Originally posted by rwingettThe meaning of God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart in this instance (or instances) is not that He violated Pharaoh's free will. Consider Psalms 81:11-12, "But my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices.” In the same way, God gave Pharaoh over to his stubborn heart to follow his own devices, i.e., God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart. But the fault lies with Pharaoh alone; his own refusal to listen and obey, unsullied by any outside force. This fact is evident in the following passage taken from Exodus, "When Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and thunder had stopped, he sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts. So Pharaoh's heart was hard and he would not let the Israelites go, just as the LORD had said through Moses" (Exodus 9:34-35).
If god cannot violate the free will of his creatures, then why does it specifically say in the bible that god hardened pharaoh's heart? This seems to be an explicit example of god violating someone's free will. And the bible doesn't say just once that he hardened pharaoh's heart. It says it something like 19 times.
There’s no debate here: there is only pointing the way out of illusion for those who are willing to be disillusioned. The Buddha was right. The only way out of suffering is to—let go. But that either takes courage, or the right confluence of accidental circumstances—or a bit of both. (More the latter, in my case, than the former.)
Whatever one clings to in hopes of some existential security becomes their idol. The Bible can be turned into an idol, Jesus can be turned into an idol, the Buddha can be turned into an idol. How does someone know what their idols are? Whatever they cling to or clutch at—not just what one chooses to believe, but what one fears not to believe. And, of course, only the individual—through honest and vigilant self-inquiry—can determine that.
The Tao neither loves nor clings nor condemns: the Tao just is. That is a hard truth. And the hardest path in the face of that hard truth is to love—without requiring aught from the beloved in return, not even their love, not even their recognition. Not love as a moral commandment or a self-sacrifice. Love just for the sheer joy of it. The Tao does not require or command it. It is a matter of personal choice, a Sisyphean choice perhaps. If you need a justification for loving—other than the sheer joy of it—then I have nothing to say to you on that score. Nothing whatsoever; no judgment; absolutely nothing.
The Tao just is; you just are. Do with that what you will. If you try to harm me or my beloved ones, I will stop you in any way that I can—without the slightest bit of moral theorizing about it. If you happen to be a psychopathic (or sociopathic, whichever) rapist/torturer/killer, you won’t pay attention anyway.
Enjoy the symphony of life as best you can while it lasts; if you can and want to, help others to do the same, as best you can. For no other reason than the sheer joy of it. Love—and let go. Or not, as you will.
My failures are my own; yours are yours. The Tao doesn’t care.
""We must not make a covenant with idolaters, to agree on keeping peace with them or accept them practising idolatry, because it says (Deut 7:2) Thou shalt not make a covenant with them. Either they give up idolatry or they are killed. And it is forbidden to pity them, since it says (ibid.): Nor shalt thou shew mercy unto them.
Therefore: If you see a non-Jewish idolater perishing or drowning, you are not to help him; if you see him in danger of life or doomed, you should not save him [sic!]. But to put him to death with your own hands or pushing him down into a pit or the like, is forbidden, in so far as we are not at war with him.
To what sorts of people apply these words? To non-Jews. But in the case of Jewish informers or mînîm (heretics) and `appîqôrôsîm (heretics) it is a Commandment to put such a one to death with your own hands and to push him into the pit of doom, since they bring trouble to Israel and seduce the people from the L[ORD], such like Yeshûa han-Nôçrî and his followers and such like Zadok and Beithos and their followers – May the name of blasphemers rot!" Moses Maimonides
The same commentator says that descendants of the Amalekites are to be hunted down and killed throughout eternity. Ye gods!
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles"R. Shila administered a flogging to a certain man who had sexual relations with an "Egyptian" [= gentile] woman. The man went and informed against him to the royal government. He said, "There is a man among the Jews who judges cases without royal authorization." The government sent investigators. When they came, they said to him, "Why did you administer a flogging to that man?"
Egyptians aren't real people.
He said to them, "Because he had sexual relations with a she-ass."
They said to him, "Do you have witnesses?"
He said to them, "Yes."
Elijah came and appeared to him in the form of a man and gave testimony.
They said to him, "If that is the case, he surely would be subject to the death penalty!"
He said to them, "As to us, from the day on which we were exiled from our land, we have not had the right to impose the death penalty. But as for you, what you wish, do to him."
(...)
They said, "Are you so solicitous of the honor owing to the government?"
They gave him a sash [of office], saying to him, "You may judge cases."
When they had left, that man [who had been flogged] said to him, "Does the All-Merciful do miracles for liars?"
He said to him, "Wicked one! Are they not called asses? For it is written, 'Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses' (Ez. 23:20)."
[Shila] saw that the man was going to go and report this to them, saying that he had called them asses. [Shila] said, "This man is a persecutor, and the Torah has said that if one comes to kill you, forestall the matters by killing him first [cf. Ex.22:1]."
He hit him with his sash and killed him.
Berakhot 9/58A" http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html
And guess what, the Israeli military invokes 'Amalek' today to justify the massacre of Palestinian civilians.
“In war when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakah to kill even good civilians, that is civilians who are ostensibly good.” Booklet published by the chaplain of the Israeli army, Central Region Command. Quoted in Dr. Israel Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 76
"Many of our children are being indoctrinated, in religious schools, that the Arabs are Amalek, and the bible teaches us that Amalek must be destroyed. There was already a rabbi (Israel Hess) who wrote in the newspaper of Bar Ilan University that we all must commit genocide, and that is because his research showed that the Palestinians are Amalek."
http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni03072003.html
Excuse me while I go throw up.
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesSo, you suppose if he appeared in His Glory in front of the army of the Amalekites, with thunderbolts,
God does whatever is in His infinite power to compel stubborn people to live righteous lives short of violating their free will.
fire, and flood and the whole shebang, you don't think He could have compelled the them to
live righteous lives? Slaughter was the only option?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI was immediately struck by the bias this author exhibits in the preface of his article:
"R. Shila administered a flogging to a certain man who had sexual relations with an "Egyptian" [= gentile] woman. The man went and informed against him to the royal government. He said, "There is a man among the Jews who judges cases without royal authorization." The government sent investigators. When they came, they said to him, "Why did you administ ...[text shortened]... " http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html
"Most Jews will readily accept that the idol of Christianity, Jesus Christ, was neither the Messiah, nor divine, nor a perfect model for moral actions. This is simply because – fortunately for themselves, as well as for other persons – Jews are not in the habit of reading the Christian New Testament Scriptures. They have not been told by their parents to cherish or worship Jesus Christ when they were children, and thus they are not used to believing in the virgin birth or other absurdities."
Also, I take issue with this particular presupposition:
"An almighty and loving God as described in the Bible simply cannot exist."
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesRead this sentence:
The meaning of God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart in this instance (or instances) is not that He violated Pharaoh's free will. Consider Psalms 81:11-12, "But my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices.” In the same way, God gave Pharaoh over to his stubborn hea ...[text shortened]... not let the Israelites go, just as the LORD had said through Moses" (Exodus 9:34-35).
Exodus 10:20
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.
Note that it says that the Lord did X to P such that P would not do Y. The implication is, of course,
that P would have done Y had the Lord not done X. If Pharaoh would not have done Y, then there
was no purpose to the Lord's doing X.
Note that the translation reads the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not...
The words 'so that' reflect the causal relationship between X and ~Y.
How do you explain this? Is the translation in error?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesI find that a very interesting concept. If God is all-loving, why did he not do that for me? It's simply not fair! He should have had me slaughtered before I lost faith in him.
Furthermore, such an extermination can be seen to be merciful by delivering the young into the hands of the Lord and possibly saving their souls by not giving them time to become utterly sinful.
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesThis reminds me of the threads discussing omnipotence. You see in your post, you point out that since God has prophesied the messianic line he is now forced to preserve that line even though it might require genocide.
Finally, one of the reasons that the Lord is so strong in the Old Testament and orders the killing of people is to ensure that the future messianic line would remain intact. The enemy, Satan, began his attempt to destroy God's people in the Garden of Eden, by also trying to corrupt the world (which led to Noah's Flood), by trying to destroy Israel with ...[text shortened]... be lost. So, God was ensuring the arrival of the Messiah via the destruction of the ungodly.
Omnipotence that does not allow self contradiction results in a severely restricted omnipotence.
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesMost sensible people would prefer a better solution than either of the above.
Which would you prefer: a God who would allow a corrupt and idolatrous nation to derail His plan for salvation, or a God who will do whatever is necessary to ensure that you have the opportunity to be saved? Some people, like the Amalekites, are past the point of saving, by their own volition, but there are a great deal of others who would like to rece ...[text shortened]... mnation were it available. Should the former be able to steal that opportunity from the latter?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThis is interesting:
And guess what, the Israeli military invokes 'Amalek' today to justify the massacre of Palestinian civilians.
“In war when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakah to kill even good civilians, that is civilians who are ostensibly good.” Booklet published by the chaplain of the Israeli army, Central Region Comman e Amalek."
http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni03072003.html
Excuse me while I go throw up.
"In the Old Testament, God required the Hebrews to drive the wicked Canaanites from His promised land. Canaanite culture was saturated with infant sacrifice, ritual murder, sexual perversion, idolatry and occultism. God knew that a policy of zero tolerance toward Canaanite evil was the only way Hebrew monotheism would survive. Only then could it prepare a place for Jesus Christ, Savior of all who would trust in Him.
"But although God authorized harsh measures against pagan religions, the Old Testament is devoid of racism: the conviction that other peoples are inherently evil, degenerate, or subhuman. King David, notably, descended from a Jew, Boaz, and Ruth, a godly Gentile. David included righteous Gentiles in his army, such as Uriah the Hittite. Also, David was close friends with the Sidonian king Hiram, who largely built Solomon’s temple. Gentile converts like Rahab were welcomed into the Hebrew community...
"Unfortunately, the racist revolution of the Pharisees became embodied in the Babylonian Talmud, the vast, rambling compendium of Pharisaic law. Today the Talmud and its mystical companion, the Zohar or Cabala, are the greatest spiritual, ethical, and legal guides for observant Jews. They are of much greater authority to such Jews than the Old Testament...
"The Zohar calls Gentiles “Amalekites.” In a passage typical of many, it says: “They caused the destruction of the temple ... so when God reveals Himself, they will be wiped off the earth ... But withal redemption will not be complete until Amalek will be exterminated.”22 Today the religious and military establishment of Israel commonly refers to Palestinians as Amalekites. Until final conquest of the Gentiles, the Zohar says Israel can use any means necessary to assure victory...
"Today there exists a rift between orthodox Judaism, the position of a small minority of world Jewry and the state of Israel, and Reform Judaism, a much larger segment presided over by ADL/ B’nai B’rith. Yet both venerate Talmud and Cabala, and jealously guard their secrets from the prying eyes of Gentiles.
"For this reason, lovers of religious freedom and Christian civilization should be suspicious of what the modern descendents of the Pharisees tell us about their hugely secretive religion. The warning of Jesus, echoing through the millennia, should ring in our ears: “Beware of the leaven [teaching] of the Pharisees.”
http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/talmudscalpel.html
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesThe price you pay for supposedly giving people free will is that they just might opt to disobey. If Pharaoh lets the Israelites go, or makes them stay, he is exercising his own free will. At least he was, until god hardened his heart and sealed the deal.
The meaning of God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart in this instance (or instances) is not that He violated Pharaoh's free will. Consider Psalms 81:11-12, "But my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices.” In the same way, God gave Pharaoh over to his stubborn hea ...[text shortened]... not let the Israelites go, just as the LORD had said through Moses" (Exodus 9:34-35).
If you don't want people to disobey, then don't give them free will. If you give them free will then you're going to have to expect that some of them will disobey. To punish them for exercising the free will you supposedly gave them is madness. Your god is a psychopath.
Originally posted by NemesioYes, I would say the KJV translation is in error (an error fixed in the NKJV). For instance, the word-for-word literal translation does not contain, 'so that...' Neither does the New revised standard, nor the Amplified, etc.
Read this sentence:
Exodus 10:20
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.
Note that it says that the Lord did X to P such that P would not do Y. The implication is, of course,
that P would have done Y had the Lord not done X. If Pharaoh would not have done Y, then there
was no purpose to t ...[text shortened]... ship between X and ~Y.
How do you explain this? Is the translation in error?
Nemesio
"And Jehovah made strong the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not send away the sons of Israel" (Ex 10:20, J.P. Green's literal translation).
"And Jehovah strengtheneth the heart of Pharaoh, and he hath not sent the sons of Israel away" (Ex 10:20, Young's literal translation).