what do you think?

[technomage]

The idea that dominate is equivalent to oppress is lacking in evidence though.

Dominate is not always the same as oppress--but the two frequently coincide.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Yep. Then it says YHVH murdered the innocent firstborn, because of that hardening, that YHVH caused to be.




*

C'est la vie, c'est la guerre, c'est la pomme de terre.

Still doesn't detract from God.

 

[Ouroboros]

why does God allow the strong to oppress the weak?

In the Old Testament God oppresses Israel and forces them into obedience, so wouldn't the strong just be following God's example?

 

[Ingledsva]

Yep. Then it says YHVH murdered the innocent firstborn, because of that hardening, that YHVH caused to be.

C'est la vie, c'est la guerre, c'est la pomme de terre.

Still doesn't detract from God.

Such stories about YHVH - let me know YHVH is just a made up God.



YHVH is not God.




*

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Such stories about YHVH - let me know YHVH is just a made up God.



YHVH is not God.




*

Even if YHWH is a myth, that is a metaphorical expression of what God is, it still would not detract from God.

I have absolutely no problem with God being evil or being expressed in evil terms.

 

[technomage]

I have absolutely no problem with God being evil or being expressed in evil terms.

Actually, if any such entity exists, I would imagine that God would be beyond such terms as "good" or "evil." Those are human categorizations, and are doubtless far too narrow to describe "God," however defined.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Actually, if any such entity exists, I would imagine that God would be beyond such terms as "good" or "evil." Those are human categorizations, and are doubtless far too narrow to describe "God," however defined.

I agree with you, but when we talk about God in mythological terms I think it is appropriate to ascribe good or evil to God. I view God has having both positive and negative aspect but being beyond both much like the Tao.

 

[Ingledsva]

I agree with you, but when we talk about God in mythological terms I think it is appropriate to ascribe good or evil to God. I view God has having both positive and negative aspect but being beyond both much like the Tao.

Yes, but that is different than saying that God personally terrorizes, cheats, murders children, etc.


This brings it to a flesh and blood evil being, perhaps superior enough technologically, that we think it is a God, but it is not a "God."



*

 

[Objective Qualia]

why does God allow the strong to oppress the weak?

Because God is oppressive.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, but that is different than saying that God personally terrorizes, cheats, murders children, etc.


This brings it to a flesh and blood evil being, perhaps superior enough technologically, that we think it is a God, but it is not a "God."

Oh, it can be a god. But it's just a tribal war deity. It's not the creator of the universe and omni-max like the Abrahamics present it as being. (I'm a polytheist, so I don't have a problem seeing this Yahweh as being a real god on some level. I just don't accept the claims of its followers about its scope and power.)

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Because God is oppressive.

Just as much as God is oppressive, God is also liberating. Haven't you noticed this is the Moses cycle of myths? When God wants to liberate, God oppresses, when God wants to give life, God kills, when God wants to give truth, God deceives.

 

[Levite]

And the Lord hardened Pharao's heart, and he hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses.

I interpret this along the same lines as several of our great late medieval commentators, that what this means is that God lent Pharaoh the strength to preserve his free will in the face of what would otherwise be crushing terror. In other words, unaided human beings would, in the face of the plagues, simply give in to whatever Moses claimed that God wished, out of pure primal terror. In lending Pharaoh the strength to hold fast to his opinions and desires even in the face of primal terror, Pharaoh only relented and let the people go when he finally understood that the plagues really did come from God, who was supreme over all things, including Pharaoh himself, and thus in that moment Pharaoh truly wished, of his own volition, to let the people go.

 

[Ingledsva]

I interpret this along the same lines as several of our great late medieval commentators, that what this means is that God lent Pharaoh the strength to preserve his free will in the face of what would otherwise be crushing terror. In other words, unaided human beings would, in the face of the plagues, simply give in to whatever Moses claimed that God wished, out of pure primal terror. In lending Pharaoh the strength to hold fast to his opinions and desires even in the face of primal terror, Pharaoh only relented and let the people go when he finally understood that the plagues really did come from God, who was supreme over all things, including Pharaoh himself, and thus in that moment Pharaoh truly wished, of his own volition, to let the people go.

I don't agree with that at all - because the story tells us YHVH plotted it ahead so he could do the plagues!


Exo 7:2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

Exo 7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that I may multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

Exo 7:4 And Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great afflictions.

SO...

"YHVH says HE will harden pharaoh's heart so that he will not let the Hebrew go - so he can flash some special murderous magic.

He then proceeds to send wave after wave of horrors on ALL the people.
Ending with the MURDER of their first born!

Because they wouldn't let the Hebrew go - when HE was PREVENTING pharaoh form letting them go!


That is psycho.



*

 

[Levite]

I don't agree with that at all - because the story tells us YHVH plotted it ahead so he could do the plagues!


Exo 7:2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

Exo 7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that I may multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

Exo 7:4 And Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great afflictions.

SO...

"YHVH says HE will harden pharaoh's heart so that he will not let the Hebrew go - so he can flash some special murderous magic.

He then proceeds to send wave after wave of horrors on ALL the people.
Ending with the MURDER of their first born!

Because they wouldn't let the Hebrew go - when HE was PREVENTING pharaoh form letting them go!


That is psycho.



*

Generally we interpret this as predictive, rather than entirely as a plan, per se. In other words, God plans to lend Pharaoh the strength to maintain his desires and wishes, and the result will be that God's signs and wonders will be multiplied, the fact of which God reveals to Moses in advance.

We also do not see this as being "psycho," since it represents Divine justice for the same things that were done to the enslaved Israelites.

A number of our commentators link this, in fact, with the laws in the Torah prohibiting the abuse of slaves, and the limitation of slavery.

 

[LuisDantas]

why does God allow the strong to oppress the weak?

Logically, he can't.

Not by most conceptions, including the mainstream Abrahamic ones, anyway.

Many people say that he respects Free Will, but I will be darned if I can see any meaning in such a statement. It seems to imply that God realizes that we humans enjoy being capable of causing damage so much that it would be a bad thing to make us either wise enough to avoid it, or simply incapable of such.

I can't figure out why that would make sense, but then again, it is a concept meant to work in harmony with that of the God of Abraham, which is just as absurd in an opposite direction.

Ultimately, it is a good question to meditate on when considering whether God exists and to which extent we might be projecting our own hopes and preconceptions to belief in his existence.

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't agree with that at all - because the story tells us YHVH plotted it ahead so he could do the plagues!


Exo 7:2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

Exo 7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that I may multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

Exo 7:4 And Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great afflictions.

SO...

"YHVH says HE will harden pharaoh's heart so that he will not let the Hebrew go - so he can flash some special murderous magic.

He then proceeds to send wave after wave of horrors on ALL the people.
Ending with the MURDER of their first born!

Because they wouldn't let the Hebrew go - when HE was PREVENTING pharaoh form letting them go!


That is psycho.

Generally we interpret this as predictive, rather than entirely as a plan, per se. In other words, God plans to lend Pharaoh the strength to maintain his desires and wishes, and the result will be that God's signs and wonders will be multiplied, the fact of which God reveals to Moses in advance.

We also do not see this as being "psycho," since it represents Divine justice for the same things that were done to the enslaved Israelites.

A number of our commentators link this, in fact, with the laws in the Torah prohibiting the abuse of slaves, and the limitation of slavery.

However - it does not say that.


I believe this is just more wishy-washing of texts, just as with some Christians, and Muslims. so people can continue to cling to them, without acknowledging the "human" macabre nature of this supposed God.


It show a specific plan - including him hardening Pharaoh's heart to not let them go - SPECIFICALLY - so he can cause horrific chaos.


Also - it is not divine justice - but human revenge - to murder the innocent for the supposed sins of someone else!


What "limitation of slavery?" The Hebrew could have slaves, rape them, beat them (just not to death,) breed them like animals. and hand down these generations of slaves as property FOREVER.



*

 

[Levite]

However - it does not say that.
I believe this is just more wishy-washing of texts, just as with some Christians, and Muslims. so people can continue to cling to them, without acknowledging the "human" macabre nature of this supposed God.

It show a specific plan - including him hardening Pharaoh's heart to not let them go - SPECIFICALLY - so he can cause horrific chaos.

First of all, it never fails to perplex me that it is anti-religionists, anti-Biblicists, or whatnot, who almost inevitably insist on the most narrow, rigid, possible interpretation of texts-- sometimes even more narrow and rigid than some fundamentalists.

Why is it so important to you that God must be evil, and the Jewish scriptures must be wicked and designed for atrocity?

Both our traditions, and such archaeological evidence of scripture as we have-- limited though it be-- indicate that, far from taking everything in the Torah in rigid and literal fashion, Jews have always interpreted the text both for practical application and for theological purpose.

That certainly fits, anyhow, with the worldview of Rabbinic Judaism (which is to say, all mainstream Judaism in the past 2000-odd years), which is that the Written Torah was designed to be read in tandem with the Oral Torah, and cannot properly be understood without it; and that the Written Torah itself is a text of potentially limitless interpretability and multiple meanings-- the relevant or applicable meanings, in fact, quite often not being the apparent meaning of the most literal, surface level of the text.

You dismiss interpretation as "wishy-washing," but in fact, it is the rigid literalism you seem to insist upon that is the distortion of a rich, complex, multi-layered and multifaceted text and tradition.

Also - it is not divine justice - but human revenge - to murder the innocent for the supposed sins of someone else!

Our Rabbis tell us that no Egyptian died who was not complicit in the oppression of the Israelites. Those Egyptians who were not complicit were unharmed, and many, in fact, went forth with the Israelites at the Exodus as part of the "mixed multitude," and became converts at Sinai.

What "limitation of slavery?" The Hebrew could have slaves, rape them, beat them (just not to death,) breed them like animals. and hand down these generations of slaves as property FOREVER.

First of all, no slave could be held forever. Some were mandated to be released in the sh'nat ha-shmittah (Sabbatical year-- every seventh year), but all were mandated to be released at the yovel (Jubilee year-- every fiftieth year). Only those slaves who voluntarily chose adoption into the house of the master were permitted to remain during or after years of manumission.

Second of all, if a slave ran away, it was forbidden to return him to his former master, on presumption that any slave who ran away did so out of desire to escape maltreatment, and thus it was criminal to return him for further abuse.

Third of all, rape was never permitted in any circumstance. Even slave women had to consent to relations, and transgression was punishible by hefty fines at the least, beating or flogging at worst. This also means that slave-owners could not force slaves to breed without consent.

Fourth, there were always limits on beating. Even criminals could only be beaten to a maximum of thirty-nine strikes, and slaves much less so.

Some of this is relatively explicit even in the Written Torah, but as for the rest, this is one more reason not to attempt to read the Written Torah in the absence of the Oral Torah. It produces just such factual errors.

 

[technomage]

Levite, part of the problem is that most Westerners do not understand debt slavery. This is especially true of people of Anglo-American descent--we tend to think in terms of chattel slavery unless we have examined the difference.

First of all, no slave could be held forever. Some were mandated to be released in the sh'nat ha-shmittah (Sabbatical year-- every seventh year), but all were mandated to be released at the yovel (Jubilee year-- every fiftieth year).

I knew this was true for Hebrew slaves--is it also true for Gentile slaves? It certainly makes sense, but I'd never really delved into the issue.

Only those slaves who voluntarily chose adoption into the house of the master were permitted to remain during or after years of manumission.

And many of those did not remain as slaves--they were freed and adopted as part of the family.

 

[Ingledsva]

However - it does not say that.
I believe this is just more wishy-washing of texts, just as with some Christians, and Muslims. so people can continue to cling to them, without acknowledging the "human" macabre nature of this supposed God.

It show a specific plan - including him hardening Pharaoh's heart to not let them go - SPECIFICALLY - so he can cause horrific chaos.

First of all, it never fails to perplex me that it is anti-religionists, anti-Biblicists, or whatnot, who almost inevitably insist on the most narrow, rigid, possible interpretation of texts-- sometimes even more narrow and rigid than some fundamentalists.

ING - - How exactly am I rigid for actually reading the text - while it is OK for you folks to fudge around it and tell us it doesn't actually mean what it SAYS?

Why is it so important to you that God must be evil, and the Jewish scriptures must be wicked and designed for atrocity?

ING -- It has nothing to do with me. The books as written tell us this "God" is human-made-up, - rigid, angry, vengeful, murderer of children, patriarchal laws handed down, etc.

Both our traditions, and such archaeological evidence of scripture as we have-- limited though it be-- indicate that, far from taking everything in the Torah in rigid and literal fashion, Jews have always interpreted the text both for practical application and for theological purpose.

That certainly fits, anyhow, with the worldview of Rabbinic Judaism (which is to say, all mainstream Judaism in the past 2000-odd years), which is that the Written Torah was designed to be read in tandem with the Oral Torah, and cannot properly be understood without it; and that the Written Torah itself is a text of potentially limitless interpretability and multiple meanings-- the relevant or applicable meanings, in fact, quite often not being the apparent meaning of the most literal, surface level of the text.

You dismiss interpretation as "wishy-washing," but in fact, it is the rigid literalism you seem to insist upon that is the distortion of a rich, complex, multi-layered and multifaceted text and tradition.

ING -- I am well aware of the Jewish practice, which in one sense make it pertinent to each new generation, however, such is being used in more recent times to fudge what Tanakh says God is. As I said this is also being done by Christianity and Islam.

Also - it is not divine justice - but human revenge - to murder the innocent for the supposed sins of someone else!

Our Rabbis tell us that no Egyptian died who was not complicit in the oppression of the Israelites. Those Egyptians who were not complicit were unharmed, and many, in fact, went forth with the Israelites at the Exodus as part of the "mixed multitude," and became converts at Sinai.

ING -- and AGAIN - How does that jive with what the text actually says? If ALL the Firstborn were killed, as well as all the people from the plagues, - that would absolutely mean MURDER of THE INNOCENT as well, especially in the Firstborn. Some of those would have to have been newborns.

What "limitation of slavery?" The Hebrew could have slaves, rape them, beat them (just not to death,) breed them like animals. and hand down these generations of slaves as property FOREVER.

First of all, no slave could be held forever. Some were mandated to be released in the sh'nat ha-shmittah (Sabbatical year-- every seventh year), but all were mandated to be released at the yovel (Jubilee year-- every fiftieth year). Only those slaves who voluntarily chose adoption into the house of the master were permitted to remain during or after years of manumission.

ING -- Again - .

Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

So they were owning slaves for life and passing them on in inheritance, and breeding more slaves by giving female slaves to male slaves - just like in the old south.

Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.


Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them forever. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.

Second of all, if a slave ran away, it was forbidden to return him to his former master, on presumption that any slave who ran away did so out of desire to escape maltreatment, and thus it was criminal to return him for further abuse.

ING -- I will assume you are referring to Deuteronomy 23:15, which is usually translated -

Deu 23:15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:


Which is a VERY OBVIOUS misunderstanding of the text. Taken as is - it would mean total chaos! All slaves, indentured servants, concubines and other sex slaves, etc, - would just run next door and say I escaped from my master, - and demand to be set up as in verse 16. That is ridiculous! They never would have written such illogical crap. Here are two others with slightly different translations.


(YLT) `Thou dost not shut up a servant unto his lord, who is delivered unto thee from his lord;

(Darby) Thou shalt not hand over to his master a bondman that hath escaped from his master unto thee:

Darby says this is a HEBREW BONDSMAN and it is talking to the HEBREW. He notes there actually is an "AS THEE" in there.

The law says it is ILLEGAL for a HEBREW bond holder to MISTREAT a HEBREW BONDSMAN. Therefore The HEBREW that the HEBREW BONDSMAN escaped to, can not LEGALLY return that HEBREW to that abuse he ran away from.

Nor obviously - hand a Hebrew slave back to a non Hebrew master.


It is not talking about slaves in general- but - Hebrew bondsmen.

Third of all, rape was never permitted in any circumstance. Even slave women had to consent to relations, and transgression was punishible by hefty fines at the least, beating or flogging at worst. This also means that slave-owners could not force slaves to breed without consent.

ING -- You know perfectly well this is not true. Go and read one of your Jewish sites on this. I have. They could bring home a screaming slave from the battlefield and rape them after 30 days of mourning for their slaughtered families. The held concubines - which are BOUGHT SEX SLAVES, etc. These women had no choice and were thus RAPED.

Fourth, there were always limits on beating. Even criminals could only be beaten to a maximum of thirty-nine strikes, and slaves much less so.

ING -- Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.


Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he survive on a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his object/possession.

Some of this is relatively explicit even in the Written Torah, but as for the rest, this is one more reason not to attempt to read the Written Torah in the absence of the Oral Torah. It produces just such factual errors.

I believe I have done quite well in pointing out that I am not using "factual error" but the facts.


*

 

[Levite]

ING - - How exactly am I rigid for actually reading the text - while it is OK for you folks to fudge around it and tell us it doesn't actually mean what it SAYS?





ING -- It has nothing to do with me. The books as written tell us this "God" is human-made-up, - rigid, angry, vengeful, murderer of children, patriarchal laws handed down, etc.





ING -- I am well aware of the Jewish practice, which in one sense make it pertinent to each new generation, however, such is being used in more recent times to fudge what Tanakh says God is. As I said this is also being done by Christianity and Islam.







ING -- and AGAIN - How does that jive with what the text actually says? If ALL the Firstborn were killed, as well as all the people from the plagues, - that would absolutely mean MURDER of THE INNOCENT as well, especially in the Firstborn. Some of those would have to have been newborns.






ING -- Again - .

Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

So they were owning slaves for life and passing them on in inheritance, and breeding more slaves by giving female slaves to male slaves - just like in the old south.

Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.


Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them forever. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.






ING -- I will assume you are referring to Deuteronomy 23:15, which is usually translated -

Deu 23:15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:


Which is a VERY OBVIOUS misunderstanding of the text. Taken as is - it would mean total chaos! All slaves, indentured servants, concubines and other sex slaves, etc, - would just run next door and say I escaped from my master, - and demand to be set up as in verse 16. That is ridiculous! They never would have written such illogical crap. Here are two others with slightly different translations.


(YLT) `Thou dost not shut up a servant unto his lord, who is delivered unto thee from his lord;

(Darby) Thou shalt not hand over to his master a bondman that hath escaped from his master unto thee:

Darby says this is a HEBREW BONDSMAN and it is talking to the HEBREW. He notes there actually is an "AS THEE" in there.

The law says it is ILLEGAL for a HEBREW bond holder to MISTREAT a HEBREW BONDSMAN. Therefore The HEBREW that the HEBREW BONDSMAN escaped to, can not LEGALLY return that HEBREW to that abuse he ran away from.

Nor obviously - hand a Hebrew slave back to a non Hebrew master.


It is not talking about slaves in general- but - Hebrew bondsmen.





ING -- You know perfectly well this is not true. Go and read one of your Jewish sites on this. I have. They could bring home a screaming slave from the battlefield and rape them after 30 days of mourning for their slaughtered families. The held concubines - which are BOUGHT SEX SLAVES, etc. These women had no choice and were thus RAPED.





ING -- Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.


Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he survive on a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his object/possession.





I believe I have done quite well in pointing out that I am not using "factual error" but the facts.


*

OK, it seems fairly clear that you are not interested in understanding how the culture that actually produced these texts has read or understood them.

Your agenda seems unfortunately full of anger to me, but whatever: I wish you well with it.

But I'm done with trying to explain what you have already decided is unjustifiable.