****ing context please

[Windwalker]

I think this is a straw man. I never called the commandments cultural norms, nor do I believe them to be so. The commandments of G-d are realities that effect the soul for positive or negative to one degree or another.

They are cultural norms. People attribute these social orders to divine orders in order for society to be able to enforce them. It becomes the "supreme law" because it is stated and believed to come from God. I'm not entirely sure how you could imagine eating shellfish as an effect on the soul? Dietary restrictions are typically health regulations. In this country we say that authority is the FDA. In ancient Israel it was God. Eating pork doesn't send the soul into ruin. But it may get the body sick if not handled properly.

Aside from that, the purpose of capital punishment - or indeed any punishment - is to rectify the person's soul of the sin he had committed.

Oh dear, this sounds like the robed Grand Inquisitor saving the soul of the sinner by purifying him through torture and execution. I really don't have any idea whatsoever how torture and death purifies one's soul! I think love does a better job of that then some dude justifying himself killing someone else in the name of his god.

A prophet, who has already entered a state of being able to see what happens in heaven or at least aware of it, should certainly be able to negate his personal feelings towards a loved one, in order to help them attain rectification.

This sounds very, very terrifying and psychotic. A very dangerous psychotic who kills thinking he's saving souls. This is no prophet, but a sociopath.

To a degree we do that already, when we put our children through a difficult exercise in order to help them in some difficulty.

Excersise builds endurance. Punishment destroys.

 

[Tumah]

They are cultural norms. People attribute these social orders to divine orders in order for society to be able to enforce them. It becomes the "supreme law" because it is stated and believed to come from God. I'm not entirely sure how you could imagine eating shellfish as an effect on the soul? Dietary restrictions are typically health regulations. In this country we say that authority is the FDA. In ancient Israel it was God. Eating pork doesn't send the soul into ruin. But it may get the body sick if not handled properly.


Oh dear, this sounds like the robed Grand Inquisitor saving the soul of the sinner by purifying him through torture and execution. I really don't have any idea whatsoever how torture and death purifies one's soul! I think love does a better job of that then some dude justifying himself killing someone else in the name of his god.


This sounds very, very terrifying and psychotic. A very dangerous psychotic who kills thinking he's saving souls. This is no prophet, but a sociopath.


Excersise builds endurance. Punishment destroys.

You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge when it comes to the Torah and Judaism. Pig is one example of a non-kosher animal. I'm not sure why you singled it out. Other non-kosher animals include camel, donkey and mule all well known domesticated animals. Are they also historically more disease ridden then goats and sheep? How about catfish more than tuna fish? Is there a reason why four species of grasshoppers should be less disease ridden than all the other grasshoppers? You found that pig could be more disease ridden than other animals so you've singled it out and given that as the reason for dietary laws. But you'll have to explain how those reasons apply to other commonly domesticated or eaten foods.

I appreciate your opinion on what these various subjects and I would expect no less from an atheist or agnostic, but I don't see what you hope to accomplish by telling me your beliefs. The context is the Torah and - if your questions about it are directed at me - the Orthodox view of the Torah. If you don't like it, no one is trying to get you to become Jewish. According to you the events didn't happen. And according to me the events didn't happen the way you think they happened.

So what exactly are you looking for now?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So if you ask - regardless of your person philosophy - what this man did to deserve death, the answer is that he transgressed the Torah's command to not profane the Sabbath which comes with a penalty of death.

I guess I'm asking why this internal justification is justified, and how, really, does some legal wording really make it any different than had they just killed him for another reason, with or without the justification of a source of authority?

 

[Tumah]

I guess I'm asking why this internal justification is justified,

I think you mean, how do you today justify those actions. I don't have an answer for that. For me, I believe that G-d did actually speak all those things and G-d Himself is the justifying authority, both from a logical and theological point of view. But for you who doesn't believe in my G-d, I think you're right, there would be no justifiable reason by today's society's standards to kill him.

and how, really, does some legal wording really make it any different than had they just killed him for another reason, with or without the justification of a source of authority?

That's kind of how authority works. If I break into your house and take your stuff, that's called breaking and entering. If I do it under the authority of a search warrant, that's a search and seizure. Legal authority is what differentiates between what may and may not be done.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's kind of how authority works. If I break into your house and take your stuff, that's called breaking and entering. If I do it under the authority of a search warrant, that's a search and seizure. Legal authority is what differentiates between what may and may not be done.

And even with that, I'm asking why, because even with a search and seizure there are times when it really is no different than armed robbery, except with a piece of a paper signed by a judge declaring it "legal."

 

[Tumah]

And even with that, I'm asking why, because even with a search and seizure there are times when it really is no different than armed robbery, except with a piece of a paper signed by a judge declaring it "legal."

I guess you'd have to ask a lawyer what law gives a judge authority to grant permission to a cop to enter a house without permission and seize items.

 

[Windwalker]

You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge when it comes to the Torah and Judaism. Pig is one example of a non-kosher animal. I'm not sure why you singled it out. Other non-kosher animals include camel, donkey and mule all well known domesticated animals. Are they also historically more disease ridden then goats and sheep? How about catfish more than tuna fish? Is there a reason why four species of grasshoppers should be less disease ridden than all the other grasshoppers? You found that pig could be more disease ridden than other animals so you've singled it out and given that as the reason for dietary laws. But you'll have to explain how those reasons apply to other commonly domesticated or eaten foods.

Again, these are things humans discover on their own. They don't need God to tell them eating certain foods make them sick. Experience tells them that. And then they take these and make them prohibitions for their society. They put them into the Law of Moses, to enforce them. It's about social cohesion, not about your eternal soul.

I appreciate your opinion on what these various subjects and I would expect no less from an atheist or agnostic, but I don't see what you hope to accomplish by telling me your beliefs.

You seem to think you understand my beliefs. I'm an neither an agonist nor an atheist. What I hope to accomplish is the sharing of different understandings of these things for the sake of dialog. What are you interested in? Being right and no discussions?

 

[Acim]

I don't understand what you are saying. The definition of a "law" is a regulation that the community recognizes that regulates their actions. Ted Bundy is not a community. So however he personally defines permitted and prohibited behavior, doesn't make it a "law", it makes it, his personal opinion.

I don't know what to tell you when you consider such laws real or effective, knowing that God's Law exists. Apparently, some (so called) laws were meant to be broken, and broken easily. Yet, not God's Law.

 

[Tumah]

Again, these are things humans discover on their own. They don't need God to tell them eating certain foods make them sick. Experience tells them that. And then they take these and make them prohibitions for their society. They put them into the Law of Moses, to enforce them. It's about social cohesion, not about your eternal soul.

So they found that there are four species of grasshoppers that don't make people sick? Does that seem likely to you?

You seem to think you understand my beliefs. I'm an neither an agonist nor an atheist. What I hope to accomplish is the sharing of different understandings of these things for the sake of dialog. What are you interested in? Being right and no discussions?

I understand that you do not believe in the G-d of Abraham. Which means that you aren't going to take any of the events that speak about interaction between G-d and man as being true. Instead you're going to look for more natural means of explaining these stories. That's the salient point.

I don't need to be right per se, but its difficult to see what form of debate or dialogue is going to come out of you telling me your naturalized interpretation of Torah stories and me claiming supernatural sources for those stories. That's the line that's not going to be crossed by either of us. We're not sharing interpretations (at least not judging by your language), you're just letting me know that you think my interpretation leads to psychosis etc. Great. Now I know how you feel, now what?

Originally the discussion in the OP was about context for the story about the wood collector. I provided it according to how my religion interprets the Torah. If there's anything within that context that you'd like to debate aside from "but the G-d of the Torah doesn't exist so you're wrong", then I'm here for you. Otherwise, there's plenty of other threads dedicated towards debating whether any of the Abrahamic interpretations of G-d exists - which is essentially the abstract of your position.

 

[Tumah]

I don't know what to tell you when you consider such laws real or effective, knowing that God's Law exists. Apparently, some (so called) laws were meant to be broken, and broken easily. Yet, not God's Law.

I don't understand what comparison you're making. Is it between secular Law and G-d's Law? I don't understand what one has to do with the other.
I'm also not sure that there are laws that were instituted with the intent that they be broken. I think that's just a catchy phrase people like to say.

 

[Acim]

I think the idea of this thread comes down to when, if at all, is intentional killing wrong. Me I go with all the time, when it involves a person. Even in self defense. Then if you add in idea that State makes for justifiable (intentional) killing whereby it is not wrong, would mean that 1940 Germany was involved in a whole bunch of justified killing. But for some reason, we don't look at that in the same way, don't see it as justifiable killing. Instead, stipulations are put on the State saying it is, or can be, in at least one known case, wrong. That such killing is not justified, or justifiable. Or would these be an example of laws by a state that were not instituted with the intent (by anyone alive) to be broken?

 

[Koldo]

I can only answer you within the context of my religious belief. In my religion, some authors get to be the sources. I don't know if that author based his information on other kabbalistic texts or its a tradition that he has from his rabbi. But I don't think there are too many Orthodox Jews that would discount that book because he doesn't mention his source.

Do you mean Orthodox Jews, in general, would give a free pass to certain authors, even though they are not prophets themselves ? Why ?

I am talking about a matter that involves historicity, not mere philosophical advancements.

 

[Tumah]

Do you mean Orthodox Jews, in general, would give a free pass to certain authors, even though they are not prophets themselves ? Why ?

The Talmud teaches that a Sage is greater than a Prophet. A prophet is kind of like a sheep, he can only knows as much as was revealed to him. A sage is able to use his intellect to figure out something that wasn't taught to him.

So to an extent, yes. Certain authors - or I should say, Rabbis - have sufficiently established themselves as being extremely knowledgeable in Judaism. It might be a tradition that they had received from their own rabbis. Or something that is in an area of Jewish literature not reserved for the lay folk. But even if not, their opinions on a subject can become a source themselves as it is understood to be based on the total body of their knowledge. See here for more info.

I should also add, that in some cases, the author is known to have had a minor degree of prophecy.

 

[Koldo]

The Talmud teaches that a Sage is greater than a Prophet. A prophet is kind of like a sheep, he can only knows as much as was revealed to him. A sage is able to use his intellect to figure out something that wasn't taught to him.

So to an extent, yes. Certain authors - or I should say, Rabbis - have sufficiently established themselves as being extremely knowledgeable in Judaism. It might be a tradition that they had received from their own rabbis. Or something that is in an area of Jewish literature not reserved for the lay folk. But even if not, their opinions on a subject can become a source themselves as it is understood to be based on the total body of their knowledge. See here for more info.

I should also add, that in some cases, the author is known to have had a minor degree of prophecy.

Would you accept literally everything that a sage said as truth ? What if he simply misspoke ?
What if two distinct sages make statements that contradict each other ? Would you accept both ?

 

[Tumah]

Would you accept literally everything that a sage said as truth ?

It depends on the context and the sage.

What if he simply misspoke ?

Then he's probably not a sage.

What if two distinct sages make statements that contradict each other ? Would you accept both ?

Yes. We have a concept called, "these and these are the words of the Living G-d."

 

[Koldo]

It depends on the context and the sage.

On this context, why would any of those sages you have mentioned have a say on the matter? What gives them authority over historicity ?

 

[Tumah]

On this context, why would any of those sages you have mentioned have a say on the matter? What gives them authority over historicity ?

In this case I would say that they probably have this information by way of tradition from their Rabbis, from another source (like a kabbalistic text) not readily available to me as a layman or they were taught this information through minor prophecy (where applicable).

 

[Koldo]

In this case I would say that they probably have this information by way of tradition from their Rabbis, from another source (like a kabbalistic text) not readily available to me as a layman or they were taught this information through minor prophecy (where applicable).

And what reason do you have to believe in that ? Only the status those sages have acquired ?

 

[Windwalker]

I understand that you do not believe in the G-d of Abraham.

You understand this how? I actually identify the Christian religion in a very progressive form, which if I'm not mistaken is part of that lineage. No?

Which means that you aren't going to take any of the events that speak about interaction between G-d and man as being true. Instead you're going to look for more natural means of explaining these stories. That's the salient point.

I don't take the mythologies as literal facts. I take them as symbolic truths. And that, is the salient point.

I don't need to be right per se, but its difficult to see what form of debate or dialogue is going to come out of you telling me your naturalized interpretation of Torah stories and me claiming supernatural sources for those stories.

Because it may hopefully provoke other points of view about the same things, as opposed to you monopolizing the conversation with your interpretations of it as the sole truth about them.

That's the line that's not going to be crossed by either of us.

Speak only for yourself. I certainly am taking your perspectives into account, whereas it appears you simply reject another's who doesn't align with your own. Have you attempted to understand this from a modernist religious perspective?

We're not sharing interpretations (at least not judging by your language), you're just letting me know that you think my interpretation leads to psychosis etc. Great. Now I know how you feel, now what?

I simply took what you described as the state of true prophecy and compared the description you offered with that of a psychotic, which would be a fact. I do have an understanding of these things, on both sides of it, understanding mystical states. What you described it not that of a mystical state, but a psychological dissociation.

Originally the discussion in the OP was about context for the story about the wood collector. I provided it according to how my religion interprets the Torah.

Sure, and I provided the context from a modernist religious perspective, which I feel has a greater explanatory power.

If there's anything within that context that you'd like to debate aside from "but the G-d of the Torah doesn't exist so you're wrong", then I'm here for you.

I believe God exists. I don't believe that how any one group claims to understand that God is the final word on the subject, by any means.

Otherwise, there's plenty of other threads dedicated towards debating whether any of the Abrahamic interpretations of G-d exists - which is essentially the abstract of your position.

You are essentially wrong what my position is. You're stabbing in the dark.

 

[Tumah]

And what reason do you have to believe in that ? Only the status those sages have acquired ?

Because they wouldn't become accepted had they not reached a certain degree in erudition and spiritual accomplishment. Other accepted rabbis are the ones who determine which books have good information and which are not to be accepted. If it contradicts what they know to be true, they're not going to accept it, give it an approbation or whatever.