's a tricky question the way you put it. If you meant "god" as in "the one who gave the message", then sure - I'm saying you shouldn't trust it just because it came from god (or John, or Lilly). But if you meant "god" as in "all-knowing, all-powerful all-loving supreme being, creator of the world, etc..." then of course you'd have to trust it. The real question is, how do you establish God is "God".

Indeed. That is the real question. The only answer I could give to that is that all the miraculous events preceding the giving of the Torah at Sinai were sufficient to prove to the Israelites that the Creator of the universe was the one giving the Torah.

Well, I don't really go for that whole "reward" thing. I try to have better reasons than that for my actions (and even more for my beliefs). I do have my poorly evolved mammalian brain to rely on.

I didn't mean it as a reward. I meant it as a litmus test. He says obey and X will happen, don't obey and Y will happen. If X happens when you obey and Y happens when you don't, then isn't the message trustworthy?

Was it legit? Which part could they have really confirmed? I don't think you can really say that.

They confirmed His promises to them because He fulfilled them. He said He would deliver them and did, He said He would protect them from the pursuing Egyptians and He did, He said He would provide for them in the desert and He did. If, after He does all that, He says "Here are my commands to you. Obey them and you will be fulfilling your purpose in this world." Do they have any reason to doubt that what He's saying is true?

Parents have no such control.

Does that mean that the parents should be held even more liable for the death of their children (which they could have prevented by not having them)? I mean, you said that the reason parents aren't liable is because they are producing a positive outcome, which is their existence. However, the parents can't even control the fact there would be a positive outcome. God, on the other hand can. He leaves that choice, whether or not your life is positive or negative, up to you. He gives you the methodology for a positive life, and assures that outside of that your life will not be as positive.

How, then, can you blame God for the death of the Midianites, but not blame parents for the death of their children, when ultimately the end result is the same? If parents are vindicated because of the positive potential of living vs not living. Then surely God is vindicated because of the positive potential of existing vs not existing.

I'm asking why you would argue that taking away one option would impinge upon one's free will while taking away another option would not.

When I say "free will" I don't mean freedom to do anything you want. That's not free will, that's omnipotence. Free will means that within the range of choices, you are able to choose completely of your own volition.

God desires, and necessitates, that we have free will within the range of options. If He limits the options to just one, then it isn't free will because then there's only one option.

Well, like I said before, it's not black and white. It's not like one action of one person in one instance lead to what happened. Many choices of many people in many instances. You don't need to take away "doing bad" to shape that kind of process in a different way

?

No, no, - it's illegal because you might get into an accident and the chances of that happening are very high. I'm not arguing that you'd have to get into an accident in order for it to be a crime.

Herein lies the nature of our disagreement. When you consider the crime of driving without brakes, you think of why it is illegal.

In essence, there is an action: Driving without brakes.

You look at that action and say, "Well, I shouldn't do it because I might get into an accident."

I look at that action and say, "I shouldn't do it because it's against the law."

Do you see the difference? In your decision to disobey or obey a command, you factor in the reason for the the command, I obey because it is a command itself. The reason for it being one doesn't matter as far as my obeying it is concerned.

1. Driving without brakes is against the law because there's a high potential that an accident might occur.
2. Driving without brakes is wrong because it's against the law

Therefore: Drivinng without brakes is wrong because there's a high potential that an accident might occur.

And there's the difference. I do not combine 1 and 2. Driving without brakes is wrong because its against the law. Regardless of the reason for the law, we must obey the law.

Similarly, with God's commands. Murder is wrong because God commanded it. Why did He command it? Well we could probably come up with hundreds of reasons, but they aren't relevant to our action. From my perspective, when a person acts concerning a commandment, their only thought should be "is it contra command or pro command." Once you step beyond that you have begun the rationalization process for not obeying the law/command.

You wouldn't be syaing that if it were a cheeseburger. That would be the real crime, right?

Being provoked is an actual defense in a murder trial, you do realize that, don't you? It could never be a defense in my example as there is no rational connection between the hamburger and the action. A normal person shouldn't ever react in that way (but an otherwise normal person can react badly to certain things, like being shouted at, etc...), the father is a complete whacko and must be removed from society. But this has no impact on the fact that the son was certain this was going to make his crazy father kill his mother. It is a reason to hold him responsible, without it being a defense for the father.

You're right. And there are two things I want to point out.

1.Even though the father can use, in his defense, that he was provoked. The son is not arrested for that.

Why?

2. Because eating hamburgers is an action that does not cause the provokation of human beings in normal instances. People eat hamburgers all the time without fathers turning and killing their wives. Presumably, the son's father had been around people that had eaten hamburgers and did not kill the wife.

Therefore, even IF the child's hamburger eating was the direct provokation of the father killing the mother. The son is still not responsible.

It's interesting that you keep invoking this notion that my considering B responsible somehow makes A not guilty.

I have never said that. My point is that A is guilty completely and that B is not at all. You cannot hold B responsible for A's actions because A committed the action of his own volition.

Ok. In that way, wouldn't causing unnecessary harm be inherently wrong? And wouldn't you say that, while you might get certain rights and wrongs from god's commands, that doesn't mean those things are the only things you can consider right and the only one's wrong. If killing is immoral and observing the Sabbath is moral, that says nothing of watching a movie in 3D or eating a hamburger (or pulling a lever, if you will). Shooting a gun is not immoral, is it? But pointing it at a person and shooting it is. The consequences matter as they decide what the action actually is - is it shooting or is it killing? In the same way, eating a hamburger can be "eating a hamburger" or it can be something else. This is not a violation of your principles, I believe. Eating the hamburger is not wrong because it's "eating a hamburger", it's wrong because it's "killing someone". Do you see even a glimmer of common ground here?

I see how you could make that argument. And I had actually thought of that before making my last post. Personally, I am not sure of the Halakha concerning the hamburger example.

There is a law "Do not stand idly by your brothers blood." Expanded, it is known as the law of the rodef. It basically means that if you have the ability to prevent the death of another person you must do so by whatever means possible. So if the child can prevent mother's death by not eating the hamburger, he shouldn't.

However, what I am unsure of is, if the child does eat the hamburger, do we hold him responsible for the death of the mother? I think the answer is no, but I cannot be sure.

What I do know for sure is that he is not responsible for murder, he would be tried on the basis of the law of the rodef...and his crime would be "standing idly by his brother's blood" in essence. Which is not a capital offense. Whereas murder is.

All in all, the answer is probably something along the lines of, if the child can avoid eating the hamburger, he should for as long as he is able to. If he does eat it, then he is responsible for standing idly by his mother's blood. If however, he is unable to avoid it (IE he is starving to death and that is his only food) then he is not held responsible for anything if he eats it and the mother is killed. After all, there is nothing which says one must sacrifice his life for the sake of another.

But as I said, I don't know for sure.

 

[Commoner]

Indeed. That is the real question. The only answer I could give to that is that all the miraculous events preceding the giving of the Torah at Sinai were sufficient to prove to the Israelites that the Creator of the universe was the one giving the Torah.

Well yes, and I don't see how they are related - how a miracle speaks to that. 3000 years ago causing an earthquake might seem miraculous and that's something I could do easily (well - by predicting it and then claiming to have caused it). Even in the age of information, we can't get our stories straight. You know that aliens landed in Roswell, don't you? Imagine such an event 3000 years ago, when people couldn't read or write, were not trained to think critically in the way we are today and had no knowledge of how the world works - and even now we make such huge mistakes.

And that's not even getting into the historicity of it, which is not...ahem... encouraging... to say the least. But even disregarding that completely, if it were reported on CNN today, there's just no way that would make god "God". Such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence - and god has provided none. And I must say, that's pretty strange behaviour for someone who had to have realized that his arguments wouldn't be considered very convincing (by most) in a couple (thousand) years.

I didn't mean it as a reward. I meant it as a litmus test. He says obey and X will happen, don't obey and Y will happen. If X happens when you obey and Y happens when you don't, then isn't the message trustworthy?

Not really if the claims are not connected. If I tell you I can bench press 200 pounds and then do it, that's no reason for you to believe I'm good at math (but I really am! ). And if I tell you I'm the ruler of the Universe... well, that requires evidence, not "miracles". A miracle is simply evidence that the natural laws could be broken, not that "god" is the sole beneficiary of such power. If god can't provide evidence, he's not god, if he can but won't, he shouldn't expect people to believe his claims about what/who he is. To expect me to suspend skepticism, the thing that really allows me to distinguish between valid and invalid ideas is a strange request for a god who also expects you to be skeptical regarding other gods.

They confirmed His promises to them because He fulfilled them. He said He would deliver them and did, He said He would protect them from the pursuing Egyptians and He did, He said He would provide for them in the desert and He did. If, after He does all that, He says "Here are my commands to you. Obey them and you will be fulfilling your purpose in this world." Do they have any reason to doubt that what He's saying is true?

In a practical sense, perhaps not. There is something to be said about previous experiences. If my friend has never lied to me, I have no reason to distrust him. But if he comes to me and tells me he's seeing ghosts, I'm going to take him to the doctor, not CNN (to report the new discovery).

Does that mean that the parents should be held even more liable for the death of their children (which they could have prevented by not having them)? I mean, you said that the reason parents aren't liable is because they are producing a positive outcome, which is their existence. However, the parents can't even control the fact there would be a positive outcome. God, on the other hand can. He leaves that choice, whether or not your life is positive or negative, up to you. He gives you the methodology for a positive life, and assures that outside of that your life will not be as positive.

Just as I've said about other things - that's exactly it - we can't predict the future. We must act according to the best possible strategy available to us given the information we have. Even giving money to charity is no guaranty of a positive outcome. But the chance of a positive outcome is more likely than a negative one. Someone who knew the exact outcome wouldn't have that luxury. He couldn't say that he acted with the best of intentions if he knew that charity was funding terrorists (exclusively).

God supposedly has both the means and the information required to know such things so I can hold him to a higher standard than "people".

How, then, can you blame God for the death of the Midianites, but not blame parents for the death of their children, when ultimately the end result is the same? If parents are vindicated because of the positive potential of living vs not living. Then surely God is vindicated because of the positive potential of existing vs not existing.

I've said it before - the death isn't really the point - it's the violence that I object to. The violence that is prevalent in god's game design.

When I say "free will" I don't mean freedom to do anything you want. That's not free will, that's omnipotence. Free will means that within the range of choices, you are able to choose completely of your own volition.

I understand that.

God desires, and necessitates, that we have free will within the range of options. If He limits the options to just one, then it isn't free will because then there's only one option.

?

Oh yes, I understand that, but that's not what I'm saying. It's not "kill" or "not kill". It's "kill" or "pick flowers" or "drink coffee" or "pillage a village" that are the real options. It's not either kill or not kill - it's not either "bad" or "good", there are many good and many bad options and there are many shades of gray in between. Both of us have done something that would be considered "bad" at one point or another. That doesnt' make us bad and no one has yet tried to kill us and rape our wives and sisters because we are sinners.

Imagine you were a bit...unresonable...and one day, after meeting a guy you really didn't like, you decided to kill him (and did). Now, imagine you had never met him. Has removing that scenario from your life in any way removed your free will? You could not tell the difference if such things were happening all the time - it would have no effect on your character nor your ability to decide, given the options. And no option of "kill" had to be removed. But it would change the nature of the game. I would argue that a loving god would simply not "think into creation" the scenarios that lead to the really horrible things. That lead to the destruction of whole nations, to genocide. Pick the most violent computer game available today and you will not find in it the violence and horrors described in those events. To just draw a line and condemn every single individual in a group of individuals with individual pasts and potential futures and to say such an event is necessary to not take away free will is...unreal.

 

[Commoner]

Herein lies the nature of our disagreement. When you consider the crime of driving without brakes, you think of why it is illegal.

Then you would be unable to come up with such a law? To me it's effortless.

In essence, there is an action: Driving without brakes. You look at that action and say, "Well, I shouldn't do it because I might get into an accident."I look at that action and say, "I shouldn't do it because it's against the law."

No. I say, I shouldn't do it because it's against the law. But it's unethical and immoral because it endangers other people's lives. The fact that it's against the law simply acknowledges that society feels the same about it.

And there's the difference. I do not combine 1 and 2. Driving without brakes is wrong because its against the law. Regardless of the reason for the law, we must obey the law.

If you believe both "1." and " 2." you don't have to also actively "follow the conclusion" - you are already obeying that principle even if you do not aknowledge it.

Similarly, with God's commands. Murder is wrong because God commanded it. Why did He command it? Well we could probably come up with hundreds of reasons, but they aren't relevant to our action. From my perspective, when a person acts concerning a commandment, their only thought should be "is it contra command or pro command." Once you step beyond that you have begun the rationalization process for not obeying the law/command.

You're right. And there are two things I want to point out.

1.Even though the father can use, in his defense, that he was provoked. The son is not arrested for that.

Correct. Unless we had omniscient judges as well. The principle, however, is the same. We place more responsibility on those who have more knowledge - those who we deem "should have known better". A person giving someone else the wrong pill is much more responsible if he was supposed to know what he was doing (like a doctor).
Those who should be able to understand the situation more clearly. And the son understand it as if he were god himself. There is no greater level of information one could gain - the son has certainty.

The reason why we don't just arrest those that provoke something is because of the extremely low level of information they usually have to judge such situations - and indeed that makes them not responsible, so it would be wrong to convict them of anything, let alone murder. This is not comparable in the slightest, even in those cases where one could clearly establish that the provocation played a cruicial role. It's not just the strong connection between the provocation and the crime - it's the level of certainty the provoker has that his actions will elicit such a response that determines his responsibilty.

Why?

2. Because eating hamburgers is an action that does not cause the provokation of human beings in normal instances. People eat hamburgers all the time without fathers turning and killing their wives. Presumably, the son's father had been around people that had eaten hamburgers and did not kill the wife.

Exactly! But that's not considering the son's perspective. You're analysing the situation as if you were an outside observer. As if eating the hamburger would be harmless and not in any way connected to the death. But it is - whatever reason the father had (maybe he's a schizophrenic and seeing you eating the hamburger promts a hallucination, whatever - it might even be an accident), that event is what causes the father to go "fruit loops". The son knew it would happen, he knew the risk in advance, yet he pulled the lever. And this is not a child we're talking about, let's not get confused by that.

I have never said that. My point is that A is guilty completely and that B is not at all. You cannot hold B responsible for A's actions because A committed the action of his own volition.

I'm not - I'm holding him responsible for his mother's death, not his father's crime!

I see how you could make that argument. And I had actually thought of that before making my last post. Personally, I am not sure of the Halakha concerning the hamburger example.

There is a law "Do not stand idly by your brothers blood." Expanded, it is known as the law of the rodef. It basically means that if you have the ability to prevent the death of another person you must do so by whatever means possible. So if the child can prevent mother's death by not eating the hamburger, he shouldn't.

But I think I would argue that this is more than simply "standing idly by". In essence it is no different than having a lever in front of you which, if you pull it, will result in your mother's death. How she would die is incidential - simply knowing that it will be because the father kills her changes nothing about your situation.

However, what I am unsure of is, if the child does eat the hamburger, do we hold him responsible for the death of the mother? I think the answer is no, but I cannot be sure. What I do know for sure is that he is not responsible for murder, he would be tried on the basis of the law of the rodef...and his crime would be "standing idly by his brother's blood" in essence. Which is not a capital offense. Whereas murder is.

I would argue it is murder (as explained above). Both the son and the father are separately responsible for her death, to the same degree.

All in all, the answer is probably something along the lines of, if the child can avoid eating the hamburger, he should for as long as he is able to. If he does eat it, then he is responsible for standing idly by his mother's blood. If however, he is unable to avoid it (IE he is starving to death and that is his only food) then he is not held responsible for anything if he eats it and the mother is killed. After all, there is nothing which says one must sacrifice his life for the sake of another.

No, no, this is going far beyond the example (and its intent). This is not about "eating" in general or even "eating a hamburger" in general. No, in one instance, one point in time, this situatino arises. You can simply turn around and go to the nearest Mc'donalds and order a new one - just leave that hamburger alone. There are no other restriction here, no sacrificing one's life, no having no other food. You are not trapped anywhere - well...how could you be, you're omniscient.

 

[TheKnight]

Well yes, and I don't see how they are related - how a miracle speaks to that. 3000 years ago causing an earthquake might seem miraculous and that's something I could do easily (well - by predicting it and then claiming to have caused it). Even in the age of information, we can't get our stories straight. You know that aliens landed in Roswell, don't you? Imagine such an event 3000 years ago, when people couldn't read or write, were not trained to think critically in the way we are today and had no knowledge of how the world works - and even now we make such huge mistakes.

And that's not even getting into the historicity of it, which is not...ahem... encouraging... to say the least. But even disregarding that completely, if it were reported on CNN today, there's just no way that would make god "God". Such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence - and god has provided none. And I must say, that's pretty strange behaviour for someone who had to have realized that his arguments wouldn't be considered very convincing (by most) in a couple (thousand) years.

All in all, the evidence is enough to establish a reasonable belief in the Torah. After all, believing in the Torah doesn't mean giving your life away. It simply means changing how you do things. We change how we do things on much less evidence than that which God provided for the Israelites 3000 years ago.

Not really if the claims are not connected. If I tell you I can bench press 200 pounds and then do it, that's no reason for you to believe I'm good at math (but I really am! ). And if I tell you I'm the ruler of the Universe... well, that requires evidence, not "miracles". A miracle is simply evidence that the natural laws could be broken, not that "god" is the sole beneficiary of such power. If god can't provide evidence, he's not god, if he can but won't, he shouldn't expect people to believe his claims about what/who he is. To expect me to suspend skepticism, the thing that really allows me to distinguish between valid and invalid ideas is a strange request for a god who also expects you to be skeptical regarding other gods.

So your standard of evidence is, in essence, unrealistic. You basically want God to come out and just prove it by letting you know, basically, all there is to be known about the matter. That much evidence really isn't needed. All that is needed is enough to establish a reasonable belief. And I believe that such evidence has been provided.

In a practical sense, perhaps not. There is something to be said about previous experiences. If my friend has never lied to me, I have no reason to distrust him.

Exactly.

Just as I've said about other things - that's exactly it - we can't predict the future. We must act according to the best possible strategy available to us given the information we have. Even giving money to charity is no guaranty of a positive outcome. But the chance of a positive outcome is more likely than a negative one. Someone who knew the exact outcome wouldn't have that luxury. He couldn't say that he acted with the best of intentions if he knew that charity was funding terrorists (exclusively).

God supposedly has both the means and the information required to know such things so I can hold him to a higher standard than "people".

Your initial point was that the Midianites had no choice but to be in that position. I argued and have been arguing that the Midianites did not have to be in that position.

I've said it before - the death isn't really the point - it's the violence that I object to. The violence that is prevalent in god's game design.

So in essence, you object to evil. Well, you're supposed to. Everyone is. I would hope that you would never be comfortable killing people, even if the killing was justified.

Oh yes, I understand that, but that's not what I'm saying. It's not "kill" or "not kill". It's "kill" or "pick flowers" or "drink coffee" or "pillage a village" that are the real options. It's not either kill or not kill - it's not either "bad" or "good", there are many good and many bad options and there are many shades of gray in between. Both of us have done something that would be considered "bad" at one point or another. That doesnt' make us bad and no one has yet tried to kill us and rape our wives and sisters because we are sinners.

Imagine you were a bit...unresonable...and one day, after meeting a guy you really didn't like, you decided to kill him (and did). Now, imagine you had never met him. Has removing that scenario from your life in any way removed your free will? You could not tell the difference if such things were happening all the time - it would have no effect on your character nor your ability to decide, given the options. And no option of "kill" had to be removed. But it would change the nature of the game. I would argue that a loving god would simply not "think into creation" the scenarios that lead to the really horrible things. That lead to the destruction of whole nations, to genocide. Pick the most violent computer game available today and you will not find in it the violence and horrors described in those events. To just draw a line and condemn every single individual in a group of individuals with individual pasts and potential futures and to say such an event is necessary to not take away free will is...unreal.

So in essence, you disagree with the fact that people have the option of committing evil. There's not much I can do about that. :sorry1:

Then you would be unable to come up with such a law? To me it's effortless.

What?

No. I say, I shouldn't do it because it's against the law. But it's unethical and immoral because it endangers other people's lives. The fact that it's against the law simply acknowledges that society feels the same about it.

OK. That's fine. But we both already know that you and I have different standards as far as what makes something right or wrong. You think something is immoral because it causes unnecessary harm. I think something is immoral because God says it is. Why God says it is, truly, something we cannot know. We can speculate His reasons, but ultimately even if we cannot come up with one, it doesn't change that fact that He has commanded it to us. That's what makes it immoral for us to do it.

-Old ground-


-More old ground-



-Old ground-

I'd rather not go back and forth over the same thing. Obviously we'll be unable to reach some agreement because we have a fundamental disagreement in premises.

Both the son and the father are separately responsible for her death, to the same degree.

That's not logical. The father is responsible because he directly caused it. The son did not.

 

[Commoner]

All in all, the evidence is enough to establish a reasonable belief in the Torah. After all, believing in the Torah doesn't mean giving your life away. It simply means changing how you do things. We change how we do things on much less evidence than that which God provided for the Israelites 3000 years ago.

It's one thing to believe is something on an abstract level (like "there is a god", "god is good", "god watches over me", etc...). It's another thing to go beyond that and use the Torah as if it was infallible and claim it as an objective reason for your actions and behaviours.

So your standard of evidence is, in essence, unrealistic. You basically want God to come out and just prove it by letting you know, basically, all there is to be known about the matter. That much evidence really isn't needed. All that is needed is enough to establish a reasonable belief. And I believe that such evidence has been provided.

Unrealistic for whom? God? Surely he could think of a way to provide me at least with the same "evidence" he provided to others. I'm not really asking for proof (what you described), I would agree that's unresonable - proof exists only in math and logic. Push the Andromeda Galaxy away from a collision course with Earth - that's a miracle worthy of the title. Extend the life of our Sun by a couple of billion years simply by thinking it. Make Mars habitable by clapping your hands and give us the means to get there. Give us an argument for the existence of an intervening god that has not yet been exploded by philosophers, an argument that would put an end to our doubts. Those are the things I would consider evidence. Not really much work for a god but far beyond a booming voice and a burning bush.

Exactly.

Way to quote mine. I call shenanigans! :areyoucra

Your initial point was that the Midianites had no choice but to be in that position. I argued and have been arguing that the Midianites did not have to be in that position.

I don't see how there's a difference, if there is an omniscient god. Those two situation are the same to him. Whether we have a choice or not, our choice was known at the point of creation and indeed - even before that. Even if you can get around the implication of determinism, the point still stands.

So in essence, you object to evil. Well, you're supposed to. Everyone is. I would hope that you would never be comfortable killing people, even if the killing was justified.

No, in essence I'm objecting to the validity of the idea of "omniscience" being compatible with other aspects of god's character.

So in essence, you disagree with the fact that people have the option of committing evil. There's not much I can do about that.

No, not really. I disagree with god's gameplan. That bad decisions on the part of individuals can lead to a situation in which god commands a whole people to be slaughtered. This is what I was trying to get across to you when describing the "take away the situation". It's the "greater than the sum of its parts" violence that I would expect god to eliminate. Not by removing choices from individuals, but by not creating the kind of structure that would allow for such a multiplication effect, a feedback loop that feeds of itself growing until god intervenes in order to keep the structure from shattering. This is simply not a necessary type of event. And it is not a sign of particulary good design - not what I'd expect from an omniscient god.

This is nothing more than theists claim of god - an order. But "order" is not what comes to mind when considering these ideas - it's chaos, it's randomness, not design (or at least not a very stable one). I think that, if there is a god, he's in over his head...

What?

Well if you do not think in terms of "why these laws are the way they are", how could you participate in creating them? Or even harder - changing them. If there were no law against slavery, would you be fine with it? And if there were a law
enforcing it, would you not object? It's the law, therefore it's right? I find this almost...well...antisocial.

OK. That's fine. But we both already know that you and I have different standards as far as what makes something right or wrong. You think something is immoral because it causes unnecessary harm. I think something is immoral because God says it is. Why God says it is, truly, something we cannot know. We can speculate His reasons, but ultimately even if we cannot come up with one, it doesn't change that fact that He has commanded it to us. That's what makes it immoral for us to do it.

But are the only things that are immoral the things god tells you are immoral? Is it not the case that you find things immoral that god doesn't really touch on in this particular revelation?

I'd rather not go back and forth over the same thing. Obviously we'll be unable to reach some agreement because we have a fundamental disagreement in premises.

I don't think our differing views regarding the basis of morality play much role here actually. I really take it as a bit of a cop-out, since I do try and make valid and reasoned points whenever I can and do not feel that I am repeating myself too much. Obviously I understand the implications of accepting my conclusions as valid and I can see why you would want to avoid further discussion on the matter, so I accept the "cease fire", but not without feeling a little smug.

That's not logical. The father is responsible because he directly caused it. The son did not.

That can't be right, what exactly are you responsible of then, when you hire someone to kill another person?

Keep in mind, while the situation came about by chance, you have no way of determining the son's motives. This is an important point, I think. Would you perhaps say that he was responsible if he actually intended his mother to die?