That would defeat the purpose of OT religious threads.
Funny that no matter how we each answered the question we took a hit.
Within our culture such killings go against what we generally accept as correct. We call them wrong. 2000 years ago they might have been more acceptable. At the same time, if god is all in all, then god is the doer and the victim at the same time. And also at the same time, god is beyond the illusion of limited consciousness and the experience of separateness and individuality. The existence and solution to the "problem" is dependent upon where one stands.
Proving an infinite and all encompassing god through finite acts is a losing game. You cannot build a case for such god from events or stories unless you are willing to limit your god and bind him to words and deeds as seen though our eyes. You must begin with god as all as an assumption.
EDIT: If god were a very large or even infinite 3-D puzzle and you only had 10% of the pieces, you will never have a complete or even clear picture of the entire puzzle. Finding more pieces doesn't get you much closer to seeing the big picture and can even create contradictions and confusion. To get out of this situation, you imagine (assume) a "box cover" that allows you to see the context of each piece and its relationship to all the others.
I would completely agree.
The world is not a neutral place and it has been filled with death and pain as long as life has existed. Humans are among the first creatures with the ability to mitigate suffering among other people and other life. We are also among the first creatures who can extend the suffering of others and we often choose to do so in support of our particular wants and needs.
As I see it, the god of the Torah is a fiction and no more "responsible" for destroying crops or killing babies than the Christian god of the 20th century was for the firebombing of Dresden or the genocide of Rwanda.
People do bad %^*#@. Sometimes they choose to do so and other times the choice is less clear. We all find ways to justify what we do and if Jack the Ripper blamed god, so what? The acts are still heinous and run firmly against our norms, even if he felt he was doing god's work.
JEELEN
Wrong.
If you "turn time back" to "before" Creation - when there was NOTHING but G-d.
There would be no OBJECTS (not in the physical/matter aspect, but as separate entities) to draw any logical conclusions from.
As I said, logic is all about A and B relations through comparison.
But when there is ONLY G-d - there's nothing to compare to.
Also, the true ONENESS of G-d is described as ultimate SIMPLICITY and INDIVISIBILITY, thus before anything else was "conceptualized" through creation, there was nothing to "logicize" on.
So even talking about G-d, the only way for Him to exercise "logic" was when He decided (and automatically resulted in) creating something as a concept for itself, even if from its own viewpoint.
There can't be logic other than a sequence of comparisons, which already implies at the very least some concepts, or better yet objects.
And ANYWAYS, the "logic" which you could ascribe to G-d is different from the one we understand as such.
Thus, OUR type of logic could only exist AFTER there were created worldly concepts, and by extension, objects.
So it appeared together with the same creation of the world.
If you don't understand of still disagree - I have nothing more to say on it.
Except - use your logic.
No, I don't see the contrapositive as devine. More importantly though, I don't see any reason to associate the contrapositive to the events described in the Torah. The contraposive is not a physical actor in the world. It's just something that limits reality, in a way.Souron
So if I get it right, our main disagreement is "logic".
Interestingly, but if you say it wasn't created with the rest of creation - then you're actually referring to some attribute of G-d!
You just call it "logic" - but what you actually mean is:
Something ever-stable, unchanging, that rules all other rules and defines them.
But... that's exactly Who/What G-d is!
Simply it's the Source of all sources and the Definition of all definitions.
Or in a more user-friendly name: The Ultimate Real Reality.
G-d.
Tell me where I'm wrong to say so.
Shortly:For “He is wise — G-d possesses the quality of wisdom — but not with a wisdom that is known to us created beings,” because He and His wisdom are one, and as Maimonides writes, “He is Knowledge and simultaneously the Knower... Who knows and comprehends — through the ”Knowledge“...; {and He is that which is Known}” — G-d is also the subject of knowledge and comprehension, as Maimonides concludes.
This means that G-d’s wisdom and comprehension are totally different from man’s. In human comprehension there are three separate and distinct components: (a) the person’s soul, the “knower” and possessor of knowledge; (b) the power of intellect and comprehension — the “knowledge” — by which the person knows; (c) the subject of the knowledge — the “known” — such as a law in the Mishnah or a discussion in the Gemara which is apprehended and known.
Concerning G-d’s wisdom, however, Maimonides states: “He is the ‘Knowledge’, the ‘Knower’, and the ‘Known’.” G-d is the means of comprehension — the “Knowledge,” and at the same time is He Who understands — the “Knower”, and is also that which is understood — the “Known”.
Maimonides continues: “And this is not within the power of any man to comprehend clearly”; as it is written, “Can you find and understand G-d by searching?” And it is also written, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,” {says G-d}; and consequently “your” {human} thoughts cannot possibly comprehend “My” thoughts.
Many Jewish philosophers rejected Maimonides‘ description of G-d as “the Knower, the Knowledge and the Known.” In fact they considered it erroneous to ascribe to G-d a description of any sort — even of the lofty level of intellect of which Maimonides writes — inasmuch as description implies limitation, and G-d is inherently limitless.
The Alter Rebbe therefore points out in this note that the Kabbalists agreed with Maimonides, with the qualification that his concept does not apply to G-d’s essence. For His essence is truly infinite — even higher than the inscrutable level of “Knowledge” that Maimonides refers to. Regarding His essence, those who disagree with Maimonides are correct in maintaining that G-d cannot be defined in terms of “knowledge”, since He transcends it infinitely. Only after G-d limits the infinite light of His essence through the process of tzimtzum (progressive contractions), and thereby assumes the attribute of Chochmah (“Wisdom”
well thats sort of what half the posters have beeen doing for 10 pages...
God is condemned? How romantic...God is the Lord of death.
To me logic is an superior instrument at mental-physical level. So if you want to use it to judge God or the universal laws at that level it may be the best you can do. But once you want to go beyond that logic looses its momentum as it not fit instrument there...
But what about those who based their idea of God on inner feelings or needs?
Here it is not the actual act wich justifies any claim of divinity but the assessment of truth which the act represents or is an expression of by the observer or persons involved. If it crosses standards which are considered above humanity(the ways humans usually act) it can be called divine.
Take for example loosing our dear ones- sometimes it can make you almost crazy- we all experience it. The list is endless.
Funny that no matter how we each answered the question we took a hit.
