Is the God of the Torah good?

[Flying Pig]

I'm talking about the morality of my action to kill someone given he'll have his afterlife. It's what was used to excuse God killing people.

Ah yes, but you don't know that the guy will go to heaven and, let's be honest, you probably won't be killing him with the express intention of sending him to heaven. So it's wrong for you to do it, but God - since he knows that he exists and tehrefore knows that tehre is a heaven - has slightly different considerations.

 

[Old Hippy]

God is not human being(well at least not in the aspect we are discussing here) so he does not want or wishes in the same way as we do. God wills and envisions. This is not done in boundaries of morality which is so important for our human society...

then how comes every time he interacts with his Prophets he bangs away at morals, kills all these people in grusome ways .... just to hammer home how important morals are.... has it ever occured to you that morals are import to our human society simply because we don't want to be drowned,turned to salt or struck by lighting... have our infants murdered... the fact that he has to keep doing these ghastly things sugests that morals are in fact less important to human society than to GOD....

may be he should just chill out a bit

 

[kochman]

then how comes every time he interacts with his Prophets he bangs away at morals, kills all these people in grusome ways .... just to hammer home how important morals are.... has it ever occured to you that morals are import to our human society simply because we don't want to be drowned,turned to salt or struck by lighting... have our infants murdered... the fact that he has to keep doing these ghastly things sugests that morals are in fact less important to human society than to GOD....

may be he should just chill out a bit

I think He already has... FYI...

 

[Old Hippy]

I think He already has... FYI...

thanks, thats good to know...
just a shame it took Him so long

 

[warpus]

thanks, thats good to know...
just a shame it took Him so long

No he hasn't, God is unchanging.

Seriously, you must know that there is kind of consciousness, not unaccesible by man, where any thinkable kind of pain feels like silly tickling...

Yeah, but it's only accessible by Hindu Masters and Jack Bauer.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Was that soliciting for a bit of the ol' S and M?

 

[Leoreth]

Ah yes, but you don't know that the guy will go to heaven and, let's be honest, you probably won't be killing him with the express intention of sending him to heaven. So it's wrong for you to do it, but God - since he knows that he exists and tehrefore knows that tehre is a heaven - has slightly different considerations.

God could make sure that every one I kill goes to heaven. But that he doesn't opens up a whole new can of worms, doesn't it?

 

[Flying Pig]

God could make sure that every one I kill goes to heaven. But that he doesn't opens up a whole new can of worms, doesn't it?

If he exists, he does. But we don't know for certain that he does, so there's an element of doubt, which is enough to make killing anyone on that assumption completely wrong. Incidentally, the reason why capital punishment is wrong is very similar.

 

[Souron]

Souron
Hi.
I'm not so sure about link vs quote, cause then the quotes can grow to PAGES of text...
Which makes it easier and more user-friendly to actually use a link.
But if you so positively insist, I might resort to spoilers next time, sorry.

The issue with links is not that they are links, but that they are used in place of an argument. Quotes are better in part because you cannot quote pages of text. Better to make the point yourself.

OK, now...
Our ENTIRE life is such an "incomplete account" cause we NEVER know ALL details of what happens around us and especially the cause-effects of each action.

Sure. Judgements are made on incomplete information all the time, but that does decrease its certainty.

Logic.
Logic is just a property of human intellect, not more.
Thus, it IS a subject to change if something (or Someone) of higher "access level" would wish so.
Also, creation, dude, isn't just called "from NOTHING" for nothing.
This definitely troubled the ancient Greeks, cause they couldn't fathom a creation "ex nihilo", - but that's what we are talking about: something (everything!) out of TRUE nothing.
And this means not only matter and it's properties but also the very ideas and definitions - all this is also created out of non-existence.
To make a funny (but VERY true) example:
Imagine the creation being a computer game (it's NOT - I use this only for this example).
The game definitely has its LOGIC - hard-coded programming.
Now, the users have no other option than to use it as is.
But the programmer - he can change it at his whim, cause he MADE it.
So, G-d is basically "cheating" (or code-tweaking?) when making miracles - and CHEATING definitely does NOT follow the original programming!
Except in this case you won't see the "cheater" in your high-score, cause it was the programmer himself that did it - and he simply changed the program to NOT see the "cheating".
Oh, and thus He actually CAN create a "married bachelor" - but we would cease to see such thing as "illogical".
Technically, the very existence of something from its original nothing - is way illogical.
The logical laws of stability (or whatever the name is) already contradict it.
Logically, there should actually be NOTHING, as it was to begin with.
Only G-d can counter-effect this NATURAL thing.
WE think that existence is natural - cause we didn't see the original state and don't feel it.
But G-d knows the truth - and defies it for our sake.

Logic is not a property of intellect. If it were, then we wouldn't be able to agree on it's principles; it would be subjective. Logic and mathematics (which can be seen as a branch of logic) are a study of things that exist outside the context of people. The fields are only subjective in that people choose which are the useful axioms to apply to our world, but given a set of axioms, nothing else is variant. But they are also not part of nature in the same way that objects are. The tenants of logic and mathematics, don't exist in the same sense of the word.

Logic is not dependant on time, place, the existence of humanity, or the whim of any entity. The creation of the world may have been from nothing (what's illogical about that?) but the tenants of logic could not have been created at a set time, because logic is timeless.

So even if you try to allege that logic was created, you cannot say that logic was created in the same sense that the world was created. Logic doesn't really exist in that sense. To say that logic was created is to draw a metaphor between spontaneous creation and what happened to logic. But the two aren't the same, and the metaphor has limited application. Arguments about the nature of the creation of the world do not make for convincing arguments about the creation of logic.

As for your second metaphor, the computer program, that actually helps my point. I can create a program that claims that an entity is married and a bachelor at the same time. And I can create a faulty inference engine* that concludes that a particular person is both married and a bachelor at the same time. But in neither case would a real "married bachelor" exist. Any rational observer would recognize that in the first case the words "married" and "bachelor" do not mean what they do to us in the context of the program. Any rational observer would realize the logical error of the faulty inference engine. But in no case can a programmer actually create a married bachelor where those words mean the same thing as they mean to us.

*An inference engine is a computer program that, when given a set of facts and rules of logic, will generate new facts, in a similar way to how people draw conclusions.

About defining vs describing.
What I mean when I say "define G-d" - is that I rather define the SUBJECT of our talk.
If it's NOT "omni-everything, infinite etc AND good" - it's simply NOT G-d!!!
So, the "definition" is not the way "take object, then define it" (your so-called description) but rather "take definition, find appropriate object" (my so-called definition).

Well the subject of our talk is the God of the Torah. If the God you describe isn't consistent with that is described by that book, it is outside the scope of this thread. And clearly the God described there cannot be defined as "Goodness", because some of the things He does are at the very least arbitrary, such as the choice to appear as a flaming bush instead of a levitating stone. There's nothing wrong with that, and it is necessary for any actor to make such choices, but being an actor prevents the other definition.

What I really want to avoid discussing and impersonal, non-mystical God. Such a God is only a nice poetic way of talking about some attributes of nature.

EDIT, And this is why:

Manta
Personal reasons doesn't mean benefits - means what it says reasons.
You THINK you don't believe - but do you even know WHAT you don't believe in?
I so like a phrase by a great rabbi to some "atheist":
"The god you don't believe in, I also don't."
He meant exactly "god", not "G-d" - if that says anything to you.
People tend to shout they don't believe in things they have no clue about - especially when it comes to G-d.
As another rabbi said:
"In order to be a heretic, you need to know a whole lot of things (about G-d)."

It's not a profound statement to claim that you don't believe that a divinely controlled talking bush spoke to Moses. An atheist and a rabbi might actually agree to agree to call "the thing responsible for creation" God. And they might agree to call "the thing responsible for all goodness" God. But they won't agree that the God of creation and the God of virtue are necessarily the same.

Speaking as an atheist here.

 

[Souron]

But there are two positions. You can look at it from the point of the reg. human consciousness which deals with the span of life of few decades or from the point of wiew of the soul which deals with eternity. The soul is actualy the most real and immortal part in the human being so it is not subject to death or destruction and it is what all human beings eventualy become in the process of their lifes evolution.
Any kind of human suffering may not be so bad or even turns to delight when the power of the soul comes to the fore. The upanishads say: we have come from delight, we grow in delight and at the end of our journey to delight we return. But to have this realisation one must live in the soul consciously otherwise we are all subject to different kind of limitations and sufferings which perhaps just a drop of this delight can turn into bliss itself. So perhaps from the human point most of suffering isnt realy justifiable while from the souls point its just all sports and play.

If our lives are so inconsequential, how can morality exist at all? If hurting people for the short span of their lives doesn't matter, why is it bad for people to do it? If it matters for people, why does it not matter for God?

Ah yes, but you don't know that the guy will go to heaven and, let's be honest, you probably won't be killing him with the express intention of sending him to heaven. So it's wrong for you to do it, but God - since he knows that he exists and tehrefore knows that tehre is a heaven - has slightly different considerations.

Since the heaven is not a contested issue among people of the same faith, this seems to suggest that it's ok for believers to kill believers. Of course nobody actually follows such a system of morality. God did command not to murder, and most people don't murder because of their sense of morality.

I took the test and am a pretty hard core theist:

Congrats. It's good to be talking to someone with consistent beliefs.

May I ask what the bullet was?

Thats not how it usualy works. Generaly its the illumined individual(scientist, artist, spiritual figure) from which the light spreads to the rest. Thats why the communism failed. It has neglected this fact and proclaimed the ignorant masses as a leader.
I believe thats true also for spiritual development. There will not probably be a situation where all of humans will be illumined. See, I believe in reincarnation, so there is a need for natural progression of the soul from lower to higher forms of existence....

I agree that a progression is more reasonable than a revelation as civ2 describes, about understanding the morality of God.

warpus
It is, I was searching for a quote while quick-answering you.
Verse 7:
Do not take the Name of Ad-noy, your G-d in vain. For Ad-noy will not acquit the one who takes His Name in vain.
Commentary:
Verse 7: In vain.

(The second [ {Hebrew Ref} in the verse] has the meaning of "falsehood" as Onkelos translates it), as you say [in the Gemara]: "What constitutes a {Hebrew Ref} ? One who swears of something evident, that it is otherwise, When one swears that a pillar made of stone is made of gold. (The first [ {Hebrew Ref} ] means "for naught" as Onkelos translates it). This refers to one who swears for naught and meaninglessly [an oath] about a tree that it is a tree and about a stone that it is a stone.
But I'm looking for a commentary about MY context...
Just wait a bit, I'll post it next.

I'm spamming my own thread by saying this, but I wanna say this tendency never made sense to me. Maybe a God could forbid a specific set of syllables from being uttered. That's reasonable. Though it does remind one of certain mythology about demons. . . But "God" is not such a thing. It's an English word referring to a certain kind of divinity. G-d is also such a word. It's not in the dictionary, but its part of the established language between us, since clearly I can understand you. So why is writing G-d, better than writing God? Both are a word for the same thing, neither a transliteration or attempt to say god's name.

 

[Agent327]

I'm spamming my own thread by saying this, I wanna say this tendency never made sense to me. Maybe a God could forbid a specific set of syllables from being uttered. That's reasonable. Though it does remind one of certain mythology about demons. . . But "God" is not such a thing. It's an English word referring to a certain kind of divinity. G-d is also such a word. It's not in the dictionary, but its part of the established language between us, since clearly I can understand you. So why is writing G-d, better than writing God? Both are a word for the same thing, neither a transliteration or attempt to say god's name.

Actually G-d isn´t a word. God is. The only reason I can see why a devout Jew would use G-d instead of God (which indeed is an English word), is that the name of the Lord should not be spoken. (I´m not quite sure, however, why this should apply to Adonai as well, as civ2 also does.) There being several names for the Lord in the Torah, I suppose this particular commandment (which isn´t among the 10, which states that the name of the Lord shall not be used in vain) is the result of a certain religious custom, which has become attached to it over time. Rather cryptically, when Moses asks who He is, the answer is: I am that I am - which basically isn´t an answer at all, as it evades the question.

 

[Souron]

Actually G-d isn´t a word. God is. The only reason I can see why a devout Jew would use G-d instead of God (which indeed is an English word), is that the name of the Lord should not be spoken. (I´m not quite sure, however, why this should apply to Adonai as well, as civ2 also does.) There being several names for the Lord in the Torah, I suppose this particular commandment (which isn´t among the 10, which states that the name of the Lord shall not be used in vain) is the result of a certain religious custom, which has become attached to it over time. Rather cryptically, when Moses asks who He is, the answer is: I am that I am - which basically isn´t an answer at all, as it evades the question.

If G-d weren't a word, then I wouldn't understand what is meant by it. The act of associating an idea with a few symbols that we both understand makes it a word. It might not be proper English, but why does that matter in the context of obeying the associated commandment?

Also, it turns out G-d is in the dictionary.

 

[Agent327]

A. Wiktionary?

B. Z is in the dictionary, but it isn´t a word either.

Perhaps G-d is a Jewish/Christian word (like using the Greek letter chi-rho for Christ, as the early Christians did), but somehow I doubt it.

At any rate, this wasn´t my point, which was that using the name of the Lord is a custom, rather than one of the Commandments. (It kind of reminds me of the fact that ancient Hebrew-Aramaic, like early Arabic, has no consonants, although I doubt that has anything to do with it.)

 

[Souron]

A. Wiktionary?

B. Z is in the dictionary, but it isn´t a word either.

Perhaps G-d is a Jewish/Christian word (like using the Greek letter chi-rho for Christ, as the early Christians did), but somehow I doubt it.

At any rate, this wasn´t my point, which was that using the name of the Lord is a custom, rather than one of the Commandments. (It kind of reminds me of the fact that ancient Hebrew-Aramaic, like early Arabic, has no consonants, although I doubt that has anything to do with it.)

You missed my point too.

The reason G-d is a word is because it's a few characters that represent an idea. It has nothing to do with dictionaries.

 

[Agent327]

Not sure whow you can conclude I missed your point - I was discussing it...

(If dictionaries aren´t part of your point, they shouldn´t be mentioned. And you still missed my point, which isn´t whether G-d is a word or isn´t a word.)

Now I suggest getting back to the subject.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If our lives are so inconsequential, how can morality exist at all? If hurting people for the short span of their lives doesn't matter, why is it bad for people to do it? If it matters for people, why does it not matter for God?

Suffering is quite anavoidable in human life, but it definetly serves a great purpose. Its usually stupidity both to look for suffering or run away from it. It can be faced, assimilated and transformed by the inner(souls)power and morality can prepare one for that...
Edit:Take for instance Christ. When on the cross he said "Father why have you forsaken me!?" it was clearly the human part; later when he said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." that comes from his identification with the highest.
In Yoga terminology Christ is what is called an avatar -direct representation of God - that is a very powerful soul and he could have splited the Earth in half or recreate alternate universe but instead played very special role of crucification becouse his Love and Compassion...

Since the heaven is not a contested issue among people of the same faith, this seems to suggest that it's ok for believers to kill believers. Of course nobody actually follows such a system of morality. God did command not to murder, and most people don't murder because of their sense of morality.

The existence of higher world(s) is one thing and the purpose one serves by living earthly life is another. No one has right to mess up with that. Unless one acts in tune with higher will...

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Yeah, but it's only accessible by Hindu Masters and Jack Bauer.

No, this consciousness is universal and can be accesed from any point of the universe. It just at times you have to make a choice: less boobs and more self-control...

then how comes every time he interacts with his Prophets he bangs away at morals, kills all these people in grusome ways .... just to hammer home how important morals are.... has it ever occured to you that morals are import to our human society simply because we don't want to be drowned,turned to salt or struck by lighting... have our infants murdered... the fact that he has to keep doing these ghastly things sugests that morals are in fact less important to human society than to GOD....

may be he should just chill out a bit

indulge my ignorance about the ancient God vs. Prophets chit-chat pls but if I am correct these moral discussions or their descriptions in holy scriptures have had its meaning and played their role. Nowadays moral codes from different religions are solid part of any society and its just a needed stepping stone to higher humanity. So yes, I think these morals are very important though not something that cannot be broken. Every rule admits an exception and our human nature is such peculiar that everybody should just try to keep to moral ideals according to his own standard...

 

[Flying Pig]

At any rate, this wasn´t my point, which was that using the name of the Lord is a custom, rather than one of the Commandments. (It kind of reminds me of the fact that ancient Hebrew-Aramaic, like early Arabic, has no consonants, although I doubt that has anything to do with it.)

Yep. God - big G - is the English name for our god - small g - hence why we say 'Allah' and 'Brahman' for other people's. In fact, we use the word god because 'the Muslim god' means 'the Muslim equivalent of God'. So it's a valid thing to do if you don't believe in writing his name.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I took the test and am a pretty hard core theist:
.

Congrats.These are my results:


Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you have progressed through this activity without suffering many hits suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.

The direct hits you suffered occurred where your answers implied logical contradictions. You did bite a number of bullets. These occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable.

I can only add that what philosopher considers illogical can still make pretty good sense in spiritual seekers point of wiew... or in other words Truth contains logic but its not contained by it...

 

[civ2]

OK, Sabbath ended (in my location) - and I'm on-line again.

About G-d as a word.
The o being or not there, doesn't make it a NEW word, rather a new spelling.
There are those who also spell L-rd or even A-mighty for exactly the same reason.
I searched a bit and found out that it's simply a custom to write so on COMPUTERS for a reason that it might get PRINTED on paper.
And, as I probably mentioned, it's forbidden to throw away any WRITTEN Name of G-d.
Thus, it's a simple precaution in case one prints it - and then throws away.
Also, G-d is a reference to ONE and ONLY G-d, the Creator etc.
It's NOT a term for "Jewish" G-d or any other "someone's" G-d.
G-d is One and Only.
Otherwise, why write Muslim G-d, and not god???
That's the point where lack of reverence/understanding of how there is only ONE G-d, can lead to double standards.

Souron
The PROGRESSION of spiritualization has been taking place since Creation.
The FINAL REVELATION is a quantum leap that will symbolize the end of that progression.
Simple example - Uranium bomb.
(Something steady explodes qualitatively when quantity reaches a specific minimum.)
*****
Quotes vs personal words.
This starts to really take on my nerves...
WHY people think that my personal words can express my opinion better than an article which is either based on the same opinion, or actually led me to it???
When talking about PHYSICS, would you prefer someone also to speak HIS opinion, or rather quote some professors???
But when talking about religion - it's just an easy detraction to either say "it's just HIS opinion" or "I'm not gonna read LINKS" - cause otherwise it's something substantial you'd have to deal with.
*****

Judgements are made on incomplete information all the time, but that does decrease its certainty.

YOU said it.
*****
Logic.
Logic is as much property of matter as is time.
Except it measures differently.
Technically speaking, logic is a tendency to maximize a probability of sequences to 100%.
Like, this must be that way due to this type of logic.
When it doesn't, logic gets re-evaluated, then process repeats itself until your logic fits the process.
(Or, in case of some stubborn scientists, the process fits their logic. )
Logic is BASED on idea like:
A=B if C>D.
A=B, B=C then A=C.
Etc.
But WITHOUT all those A,B,C... - there's NO "logic" AT ALL!!!
Logic can't grasp an ABSTRACT idea until it gets vested in OBJECTS - and that's exactly how a human mind WORKS.
Example, when you say "shiny" - you speak of:
Object A which is described as shiny;
Property B which is the lightness of A;
Quantity C that describes B's "size".
All THREE of them are MATERIALISTIC parameters, functions of MATTER.
Take the matter away - you are left with nothing to "logicize" on.
*****
"Cheating" as a programmer.
Your mistake is that you consider the definitions NOT being affected by the "cheats" - but they are.
Our perspective on things actually changes with those very things.
And the BEST example is the very LANGUAGES we speak.
The SAME words quite often have different meanings in different languages - and even if you know BOTH, you won't get confused (given the context).
So, the "logic" of that word ADJUSTS to additional information you get, WHEN you get it.
If I'll ask you what is the meaning of that word in a THIRD language, without any additional info, you WILL be unable to answer me, cause you won't have a clear logical sequence of Question=>Answer (You will have TWO possible answers while asked for only ONE).
Anyways, logic IS as much a property of matter as anything else, so it CAN'T "exist on itself".
*****
When you say "G-d of Torah" - what exactly do you mean by "Torah"???
Cause when I say so - I mean a whole lot of texts, connected into a huge system of question-answer-description-explanation.
If you wanna stick to the Five Books of Moses ONLY (without ANY commentaries) - your question itself is too NARROW.
It's like taking a book on Laser Physics - and asking a question "How do lasers work?"
No one will be able to answer you BY USING ONLY THAT BOOK.
He'd need a whole lot of additional sources, with connecting explanations, graphs, study researches etc.
But to learn about G-d, you want from a "school textbook".
(I mean the comparative level of depth of knowledge if you read JUST the Bible, without all those PILES of commentaries that explain myriads of details.)
*****

What I really want to avoid discussing and impersonal, non-mystical God. Such a God is only a nice poetic way of talking about some attributes of nature.

HUH???
*****
If you start "separating" the acts like Creation and the source of human-yet-Divinely-given-Morality - you'll simply end up with two gods, none of those describing the True G-d.
G-d is One and He's "responsible" for EVERYTHING.