Does might make right?

Originally posted by whodey
1. Judgements such as Sodom and the Great flood are judgements against wickedness. Such wickedness is the intended target.
2. All flesh and, in fact, all creation are made by God. He gives and he takes away. Therefore, who is to say he has no right to do so?
3. The assumption is that God should leave the women and children, so to speak, alone and only ki ...[text shortened]... ess, then spiritual death is almost garaunteed to one and all.

How's that for starters?

Just to be clear: I don’t bet the house that God is not righteous—I bet the house that your God-construct is not righteous. That is why you have to keep defending it.

I also repeat my challenge (this is not easy for me, Whodey, because you are one of the people on here that I like, and you have shown moral sensibility many, many times in concrete situations)—

How can you say at this point that you have any idea of what the word “righteousness,” or moral rightness, means? There are people who say that God’s allowing (or even orchestrating) the shoa was morally right, because of the Jews’ rejection of Christ. You might reject that notion, but I don’t know on what basis, other than a gut feeling, that you could reject that notion. Can you say for sure that the whole holocaust was not about the wickedness of the Jews being “targeted”?

Here is, very simplistically put, how I see it: when I argue against your idea of God, I am arguing for God, but against what I see as a quasi-idolatrous attempt to define what God is, and what God has done, according to a “graven” reading of the biblical texts. I think maybe you have made the Bible your totem.

I urge you to bring your torah to the Torah, and quit pseudo-idolizing the Torah-text. (I use prefixes like “quasi” and “pseudo” because I don’t know, with a particular person, where idolatry actually begins—where the line is crossed.) You are supposed to. God does not want you to seek out a divine security blanket—for morality or anything else. When Abraham agreed to sacrifice Isaac, he failed the test.

Now, I will tell you—there is another model, other than the model of submission. It is the model of covenant. For me, a monist, to talk about covenant! Ironical! And yet, that is the model.

God does not need submitters—God needs tzaddiqim. The tzaddiq risks a lot. S/he may not always get it right. S/he is “Yisrael”—one who wrestles with even God. So, are you a tzaddiq? I think in your life you are a tzaddiq. But when it comes to reading the biblical stories, you are like Abraham: when he thought he saw God committing an injustice, he took up his stand and argued—even with God (and, as Heschel reads the text: He is still standing there, waiting for God to redress the injustice!). But when Abraham thinks he hears the voice of God commanding him (the voice of ha elohim), he forgets. And if he had not been restrained by the voice of a messenger from YHVH? Abraham’s true faithfulness was in listening to that second voice (and if you understand the culture, that was where the risk was)! But the second voice came because, when Abraham heard the first voice, he forgot himself and became a submitter instead of a tzaddiq.

God does not want you to defend genocide. Period. God does not want you to defend a god who does genocide. Period. God does not want you to make the biblical text your totem. Sorry, but that’s just a way of playing it safe. Fearful though it is, better to fall into the hands of a living God. Then you will risk your soul everyday—but, as the rabbis say, you will risk it “for the sake of heaven.” Where there is great risk, there is great faith; where there is no risk, there is no faith.

Which do you think God wants from you: to risk your soul for the sake of heaven, or to keep your soul safe to get into heaven?

Originally posted by vistesd
Just to be clear: I don’t bet the house that God is not righteous—I bet the house that your God-construct is not righteous. That is why you have to keep defending it.

I also repeat my challenge (this is not easy for me, Whodey, because you are one of the people on here that I like, and you have shown moral sensibility many, many times in concrete situat ...[text shortened]... om you: to risk your soul for the sake of heaven, or to keep your soul safe to get into heaven?

Thanks for your thoughtful response and so I will try and give one back as well. It is refreshing to converse with someone one these threads who does not continually scream, "Your God eats babies!" I also share you sentiments in terms of liking you. I find you on these threads to be a very thoughtful and loving person.

I also thank you for making me adress the notion that I am, in fact, NOT attempting to justify genocide in general such as the example you gave concerning the Jews during the Holocaust. In fact, we hear murmurings of further justifications for doing much the same in terms of genocide with the Zionists as well as for those who supporst them as we speak. Really all one would has to do in order to justify such wickedness is to label a particular group of people as "evil" and simply begin killing them off in mass. How difficult is that? In fact, any group can be argued to be "immoral" thus giving possible justification for killing anyone. I know of no group of people that is without sin.

On the other side of the spectrum, however, it is clear to me that killing other people is not necessarily unjustifiable as well. There are, in fact, instances where NOT killing others may even be considered immoral. The example you gave with those who sent the Jews to their deaths is a prime example. If the Nazi's insisted on persisting with such action, which they did, then killing them may be the only alternative. Especially if they are armed and unwilling to desist in their actions against the Jews. In such a scenerio, brute force is the ONLY alternative. Therefore, I think there is a middle ground, so to speak. On the one hand you do not wish to kill because life is precious and is a free gift from God, yet on the other hand you may feel compelled to kill to continue to help preserve such life that is threatened by others who wish to take it away. All I am saying is that when God does decides to take life or has taken it away, whether you call it genocide or simply killing, God does so with the mindset of ultimatly preserving life in the end much like one with a gangrenous arm must amputate it in order to continue to live. Granted, some Nazi's may have argued in similar fashion, however, their reasoning is flawed. I argue that God's reasoning is not. God knows all, God sees all, and we do not. After all, is this not why we need to walk by faith? Is God not our seeing eye dog, so to speak? But then you may say all one has to do is claim that God told them to kill in order to justify their actions. You would be correct, however, there is a 99.9% chance that they are lying that God told them to do so.

The question then becomes is God telling men to kill other men and if is so whom and why? For the Israelites, I think it safe for them to assume that God was talking to them. For example, if you were an Israelite and you saw the plagues in Egypt bring the then worlds super power to its knees and force them to desire to release you from slavery and then part the Red Sea before you to escape as they pursued after you out of Egypt and then bring manna down from heaven daily to feed you in the wilderness and then guide your steps by day with a pillar of smoke and a pillar of fire by night and then bring you to the promise land and miracously deliver them into your hand despite being outnumbered and outgunned then you probably have a 99.9% chance that God is talking to you. I think this situation was one in which such killing was an exception to the rule rather than being the rule. SImply put, God should only give the command to kill and not us.

So as I have stated, God had a "moral" reason for doing what is has been said to have done Biblically in regards to "genocide". It is my thought that God had but one motive in mind and that was to relieve the worse type of genocide imaginable which is spiritual death. Had God not intervened when man fell, we would ALL be doomed to such a fate once we die physically which is by far a worse fate than mere physical death. It was God's motive to work through the faith of a man, Abraham, to work throught the faith of a people, who were the descendants of Abraham or the Israelite nation, to bring about the Messiah in order to deliver us all from spiriutal death.

This brings me to the other part about your post concerning idolatry. For me, idolatry is ANYTHING you might place before God. I will even conceede that the written word can become idolatrous. For example, Christ was accused of breaking the Sabaath when he healed someone on the Sabaath. However, Christ rebuked them and said that they were hypocrites and that they would do as much for a mule that may had fallen in a moat and needed to be saved by pulling him out. In short, he told them that the Sabaath was made for man and not the other way around. So I would tell you the same in terms of the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". There are at times exceptions to this rule just as there is to the commandment of doing no work on the Sabaath. I say that my position is not making this command idolatrous by following it blindly instead of making it idolatrous by following it blindly. The spirit of the law is what matters. For exmple, the spirit of the law of the Sabaath was to give men a day of rest in a world that men were worked like slaves 24/7. In short, it was a day of liberation from the fallen world of man since the time of Adam. This commandment was given in love for man rather than a dreaded commandment to follow. Likewise, the commandment to not kill was done in love. We are commanded to love each other, therefore, we are not to harm one another. However, those that do not heed such commands of love may need to be dealt with as I have before mentioned.

This leads me to your statement about Abraham having failed God's test by being willing to sacrifice his son Isaac as God had commanded him. However, I can't disagree more. God told him specifically to do so. It was not a command for anyone except for him specifically. It boils down to my definition of idolatry which is placing anyone or anything in place of God. It is in line with Christs claim that anyone who love father or mother or sister or brother or child or even their own life more than me is not worthy of me. For me, placing your reasoning ahead of God's will or emotions ahead of God's will is what is idolatrous. Would Christ have even gone to the cross had he done put his will above that of his Father? It seems to me that he continually asked for a repreeve but got none. Would Christ have even come into the world had Abraham not been willing to sacrifice his son in faith long beforehand in similar fashion? I believe that God works through our faith and that God needed Abraham to be willing to sacrifice his son in order for God to be able to work through Abrahams seed thus bringing about the Messiah to come die for us. I view anything idolatrous that you are not willing to place on the alter of God. Whatever he may ask you to sacrifice or walk away from and you are unwilling to do so is what is idolatrous in his sight. Don't get me wrong, I don't see a problem with arguing with God or asking for clarification. However, when push comes to shove, just as Christ did not recieve a response to deliver him from the cross, you have but two alternatives when confronted with what you know to be the will of God. These two options are your will be done or my will be done.

Just to finish up, it is my belief that since the Messiah has come, no further "genocide" should EVER be needed. The issue of spiritual death and the deliverance from sin has already been addressed to all. Now man has the freedom to choose his own destiny rather than being a slave to sin and death.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Just to be clear: I don’t bet the house that God is not righteous—I bet the house that your God-construct is not righteous. That is why you have to keep defending it.

Could you further explain how this could be so? That is if the Biblical God is the true God.

Originally posted by whodey
1. Judgements such as Sodom and the Great flood are judgements against wickedness. Such wickedness is the intended target.
2. All flesh and, in fact, all creation are made by God. He gives and he takes away. Therefore, who is to say he has no right to do so?
3. The assumption is that God should leave the women and children, so to speak, alone and only ki ess, then spiritual death is almost garaunteed to one and all.

How's that for starters?

1. Judgements such as Sodom and the Great flood are judgements against wickedness. Such wickedness is the intended target.

Well, then your God doesn't do a very good job hitting only His intended target, which is quite curious for someone with His purported abilities. With something like a great flood, God subjects all sorts of conscious minds to unthinkable fates, and many of these minds are, again, not even capable of being morally culpable or "wicked". So imagine a valued flower garden that also contains some bad weeds. It's sort of like your God is attending to the weeds by simply taking a flame thrower to the entire garden. This sort of approach is morally irresponsible and just downright malign on your God's part because (even if I were to concede that some deserve the punishment) He is inflicting much unnecessary and unjust punishment.

2. All flesh and, in fact, all creation are made by God. He gives and he takes away. Therefore, who is to say he has no right to do so?

This is completely infantile thinking on your part: that because God ultimately brought about everything, it is permissible for Him to do anything that He may want with it. So, according to this, God ultimately brought about neonates; so it would be permissible for God to torture neonates at length for His own amusement. This entailment is absurd (and we could come up with any number of other equally absurd entailments), so your infantile belief is clearly false. Further, it has nothing to do with whether or not there is someone around to "say he has no right to do so". It's just objectively the case that....

3. God knows how those "innocent" people will turn out if left to live. Only God knows this, not you or I.

Well, let's return to the neonate who suffers horribly and then dies after several days due to physical infliction following birth. You seem to think that your God lets it suffer and die because He knows it would eventually, if left to live, become some evil person who deserves death. Then, your God must have known before this baby was ever born that it would eventually, if left to live, become this evil person deserving of death. He must have known before it was even conceived that some mereological sum of sperm and unfertilized ovum would eventually, if left to do so, lead to such a being. So why did He even go through the charade or bringing such suffering on an entity that never was even capable, as it were, of being morally responsible for anything? And let's not forget that your God, even according to you, brings suffering and related death on all sorts of other biological species. They, too, seem to suffer and die for no good reason. But according to you, these "innocents" would eventually become "evil" if left to live??? See, you're not making any sense here.

4. God's motive is to continue to ensure that free will abides on earth to either choose or reject him.

No, clearly not. For example, the neonates who die shortly after birth due to physical ailments never have a chance to develop into agents capable of choosing or rejecting your God, or even holding any concepts related to God. So, if your God were really interested in ensuring such opportunities, He would act differently.

5. Spiritual death is the worst fate imaginable and not our imminent physical demise. Therefore, one must see to it that this is addressed first and foremost. If free will disappears from the earth or is severly impaired because of unchecked wickedness, then spiritual death is almost garaunteed to one and all.

What exactly is 'spiritual death'? How does free will become "impaired because of unchecked wickedness"? I don't even know what you take free will itself to be, you just seem to use it as some vague catch-all. I just don't know what you mean by any of this.

Originally posted by LemonJello
What exactly is 'spiritual death'? How does free will become "impaired because of unchecked wickedness"? I don't even know what you take free will itself to be, you just seem to use it as some vague catch-all. I just don't know what you mean by any of this.[/b]

Spiritual death means that once you die physically you also die spiritually. It is known as the second death. For me, this is the worst fate one could inflict. I do not believe your neonate example experiences such a fate because they are innocent. Their suffering are short and temporal compared to the eternal suffering of those God has targeted.

As far as neonates being targeted, I'm afraid you are thinking of the abortion industry. They are monsters one and all to be sure.

When I speak of wickedness going unchecked and, in turn, impairing our free will I am referring to the results of wickedness, I am referring to people imposing their free will upon others. For example, those who are wicked have a tendency to do such things as murder, steal, lie, cheat, etc. All of these activities, in my view, impair ones free will. If you are murdered I think you will agree that your free will has been altered because it has been taken away entirely. If you are stolen from or cheated or lied to your free will is being manipulated. For example, if you own something another desires he should ask if you would like to sell it, or borrow it etc. One should not override your free will and smiply take what belongs to you. This is what I mean in terms of having your free will diminished or taken away entirely. Also, men seek power over other men because of their sin nature. Men then seek to be served by those that they govern over and the abuses for which are painfully evident even today. In fact, the more wicked a ruler becomes the more freedoms seem to dissappear in the societies in which they reign.

Originally posted by whodey
Spiritual death means that once you die physically you also die spiritually. It is known as the second death. For me, this is the worst fate one could inflict. I do not believe your neonate example experiences such a fate because they are innocent. Their suffering are short and temporal compared to the eternal suffering of those God has targeted.

As fa cked a ruler becomes the more freedoms seem to dissappear in the societies in which they reign.

It doesn't help me any when you say that 'spiritual death' occurs whenever one "dies spiritually". Isn't that just tautology? I have to ask then what it means for one to "die spiritually". And I still don't know what you mean by 'eternal suffering' either (when 'eternal' is taken in diametric opposition to 'temporal'😉. I already voiced my confusion on that.

As far as neonates being targeted, I'm afraid you are thinking of the abortion industry.

No, you're confused. A neonate is a baby between birth and four weeks. So I have no thoughts here regarding abortion. The example I presented certainly has nothing to do with abortion.

If you are stolen from or cheated or lied to your free will is being manipulated.

Nonsense. What exactly is your view is 'free will'? How would you define it? I thought I asked that already, but you didn't respond to it. I've already presented basically what I take free will to be. In order for one to "manipulate" or "violate" another's free will, I think he or she would have to somehow wangle the other's mentality, or effectively sever the relation between intentions/actions and character traits/deliberations. I'm not really sure how in the world I, under normal circumstances, would go about manipulating the free will of another, even if I desparately wanted to (there might be ways, but I have to think more about that; maybe if I could effectively brainwash them or somehow implant in them addiction or psychological compulsion).

Originally posted by whodey
Could you further explain how this could be so? That is if the Biblical God is the true God.

First, I am glad that you understood the tenor of my post. 🙂

Second, with regard to the Abraham/Isaac story. There are a number of interpretations to that story which I find plausible. Which brings me to my third point (and your question)—

I am not a Biblical inerrantist. Nor do I think the Bible itself is revelation. There are many ways to come at the Biblical texts: historical-critical, literary and form criticism, etc. From a “spiritual” point of view, I treat it (at least the narrative portions) as story. Now that, to me, is not trivial—you are unlikely to ever hear me use a phrase like “just story” or “merely story.”

For example, my life is a story that cannot be reduced to a record of factual happenings. I am reminded here of Zorba the Greek, when he tells the narrator of the book (named “Basil” in the film) that when he (Basil) speaks, he never moves his body, never gestures, never dances—he speaks only from his head. The words on the page are a bit like that.

When I read the texts, I bring my story to the story—and see what story might arise from that engagement. Because that is personal, the reflections that I sometimes give on here (and the arguments from them) are often really only part of that—they are, in a sense, only text, only a speaking from the head. To try to open that up a bit more, I often use metaphor, paradox, etc.

To the rabbis (and to me), the text is not the Torah (“teaching” ); the text is only the garment of Torah. Real Torah is generated in engagement with the text. In other words, I don’t think that meaning is simply disclosed. (Nor do I think that every text can be read in the same way: Job is different from the Psalms are different from the gospels are different from the epistles, etc.)

Therefore, my point of view in reading the texts is similar to my point of view on making moral judgments about what the texts say: which is really that putting my own point of view into it is inescapable. (I don’t think the spirit—to use that language—works through people any other way either.) A scholar doing, say, historical-critical exegesis may try to refrain from being too subjective; any kind of spiritual/contemplative reading cannot avoid that, and I think it is an illusion to think so.

I read other religious texts (the Qur’an, the Upanishads, various Sufis, etc.) much the same way.

I am relatively certain of very few—well, what might be called “spiritual” or religious truths. And those I find very difficult to express. Some people have found them impossible to express, and they are likely right. Just as the text is not the real Torah, the symbol is not the “thing.” And yet, most religious expressions seem to have got hung up on the symbols (I can be guilty of that myself). Well, we need the symbols. But the symbols cannot accurately describe, nor circumscribe, the underlying ineffable reality. They can only point to it, in an allusive way.

Here is a (unfinished, still in progress) poem I have been working on, as a small such allusion—

There, in the deep cathedral of the breath,
in the holy of holies that abides behind
the many veils and voices of the mind—
rest at ease in the mystery of life, and death.

Originally posted by whodey
No. I don't believe that God is allowing the child to suffer simply to give us a lesson. I am simply restating the fact that we live in a world of sin and that suffering is a result of sin. Hopefully mankind will learn a lesson from such suffering, however, it is increasingly apparant that many do not make such connections.

I asked you why God allows suffering even when it is clearly preventable. Your answer was "I think the loving thing to do is to allow suffering so that one is shown the errors of their ways."
So are you now retracting that statement? Is it not the loving thing to do? Or is it simply not the reason why God does not prevent or stop suffering?
I do understand that you believe that suffering is a result of sin. What you have not explained is why God chooses to do nothing about it. If a child is sick I may be able to reduce its suffering or even cure it. Why cant God?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]It doesn't help me any when you say that 'spiritual death' occurs whenever one "dies spiritually". Isn't that just tautology? I have to ask then what it means for one to "die spiritually". And I still don't know what you mean by 'eternal suffering' either (when 'eternal' is taken in diametric opposition to 'temporal'😉. I already voiced my confusion on that.

I am not sure there is a specific definition in the Bible in terms of what a spiritual death entails. However, there are descriptions of what such a fate may entail. Simply put, a spiritual death results from a physical death in which one dies apart from God.

An example of spiritual death is the demonic realm described in the Bible. The demonic realm is said to be spiritually "dead" as well. They, therefore, exhibit characteristics opposite of that of the God that they rejected. For example, God is said to be a God of love, therefore, the demonic realm exhibits the opposite characteristics which is hate. Also, perfect love is said to cast away all fear, therefore, the demonic realm lives in fear because it has rejected the God of love. In short, those who reject God also reject who and what he is such as the source of all life and all love.

Spiritual death is problematic in that we were designed to crave love and crave our Creator. Therefore, when we reject this design it is akin to throwing a lawn mover engine into your car and then trying to drive around. The results will be less than desirable. I think it safe to be sure that such a fate is miserable to say the least.

Originally posted by LemonJello
As far as neonates being targeted, I'm afraid you are thinking of the abortion industry.

No, you're confused. A neonate is a baby between birth and four weeks. So I have no thoughts here regarding abortion. The example I presented certainly has nothing to do with abortion.

To me the human being is born upon conception. Thereafter, it is merely a matter of which developing stage one may view the human life whether in the womb or out of the womb. Thus a "birth" is merely another step in such devepment rather than being the defining event that labels one human. Some even think that partial birth abortion is justifiable just so long as one is not completly out of the womb as of yet. What difference really is there to being half in the womb and half out verses being out altogher? Is it not merely a couple of seconds difference? I find such rationalization to be monsterous and anyone with a shred of honesty would conceede this as well.

Originally posted by LemonJello
What exactly is your view is 'free will'? How would you define it? I thought I asked that already, but you didn't respond to it. I've already presented basically what I take free will to be. In order for one to "manipulate" or "violate" another's free will, I think he or she would have to somehow wangle the other's mentality, or effectively sever the re ely brainwash them or somehow implant in them addiction or psychological compulsion).[/b]

What is free will? Well I guess I have never come up with an exact definition as of yet. To be honest, it is kind of like asking me what love is. For me, free will is simply a property of what love is in much the same way that time is a property of a material universe. One exists because of the other. Therefore, I think the best place to begin is to define what love is. There is a good definition of what love is in 1 Corinthians chapter 13. The gist of what is being said is that love does not seek its own, rather, it considers others ahead of itself. Therefore, one would not seek to lie and cheat and coerce another to do the bidding of ones self, rather, one would seek to have done what is best for the other person. Free will is simply the vehicle for choosing one over the other. If there is no free will to choose one over the other then really love does not exist, rather, love is simply going through the motions in terms of what we are being forced to do.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I asked you why God allows suffering even when it is clearly preventable. Your answer was "I think the loving thing to do is to allow suffering so that one is shown the errors of their ways."
So are you now retracting that statement? Is it not the loving thing to do? Or is it simply not the reason why God does not prevent or stop suffering?
I do ...[text shortened]... ut it. If a child is sick I may be able to reduce its suffering or even cure it. Why cant God?

God has done nothing about sin? As I recall, God sent us the ten commandments in order to shed light onto our dark paths. Then he sent us his Son to conquer sin in our lives on earth as well as our lives in the hereafter. So to say that God has done nothing about sin is laughable. God has done something about sin, however, God continues to allow our free will to decide to do something about the sin in our own lives that God has already conquered for us.

I guess the next question is why God does not do away with sin altogether? Are we not sinners? Would we still be here if he did? Ok, so maybe God can let us sinners stay here, however, our offspring should be immune from the results of our sinfulness much in the same way a crack addict should not give birth to an underweight and highly addicted infant. All I can say is, it does not work that way. The parent and child are inescapably interconnected. Like it or not, Adam and Eve effected future generations of "innocent" offspring. Why would God allow such a thing? That is the real question I think.

Originally posted by whodey
To me the human being is born upon conception. Thereafter, it is merely a matter of which developing stage one may view the human life whether in the womb or out of the womb. Thus a "birth" is merely another step in such devepment rather than being the defining event that labels one human. Some even think that partial birth abortion is justifiable just so ...[text shortened]... tionalization to be monsterous and anyone with a shred of honesty would conceede this as well.

One more time: the subject of abortion has nothing to do with my examples related to neonates. I'm frankly still at a loss why you brought the subject up.

Originally posted by whodey
What is free will? Well I guess I have never come up with an exact definition as of yet. To be honest, it is kind of like asking me what love is. For me, free will is simply a property of what love is in much the same way that time is a property of a material universe. One exists because of the other. Therefore, I think the best place to begin is to def ...[text shortened]... st, rather, love is simply going through the motions in terms of what we are being forced to do.

No, I'm not asking you what you think love is. I'm asking what you think free will is. I think you do yourself a notional disservice when you conflate the two. I think what you want to say is that free will is necessary for other goods, such as love; but also that free will is itself a substantial good. Plus, I'm having trouble taking you seriously when you ground your theodicy more or less completely on free will and yet cannot tell me what you think free will is.

Originally posted by whodey
Why would God allow such a thing? That is the real question I think.

Yes, and this is what I and others have been asking you (e.g., with the example of the suffering neonate). I don't find any of your answers, if we can call them that, to this question even remotely reasonable.