So was God wrong?

[Autodidact]

They're all accurate statements. Remember, the OT says that the Law is abiding. Even Jesus is quoted as saying that the Law will not pass away. Paul says that the Law need not apply to Gentile Xians. Again, it's not about accuracy, it's about cogency. For Gentile Americans in the 21st century, the dietary laws are not cogent.

I thought you just said that when it says that God commanded the Hebrews to kill enemy's babies, it was not accurate. Now I'm confused.

 

[sojourner]

I thought you just said that when it says that God commanded the Hebrews to kill enemy's babies, it was not accurate. Now I'm confused.

It would be helpful if I knew what passage you were referring to.

 

[No Good Boyo]

Except that you're forgetting that the texts represent the cultural norms as much as the Divine norms.

in your opinion, not in everyones opinion

 

[Blackdog22]

People have to live in their own particularity. We only understand God from where we stand now. For that culture, genocide meant racial purity. It's difficult to admit that those ideas are presented in the texts, but they are, and we have to live with them as part of the human condition. I don't think anyone today (least of all a Jew) would say that genocide is OK with God. But apparently for that culture, racial purity was the higher standard. We've grown beyond that.

So, God evolves as we evolve? Why would genocide or racial purity(AKA Holocaust) be acceptable at all? If God is perfect then why do you not think the idea of "racial purity" as a good thing? Seeing as God could of set any standard he wished to begin with, why do you think he chose such a barbaric one? If God wanted one race then why did he make so many? God seems very confused....

 

[TheKnight]

O.K., let's go with that. One should not kill babies as a general rule. In the OT, God commands His people to kill people as a general rule.
Therefore, He should not have done that, correct?

I don't believe He commands people to kill as a general rule. The general rule is "Do not kill."

The exception is when He commands us to kill.

So the Torah position is that genocide and infanticide are morally permissible?

The rest of that post explained the answer to this.

So for you, whatever God commands is moral, no matter how horrific. For example, of God commanded you to stab a baby to death, and you did, that would be moral?

Yes. Whatever God commands is moral. Morality is not an absolute, God is the only absolute. Everything else attains its definition from Him. Not just morality, but literally everything. I cannot even say something is horrific because it isn't horrific unless He says it is. It's much broader than you're making it out to be. There is no stopping to say "God has commanded me to do something horrific" because that implies there is some idea of horrific that exists outside of Him, and nothing does.

And even so, just because something is horrific doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. If I see you trying to kill innocent people and I use violence to stop you, I see that as a horrific situation. However, it still has to be done.

Yet in general, one should not kill babies. So if you follow Torah-based morality, you should do what you generally should not do?

No, if you follow Torah-based morality you believe that one should always do what God wants you to do regardless of how you personally feel about it. Torah-based morality is a morality of doing what God wants. It's not a matter of classifying certain actions as good or bad.

I assume you have the very same questions about your god being love

1 John 4:8
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.*​

When the hell did a universal code of morality drop out of the sky that is so obviously clear and candid to every human that we can outright claim something is love without any support?

What does love even mean? Does it have an objective meaning? Or it is just a word we use to describe things we like?

* I know the passage is NT, but would deny this is what he is?

Judaism regards God as indescribable. We are only able to estimate characteristics about Him based on how we perceive His interaction with us. The only thing we can affirmatively say about God is what He gives us in the Torah about Him.

We do see God as a loving God.

What does that mean? For us it means that God gives to us. He loves in that He gives, He gave us life, He gave us Torah, He gave us this Gan Eden in which we live. In return, we show our love by giving back in the form of commandments.

I once heard a lecture by a Rabbi who explained that the root of the word Ahava (love in Hebrew) is shared by the root for the word to give. To love is to give. So can we say that God is love? Can we say that God is give? No, therefore we cannot say He is love. God is loving. He is loving in that He is giving.

To say that an action is "right" or "good" is to say that it is something one should do. I'm asking on what basis do those who criticize the Torah call an action good or bad? On what basis do those who criticize Torah determine what one should or should not do?And is that any less consistent than our system in which what God wants us to do is what one should do?

For instance, we both agree that one should not kill babies. I'm asking why we believe that. I believe I should not kill because God does not want me to kill. The basis for my moral code is what God wants. Why do you believe you should not kill? What is the basis of your moral code?

On the other hand if God commands me to kill, then I would kill because my moral code is based on what God wants. The action itself isn't even a consideration, it's that He wants us to do it that we do it. If we stopped and said "Should we really do what God wants? Is this right?" it demonstrates a lack of belief in the reliability of the system itself.

If one doesn't believe the system is worthwhile then, obviously, the argument is about whether or not the system itself is worthwhile. I'm only seeing this argument for what it is, an argument of the worth of the Torah-system. We can pretend we're arguing the nuances of the Torah itself, but that's not true. No believing person should fall for that. This whole thread is a criticism of the Torah-system itself. To pretend it's about the morality of what the Torah commands is to cover the intent of the argument. The goal is to discredit a person's belief in the system, not discuss the moral consistency of the system.

I don't think we can argue about whether or not the system is consistent until we both agree that the system is worthwhile. Otherwise we should be arguing if the system itself is something we should abide by. That's what this thread is.

The question of the OP is a baiting question.

To reword the OP: "My question is do you think that doing what God says is acceptable and just? If not then are you saying that God the Torah system is invalid."

It's really just a trap that too many people fall into because to actually answer the OP's question itself as it appears is to start an argument one cannot win. Not because of a faulty position, but because the argument is a trap.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I don't believe He commands people to kill as a general rule. The general rule is "Do not kill."

The exception is when He commands us to kill.


The rest of that post explained the answer to this.



Yes. Whatever God commands is moral. Morality is not an absolute, God is the only absolute. Everything else attains its definition from Him. Not just morality, but literally everything. I cannot even say something is horrific because it isn't horrific unless He says it is. It's much broader than you're making it out to be. There is no stopping to say "God has commanded me to do something horrific" because that implies there is some idea of horrific that exists outside of Him, and nothing does.

And even so, just because something is horrific doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. If I see you trying to kill innocent people and I use violence to stop you, I see that as a horrific situation. However, it still has to be done.


No, if you follow Torah-based morality you believe that one should always do what God wants you to do regardless of how you personally feel about it. Torah-based morality is a morality of doing what God wants. It's not a matter of classifying certain actions as good or bad.





Judaism regards God as indescribable. We are only able to estimate characteristics about Him based on how we perceive His interaction with us. The only thing we can affirmatively say about God is what He gives us in the Torah about Him.

We do see God as a loving God.

What does that mean? For us it means that God gives to us. He loves in that He gives, He gave us life, He gave us Torah, He gave us this Gan Eden in which we live. In return, we show our love by giving back in the form of commandments.

I once heard a lecture by a Rabbi who explained that the root of the word Ahava (love in Hebrew) is shared by the root for the word to give. To love is to give. So can we say that God is love? Can we say that God is give? No, therefore we cannot say He is love. God is loving. He is loving in that He is giving.

To say that an action is "right" or "good" is to say that it is something one should do. I'm asking on what basis do those who criticize the Torah call an action good or bad? On what basis do those who criticize Torah determine what one should or should not do?And is that any less consistent than our system in which what God wants us to do is what one should do?

For instance, we both agree that one should not kill babies. I'm asking why we believe that. I believe I should not kill because God does not want me to kill. The basis for my moral code is what God wants. Why do you believe you should not kill? What is the basis of your moral code?

On the other hand if God commands me to kill, then I would kill because my moral code is based on what God wants. The action itself isn't even a consideration, it's that He wants us to do it that we do it. If we stopped and said "Should we really do what God wants? Is this right?" it demonstrates a lack of belief in the reliability of the system itself.

If one doesn't believe the system is worthwhile then, obviously, the argument is about whether or not the system itself is worthwhile. I'm only seeing this argument for what it is, an argument of the worth of the Torah-system. We can pretend we're arguing the nuances of the Torah itself, but that's not true. No believing person should fall for that. This whole thread is a criticism of the Torah-system itself. To pretend it's about the morality of what the Torah commands is to cover the intent of the argument. The goal is to discredit a person's belief in the system, not discuss the moral consistency of the system.

I don't think we can argue about whether or not the system is consistent until we both agree that the system is worthwhile. Otherwise we should be arguing if the system itself is something we should abide by. That's what this thread is.

The question of the OP is a baiting question.

To reword the OP: "My question is do you think that doing what God says is acceptable and just? If not then are you saying that God the Torah system is invalid."

It's really just a trap that too many people fall into because to actually answer the OP's question itself as it appears is to start an argument one cannot win. Not because of a faulty position, but because the argument is a trap.

This type of thinking, that you do whatever God commands, even if it is infanticide, genocide, etc is what led to the crusades, Muslim Jihads, etc.

Sorry, but I cannot fathom how someone follows that sort of dogma based on something no one knows exists. And before someone says they "know" god exists, there is a huge difference between "knowing" and "believing".

 

[Jacksnyte]

Only difficult because Christians have made assertions that fly in the face of the presumed facts. If you want to assert that god is an all-loving being---which is frequently done---then you're faced with explaining away the not-so-nice things he's done. Things that done by anyone else would be immediately condemned. The field of Christian apologetics only exists because of the need wrought by such problematic issues. To be a good Christian one must be willing to compartmentalize the brain and close the doors on those compartments that interfere with the comfort drawn from the others.

Excellent!!

 

[Autodidact]

So do you think God did command these atrocities, or not?

No. God did not command them.

Does the OT contain any accurate statements about God's commandments?

They're all accurate statements.

See my question? When the Bible says that God commanded the Hebrews to kill babies, it was wrong, but every statement about God's commandments is accurate. Say what?

Do you need me to quote a few of the genocidal and infanticidal commandments?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't believe He commands people to kill as a general rule. The general rule is "Do not kill."

The exception is when He commands us to kill.

No, the general rule is, Do not murder. Obviously, when God commands you to kill, it's not murder.

Yes. Whatever God commands is moral. Morality is not an absolute, God is the only absolute. Everything else attains its definition from Him. Not just morality, but literally everything. I cannot even say something is horrific because it isn't horrific unless He says it is. It's much broader than you're making it out to be. There is no stopping to say "God has commanded me to do something horrific" because that implies there is some idea of horrific that exists outside of Him, and nothing does.

Yes, I follow. No matter how barbaric, how cruel, how shocking to me, an atheist, to you, a theist, if God commands it, that makes it right. So slavery is right. Infanticide is right. Genocide is right. All the things that for the rest of us, if morality exists at all, surely those things are prohibited, are right, for you, if God commands them, as He often does.

And even so, just because something is horrific doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. If I see you trying to kill innocent people and I use violence to stop you, I see that as a horrific situation. However, it still has to be done.

No one's talking about preventing killing. We're talking about a God who, after total victory, commands His people to go back and kill the babies. And your sole justification is that if God commands it, it must be right.

No, if you follow Torah-based morality you believe that one should always do what God wants you to do regardless of how you personally feel about it. Torah-based morality is a morality of doing what God wants. It's not a matter of classifying certain actions as good or bad.

I got it. You don't have a morality. You just do what God says, end of discussion, no matter how morally abhorrent to the rest of us.

Would it bother you if I suggest that it would be safer for all concerned if we lock you up now, just in case you decide that God commanded you to go on a killing spree?

For instance, we both agree that one should not kill babies.

We do? I thought that you thought that if God commands you to, then in fact you should.

I'm asking why we believe that. I believe I should not kill because God does not want me to kill.

Except when He does.

The basis for my moral code is what God wants. Why do you believe you should not kill? What is the basis of your moral code?

Like I said, separate thread. You may find it interesting.

On the other hand if God commands me to kill, then I would kill because my moral code is based on what God wants. The action itself isn't even a consideration, it's that He wants us to do it that we do it. If we stopped and said "Should we really do what God wants? Is this right?" it demonstrates a lack of belief in the reliability of the system itself.

Yes, I understand. If you were one of those soldiers, and God commanded you to go back and run the babies through with your sword, you would have done it. I would not. That's the difference between us.

If one doesn't believe the system is worthwhile then, obviously, the argument is about whether or not the system itself is worthwhile

the results prove without doubt that the system is not worthwhile

. I'm only seeing this argument for what it is, an argument of the worth of the Torah-system. We can pretend we're arguing the nuances of the Torah itself, but that's not true. No believing person should fall for that. This whole thread is a criticism of the Torah-system itself. To pretend it's about the morality of what the Torah commands is to cover the intent of the argument. The goal is to discredit a person's belief in the system, not discuss the moral consistency of the system.

Exactly, and you have succeeded in persuading us that the Torah system, at least as you see it, is irredeemably evil and should be eliminated from the face of the earth.

I don't think we can argue about whether or not the system is consistent until we both agree that the system is worthwhile.

Why not?

Otherwise we should be arguing if the system itself is something we should abide by. That's what this thread is.

Yes, it is. The system itself is not something we should abide by, obviously, if we value live babies.

The question of the OP is a baiting question.

To reword the OP: "My question is do you think that doing what God says is acceptable and just? If not then are you saying that God the Torah system is invalid."

That's right. It's not acceptable, it's not just, and the Torah system is invalid. Right on all points.

It's really just a trap that too many people fall into because to actually answer the OP's question itself as it appears is to start an argument one cannot win. Not because of a faulty position, but because the argument is a trap.

Actually, no, it's because of a faulty position. A moral system that accepts slaughtering babies is a faulty position.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

If God wanted one race then why did he make so many? God seems very confused....

The Jews were to be a holy nation to guide others. God sought to take out all the lost causes that wouldn't have any of it. I saw this immediately, I don't know where people get these other ideas.

 

[Autodidact]

The Jews were to be a holy nation to guide others. God sought to take out all the lost causes that wouldn't have any of it. I saw this immediately, I don't know where people get these other ideas.

I don't even know what you're trying to say. What is a lost cause, and why would it have any of what? What are you talking about?

 

[Luminous]

God wasn't as much wrong as the Christiaans think they're right.

 

[sojourner]

in your opinion, not in everyones opinion

Opinion doesn't have anything to do with it. Scholarship has everything to do with it. that's simply what the texts are...

 

[sojourner]

So, God evolves as we evolve? Why would genocide or racial purity(AKA Holocaust) be acceptable at all? If God is perfect then why do you not think the idea of "racial purity" as a good thing? Seeing as God could of set any standard he wished to begin with, why do you think he chose such a barbaric one? If God wanted one race then why did he make so many? God seems very confused....

Well... in a certain sense. Actually, more to the point is that, as we evolve, our understanding of God evolves.

I'm not sure I understand the thrust of the rest of your post. Why do you think that racial purity has anything to do with God? I think it's more about human understanding than Divine understanding.

 

[sojourner]

See my question? When the Bible says that God commanded the Hebrews to kill babies, it was wrong, but every statement about God's commandments is accurate. Say what?

Do you need me to quote a few of the genocidal and infanticidal commandments?

I'd have to see the reference in order to determine whether the Bible says that God commanded it.

 

[Luminous]

Opinion doesn't have anything to do with it. Scholarship has everything to do with it. that's simply what the texts are...

Is that what the Pharasees told Yeshua?

 

[TheKnight]

Sorry, but I cannot fathom how someone follows that sort of dogma based on something no one knows exists. And before someone says they "know" god exists, there is a huge difference between "knowing" and "believing".

You don't have to know 100%. I can provide you with enough evidence to establish a reasonable belief in such a system (which is an entirely different suggestion). Even if we're wrong and there is no God, the morality set forth by the system is more than reasonable.

Is irredeemably evil and should be eliminated from the face of the earth.

Eliminated from the face of the Earth? When did you, Ahmadinejad and Hitler become such close friends?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

You don't have to know 100%. I can provide you with enough evidence to establish a reasonable belief in such a system (which is an entirely different suggestion).

This is assuming that our (yours and mine) ideas of evidence coincide. What may constitute as evidence to you may not to me. For example, some people will say the proof is all around you, just go outside and look around. For me that is not evidence, considering there is scientific proof to the contrary.

While I will never deny someone's idea of evidence, I won't necessarily accept it as such.

Even if we're wrong and there is no God, the morality set forth by the system is more than reasonable.

This is also assuming that morality depends on religion, which it doesn't. There are some very religious, very immoral people out there. And I'm referring to modern day morality, not bronze age morality.

 

[sojourner]

Is that what the Pharasees told Yeshua?

The Pharisees used the Talmud extensively, which is scholarship about the texts. You figure out what they may or may not have told Jesus.

 

[Autodidact]

I'd have to see the reference in order to determine whether the Bible says that God commanded it.

1 Samuel 15:
This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’

17:
The LORD anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’

Deuteronomy 20 16:
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Deuteronomy 7
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Numbers 31:
The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.” ...They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 ... The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder....Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.