The Torah.

[AskTheFamily]

It beautifully iterates the truth.

 

[awitch]

It beautifully iterates the truth.

I disagree.

 

[drjean]

It is quite true that Torah Judaism strongly believes that there is an absolute Truth which exists in the world. That Truth is the key which unlocks the riddle of our existence and purpose in this world. We also believe that that Truth is in the Torah, as it is called the “Torah of Truth” (Toras Emes). This is because God is the God of Truth, and the Torah is said to be His thoughts and the revelation of His purpose in the creation of the universe.

Pursuit of Truth: Torah Study Response on Ask the Rabbi

 

[salt-n-light]

I disagree.

Explain your stance

 

[awitch]

Explain your stance

Taken literally, it paints god as a tyrannical monster what with the drowning the planet, slavery, genocides, and stoning people to death for trivial things. No thank you, because that's not the divine that I know.

Some read it with the "inspired by god" approach, but I have a hard time believing those are the stories that any god would actively approve of when every soul to ever exist is on the eternal line.

Then there's the metaphorical route, rendering it subjective and open to interpretation based on the reader's experiences, level of education, and personal biases. But why rely on other people's 2000+ year old stories when I have my own personal experiences? So, I will pass.

 

[salt-n-light]

Taken literally, it paints god as a tyrannical monster what with the drowning the planet, slavery, genocides, and stoning people to death for trivial things. No thank you, because that's not the divine that I know.

Some read it with the "inspired by god" approach, but I have a hard time believing those are the stories that any god would actively approve of when every soul to ever exist is on the eternal line.

Then there's the metaphorical route, rendering it subjective and open to interpretation based on the reader's experiences, level of education, and personal biases. But why rely on other people's 2000+ year old stories when I have my own personal experiences? So, I will pass.

Hm interesting take, can you give me some examples ( preferably scripture so that I can know where to look), in terms of Him being a tyrannical monster?

 

[Noxot]

don't worry awitch I got you. this one made me pretty mad.

Num 15:32-36 (YLT)
And the sons of Israel are in the wilderness, and they find a man gathering wood on the sabbath-day, and those finding him gathering wood bring him near unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto all the company, and they place him in ward, for it is not explained what is to be done to him. And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `The man is certainly put to death, all the company stoning him with stones, at the outside of the camp.' And all the company bring him out unto the outside of the camp, and stone him with stones, and he dieth, as Jehovah hath commanded Moses.

 

[salt-n-light]

don't worry awitch I got you. this one made me pretty mad.

Num 15:32-36 (YLT)
And the sons of Israel are in the wilderness, and they find a man gathering wood on the sabbath-day, and those finding him gathering wood bring him near unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto all the company, and they place him in ward, for it is not explained what is to be done to him. And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `The man is certainly put to death, all the company stoning him with stones, at the outside of the camp.' And all the company bring him out unto the outside of the camp, and stone him with stones, and he dieth, as Jehovah hath commanded Moses.

The guy worked on Sabbath day, so according to the Levitical Law, he would be stoned/put to death yes. But do you get the purpose of the Levitical laws and why it was there in the first place?

 

[Noxot]

The guy worked on Sabbath day, so according to the Levitical Law, he would be stoned/put to death yes. But do you get the purpose of the Levitical laws and why it was there in the first place?

since I have a good heart I do not find it acceptable that a man be murdered for picking up sticks. scoff all you want but there is no escape from the fact that killing someone for picking up sticks is evil. that was Jesus that they killed.

but feel free to try to get out of this pit. it seems rather hard to escape.

 

[salt-n-light]

since I have a good heart I do not find it acceptable that a man be murdered for picking up sticks. scoff all you want but there is no escape from the fact that killing someone for picking up sticks is evil. that was Jesus that they killed.

His actions were against the law, so justice was executed, as simple as that. Whether or not you feel that its good or evil is limited to your view.

Jesus wasn't (physically) in the picture yet

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The guy worked on Sabbath day, so according to the Levitical Law, he would be stoned/put to death yes. But do you get the purpose of the Levitical laws and why it was there in the first place?

Does it matter?
No, really.
Most tyrannical, murderous laws have some raison d'etre, unsurprisingly. Torture, banishment, execution, even industrialised mass murder had a purpose and a justification beyond "let's just harm and kill people".

But there is literally NO set of circumstances where putting people to death for collecting kindlewood on the wrong day of the week is the appropriate response.

Here, let's have another:

Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

What you see here, unmistakeably, is rape being treated as a property crime. The victim is not conceived of in terms of a violated human being, first and foremost, but as her father's possession that has now been damaged and is therefore "spoiled goods". If you damage the merchandise, you must pay for it.
(Similarly, the original counting of the ten utterances/commandments lumps the wife in with house and cattle as another man's possessions that must not be coveted. But I think this particular law is a more drastic illustration of the principle.)

Of course, Hebrew women could also be sold into slavery by their fathers, while men could only sell themselves, and for a limited amount of time.
Foreigners were fair game regardless of gender, and could even become hereditary slaves by virtue of birth, with no means of ever achieving freedom.

And then, there is this little gem:

Exodus 21: 20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

To reiterate: if the slaves do not die immediately, it's not a crime, but just a person destroying his property by accident. Now imagine what kind of abuse you have to inflict on another person in order to incapacitate them for DAYS and potentially kill them.

 

[Robban]

since I have a good heart I do not find it acceptable that a man be murdered for picking up sticks. scoff all you want but there is no escape from the fact that killing someone for picking up sticks is evil. that was Jesus that they killed.

but feel free to try to get out of this pit. it seems rather hard to escape.

What is death?

 

[salt-n-light]

Does it matter?
No, really.
Most tyrannical, murderous laws have some raison d'etre, unsurprisingly. Torture, banishment, execution, even industrialised mass murder had a purpose and a justification beyond "let's just harm and kill people".

But there is literally NO set of circumstances where putting people to death for collecting kindlewood on the wrong day of the week is the appropriate response.

Here, let's have another:

Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

What you see here, unmistakeably, is rape being treated as a property crime. The victim is not conceived of in terms of a violated human being, first and foremost, but as her father's possession that has now been damaged and is therefore "spoiled goods". If you damage the merchandise, you must pay for it.
(Similarly, the original counting of the ten utterances/commandments lumps the wife in with house and cattle as another man's possessions that must not be coveted. But I think this particular law is a more drastic illustration of the principle.)

Of course, Hebrew women could also be sold into slavery by their fathers, while men could only sell themselves, and for a limited amount of time.
Foreigners were fair game regardless of gender, and could even become hereditary slaves by virtue of birth, with no means of ever achieving freedom.

And then, there is this little gem:

Exodus 21: 20 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

To reiterate: if the slaves do not die immediately, it's not a crime, but just a person destroying his property by accident. Now imagine what kind of abuse you have to inflict on another person in order to incapacitate them for DAYS and potentially kill them.

Yes the background does matter.

Let's give an example. If I was to catch someone murder a person face value, then I would be naturally mad and hope that he was punished, for we want justice for evil. If I totally ignored the fact that the person had to kill the other in order to save a little girl, then faults on me since I did not consider the background of the situation.And now I'm reading in detail how the fight came about, what are their relationship like, whos the little girl, why this weapon, that weapon, and I'm able to see the bigger picture and rightfully judge the guy.

Same here, before I put judgement on anything, its best to understand the background on things, which is why I pointed to the Levitical laws. The book of Numbers is not a standalone, it has its footnotes, sidenotes, and backgrounds. So to understand Numbers, then you would have to understand Leviticus and the purpose. Or else you just taking it at face-value. That's with any historical text.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

What is death?

Oh no, you do not get to play the "murder victims get to enjoy a pleasant afterlife"-card. Otherwise, you'd have to find a car to run you over to get there faster.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Yes the background does matter.

Let's give an example. If I was to catch someone murder a person face value, then I would be naturally mad and hope that he was punished, for we want justice for evil. If I totally ignored the fact that the person had to kill the other in order to save a little girl, then faults on me since I did not consider the background of the situation.And now I'm reading in detail how the fight came about, what are their relationship like, whos the little girl, why this weapon, that weapon, and I'm able to see the bigger picture and rightfully judge the guy.

Same here, before I put judgement on anything, its best to understand the background on things, which is why I pointed to the Levitical laws. The book of Numbers is not a standalone, it has its footnotes, sidenotes, and backgrounds. So to understand Numbers, then you would have to understand Leviticus and the purpose. Or else you just taking it at face-value. That's with any historical text.

None of those footnotes, sidenotes, and backgrounds can justify putting people to death for collecting sticks on the wrong day of the week.

 

[salt-n-light]

None of those footnotes, sidenotes, and backgrounds can justify putting people to death for collecting sticks on the wrong day of the week.

Again, he went against law so... justified. But you refuse to understand anything about the law so agree to disagree.

 

[Robban]

Oh no, you do not get to play the "murder victims get to enjoy a pleasant afterlife"-card. Otherwise, you'd have to find a car to run you over to get there faster.

The question was,
"What is death?"

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Again, he went against law so... justified. But you refuse to understand anything about the law so agree to disagree.

Going against an unjust law is not a deathworthy offense.
Or else the Nazis were justified in executing the Scholl siblings for High Treason, for they were legally guilty of that offense by any interpretation of the law (which hadn't been created by the Nazis, but exists in similar form in most nations). Were they wrong to work against their nation? Did they deserve death by failing to uphold its laws?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If I was living in any nation (including one run by a literal deity, for the sake of the argument) which upheld that picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week was an offense to be requited by stoning, I would consider it my sacred duty to do everything in my power to bring this abominable regime down, even if failure was inescapable.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The question was,
"What is death?"

And we all know what you intend to do by asking this question.

Prove me wrong.

Death is the cessation of all biological functions that sustain a living organism.

Now, what do you intend to do with this answer?