I don’t think so. From Gen. 22:
Which is consistent with the whole free will thing. God has to let people make their own decisions. My understanding of the text of this (and other) section is that free will gives God a blind spot. He is as clueless as the rest of us at figuring out what people are going to do.
Zev, Can you give me the scripture or source for ‘no more prophecy’ and your interpretation of it, if it’s not obvious? Thanks.
There’s no direct scriptual source for that. The Talmud relates in several places that Chaggai, Zechariah and Malachi were the last of the prophets.
That is, in part, why the Apocrypha is not a part of the Jewish Bible, because those books were written after the close of the age of prophecy.
Zev Steinhardt
This is a question only, not for debate. You are sure from what you have been taught, that if G-d literally made his presence known to someone today, not for prophecy, just for that person, that it would not be a true encounter?
Cervaise You’ve made my day. Thank you.
IWLN Is there something wrong with your keyboard? Can you see it? There’s no ‘o’ in your god.
I believe IWLN is conforming to a practice that is not uncommon in Judaism; avoiding commiting the name to some media that may be disposed of in a manner that is not respectful.
By gum, you’re right!!! I’ll have to investigate, but I’m sure the infidels took it. Wait, I see a clue. It only malfunctions on words that start with a capital “G” and end with a “d”. Hmmm…I’ll try again. G-d… darn…G-d…sigh, G-d. Let me try something else. Dog… works there. I give up. “It’s a mystery.”
Cervaise, As horribly irreverent as your post was, I agree with gum. It cracked me up and then I had to apologize to G-d. Maybe he took my o’s. 
You’re right, but it’s mainly to remind me to be more respectful and reverent. As you can see, I still have some work to do. Darn that free will. 
God is a sado masochist and a tricky bastard- Kill your child to prove your faith and allegiance- Oh, since you are going to …just kidding! All you believers are following hate, death and chaos…
This is what is wrong with Christianity as far as I’m concerned its all based on Humanities’ Fears, not Love. I’ve always found “God fearing” a rather strange phrase, but it makes sense. It’s a bad foundation. Oh, and if you think the New Testament makes it all better- God wouldn’t even save his own son…he sacrificed his own Son…I wouldn’t follow that thinking.
If you want to see a good movie that puts a spin on the Abraham story but from a feminine viewpoint, I suggest renting The Rapture. It is a great and thought provoking story that deals with faith.
Well, it could be argued that it is the angel which is saying “Now I know that you fear God”. God may have known all along.
I would like to see the question extended.
Would you kill your child if your system of morality commanded it?
Suppose your child went nuts, joined al-Queda, and was about to set off a dirty nuke in downtown Miami. The only way to stop him is to betray him to the SWAT snipers. They will shoot him, and he will die.
If you do not act, if you try to weasel, hundreds will die. If you betray your child, he will die.
Do you say, “Any system of morality that would ask me to kill my child can kiss my ass. Hundreds can die - I am not giving up my child for anything!” Or is it expedient that one should die for the multitude?
Or perhaps does this bring us to the point that I think the story of the sacrifice of Isaac is meant to bring us?
Do you really believe?
Not just in God, the story is more universal even than that. Do you really believe in your system of morality? Or do you abandon it as soon as it asks you to sacrifice something really important?
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, fascinating point.
For God, I do not kill my child. For my ethical system, I do.
That leads into the point I was going to make, one that’s not original but that bears repeating in this argument.
There are two (and, if you ask me, a half) possibilities when determining the relationship between “good” and “God.” These possibilities all assume that both Goodness and God describe real phenomena.
If God is not by definition good – if Goodness has a value independent of God – then presumably we as humans have a way of evaluating whether a given act is good or not. If that’s the case, then we should refer to our independent means of evaluating good or evil when trying to figure out whether an act is good or not.
If God is by definition good, then the word is meaningless, having essentially the same value in an ethical argument as the word “Vorp,” defined as “What Daniel does.” Who cares whether you’re acting either good or vorp? It’s just a useless word, and we need to come up with a different word to discuss whether an act is ethical, worth doing, etc.
(The one-half a possibility is that there’s a means of judging goodness independent of God, but that in our experience God is so reliably good that trust in him is well-placed. Personally, I don’t think the Biblical account backs up this view)
In either case, I’m not compelled to do what God tells me to do: either I’ll evaluate his request on its goodness, or else calling the act “good” is meaningless. Killing my child is a prima facie evil act; unless this God guy gives me very strong arguments for doing it (and “Trust me” is a lame argument), I’ll refuse.
On the other hand, if my child is an al-Qaeda operative, then I can evaluate the goodness of sacrificing him independently, and I hope I’d come to the conclusion that I must make this sacrifice – that he must make this sacrifice – in order to save other people.
Daniel
Actually it is a fascinating argument, commonly called “The Euthyphro Dilemma” and was first brought up by Plato: Here’s Wikipedia’s treatment.
I didn’t understand this part.
I wouldn’t say the word becomes meaningless, it just has been defined. “Good” means “that which is in accord with moral system X”, where X = utilitarianism/the will of God/vorp/whatever.
Could you expand?
Regards,
Shodan
Not to step on Left Hand of Dorkness toes or anything, but what he’s saying is that if God is the definer of what is good, then what is good is arbitrary.
God could define ‘rape’ to be good, would that make rape good? If it wouldn’t make rape good then their is an absolute ‘good’ outside of God.
Once again I ask you, if you were confronted with God speaking to you, and you know He is God, what do you say:
“Hey God, you’re wrong. Jewish tradition teaches us that there is no more prophecy”.
Isn’t it more likely that Jewish tradition is wrong rather than that God is wrong?
OK, if that was the point, I understand.
I imagine it is rather like the question, “Could God have created the universe such that 2 + 2 = 5”? Insofar as the question has meaning, I would say that He could, but I doubt if human beings have the intellectual tools to discuss what it would be like if he did.
And thanks for the link.
Regards,
Shodan
Exactly. If the word “good” means nothing more than “what God says,” then it ceases to have any moral value to it. God isn’t necessarily an ethical being; rather, he’s just a big, omnipotent bully.
If God tells me to kill my son, and i know it’s a good thing to do, but “good” only means “what god says,” then it provides me no moral compass: it’s simply a label for the things god has told me to do. What value does “good” have over “Vorp,” the things that Frank tells me to do?
I mean sure, Frank can’t condemn me to an eternity of suffering. Purely from selfishness I might kill my kid in order to save myself – but i wouldn’t be making a moral decision.
Thanks, Meatros, for the argument’s correct name. When I was twelve and moving into atheism, this was one of the most important reasons for my change; it was only later that I found out that it was a fairly common argument.
Daniel
No problem :D. I was actually arguing it a few days ago on another board. I think it’s quite a powerful argument.