Firstly, the standard disclaimer: The following are my observations only, not necessarily those of normative Orthodox Judaism (unless otherwise stated). Furthermore, I don’t have all the answers; these are merely my observations and possibilities.
**
As would most rational human beings.
However, if you are going to posit the existence of a God, who defines what exactly good and evil are, and if you are willing to accept the fact that we, as mortal, fallible human beings do not have all the answers and do not see how all the accounts are on the books, then you can accept that God could tell you to do things that are otherwise repugnant to do. You are making the assumption that God himself is not the definition of good; or that God can be fallible. If you hold to those definitions, then I grant that you have a point.
**
Apparently it was necessary.
In any event, we’ve been over the whole “hardened his heart” thing in the past. I’ve argued in the past that the hardening of Pharroh’s heart restored his free will, not deprived him of it.
Jewish commentators discuss whether or not Jeptath actually sacrified his daughter or whether he simply shut her away to live a life of solitude. But in any event, Jewish commentators all roundly criticize Jepthah for his actions and deeds. He is not held up to be an example to be followed.
To find it again would be more trouble than it’s worth.
In a nutshell:
If I came over to you and said “Gimme five bucks!” You have free will to say “yes” or “no.”
However, what if I then hit you and repeated “Gimme five bucks!” You can again say “yes” or “no.”
However, if I keep hitting you, at some point you’re going to give me the five bucks. Not because you want to, but simply because you want me to stop hitting you. In effect, you did not have the free will to give me the five bucks; it was forced out of you.
The same thing with Pharroh. As long as he was being hit by plagues, his free will was being eroded. He wasn’t ready to let the Jews leave because he wanted to - he simply wanted to be free of the plagues. By hardening his heart, God restored Pharroh’s free will to him and allowed him to make a choice on freeing the Jews without the encumberence of the plagues.
Doesn’t this all kinda sound like the “angels on the head of a pin” argument? Raised as a complete heathen by my ex-Catholic mother and my very analytical father, I personally read this thread in a very detached way. I guess if you’re a Christian this seems like a relevant topic, but to me it resembles a discussion of a soap opera. It’s interesting if you care, but ultimately means nothing. It’s the behavior behind the beliefs that’s really the interesting part.
Perhaps it’s the several bible threads I’m participating in right now that’s got my brain ping-ponging back and forth on a number of issues.
In any event, it might be relevant if it’s viewed as a homosexual relationship-because the only person who get’s offended is Saul. God doesn’t appear disturbed. Then again that might not mean much. I suppose my point would be is that while Leviticus seems to cast homosexuals in a bad light, other passages might not. I have to read up a little more because I could have sworn there were other incidents in the bible where there were favorable people who were (or at least it would seem they were) homosexual.
But the plagues didn’t stop after the heart hardening bit did they? So wasn’t Pharaoh still under compulsion as detailed in Exodus 12 with the killing of all the first-born among the Egyptians which finally resulted in him giving in?
That’s an excellent question David Simmons. I don’t know why Pharroh is considered to have given in of his own free will in the end. I’ll have to look into the matter.
I took this matter up because it was the story of the slaying of the first-born that turned me off of the religion that was taught in my Methodist Sunday School when I was about 11 or 12 years old.
God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so he wouldn’t let the children of Israel go, and then killed the first-born because the children of Israel weren’t let go.
I wanted nothing to do with such a God, and still don’t. Although, I have since learned that the Old Testament is based on stories told from the viewpoint of the children of Israel based on their tribal mythology and this one, in my opinion, merely serves as an illustration of just how much their God cares for them.
Fine, but I see no reason why I should fall in with such a viewpoint.
Has anyone considered that the reason such-and-such is in the legend is that the legend’s writer, which I think is more likely a homo sapiens than a god, just wrote the story that way for dramatic effect?
Or that’s how they were passed down until some scribe committed them to papyrus or parchment? Possibly with pious dedaction and a personal flourish?
We have little or no solid, corroborating evidence of this or most of the biblical stories, right? So aren’t they folk tales until proven otherwise?
Let you have what? You’re entitled to believe that the biblical stories never happened. You’re also free to observe the commandments or not as you see fit.
I personally believe that the biblical stories did happen. And I believe that the Torah was given to us (the Jews) at Mt. Sinai. And I believe that God commanded us in that Torah to keep the commandments. I have yet to see anyone who has come along with equal or greater stature than God and say “No, Zev, you don’t have to keep the commandments anymore.”
Can I prove it happened? No. Hell, I can’t even prove God’s very existence; let alone anything that happened over 3000 years ago. I simply believe it to be true. And so I refrain from eating non-kosher food. And I refrain from working on the Sabbath. And I refrain from wearing wool/linen mixtures. And I keep the other commandments as well. But I’m not forcing you to keep those commandments. I’m not even suggesting you keep them. I’m not out here to prove to you the validity of the biblical stories or even to convince you of their truth. I’m simply stating my beliefs.
If you wish to accuse me of “smoking something” because of those beliefs, so be it. You’re entitled to that belief to - even though YOU can’t prove it.
I appreciate your careful analysis.
However we started by discussing fundamentalists, who claim that the whole of the Bible is God’s Word.
I don’t give a hoot if God thinks child abuse is good or evil. I know it is evil, and I won’t respect anyone who says it’s necessary.
God was clearly responsible for the murders of an entire generation. I can think of some truly vile people in our history who have called genocide ‘necessary’. Are they ‘God-like’ too?
Well obviously I agree with the commentators.
However God didn’t disapprove of the burnt offering.
Again, how do you know this? Because God is silent on the matter?
Lot’s daughters slept with him. There is no mention by God that this was good or bad. Does this mean that God approved?
The Jews in the days of Ezra sinned by marrying non-Jewish women. God never came down and said “Bad!” Does that mean that God approved?
Micha set up an idol in the northern part of Israel in the days of the Judges. There was no mention of God’s disapproval of this. Does that mean that God disapproved?
The point I’m trying to make is that just because God didn’t send down the bolts from the blue and boom from the heavens doesn’t mean that He approved of the behavior or that we have to take it as an example to follow.