He isn't, of course. According to Jewish thought, God is perfect and therefore any loopholes in the rules were put there on purpose. If you have studied the holy texts deeply enough to find the loophole, that makes you more holy, not less. It's like an easter egg for true believers.
The true sinners are those who think that they know what God wants better than what He actually passed down as commandments. God knows what He wants and wrote it down exactly like that.
> any loopholes in the rules were put there on purpose
> The true sinners are those who think that they know what God wants better than what He actually passed down as commandments. God knows what He wants and wrote it down exactly like that.
So it's just man who decides "this is a loophole and God wants me to use it". Man decides what God really wants. Man who not only looks for ways around God's word but he also claims God wanted him to do this.
> If you have studied the holy texts deeply enough to find the loophole, that makes you more holy, not less. It's like an easter egg for true believers.
Did God ever say man should look for loopholes, exceptions, or reinterpretation of His word? Did God say what you just said or was it you who thinks that you know what God wants better than what He actually passed down as commandments?
I’m not a believer myself, but the response here seems obvious: by putting his law in writing, god invites (even demands) interpretation. What you are calling a “loophole” would just be a perhaps nonobvious but correct interpretation as applied to a particular set of facts.
Seems logical to me, either you believe you can understand the divine will by interpreting holy books or you don't. If you don't believe the divine will is knowable, then why would you follow any religion?
It is my understanding that Catholics believe that Pope can interpret the scriptures, but laypeople can't. Sort of how a Supreme Court judge can interpret the law, but a layperson can't, I guess.
> If you don't believe the divine will is knowable, then why would you follow any religion?
This doesn't follow. If you believe you can just decide how to reinterpret the word of God then you put yourself at the same level as Him and are qualified to follow your own word, rather than a religion.
You follow a religion because you want to be given the word of God to follow. Not the word of a man who pretends he is at the same level as God so his reinterpretation weights the same.
Let me bring it down to earth. If you go for a lecture from Einstein you want to get Einstein's word, not an assistant to interpret "I think he meant we're all relatives man".
If anything you have two choices. 1) You take God's word at face value, no interpretation, no exceptions. 2) You choose to freely interpret everything because God wanted you to.
E.g. In war time emergency you are allowed to carry guns and a radio but the volume must be kept low. This is a very arbitrary interpretation drawing from present needs rather than anything in the word of God. Well and good, anything can be categorized as an exception. If everything can be an exception that you don't need a rule book. The only reason for that book to still exist is so some men can make rules for other.
Especially since its a text written thousands of years ago, where the meanings of some of the words are pretty unclear, and you are probably not reading the original but a translation.
> You follow a religion because you want to be given the word of God to follow. Not the word of a man who pretends he is at the same level as God so his reinterpretation weights the same.
. . .
> You take God's word at face value, no interpretation, no exceptions.
But your judgment that god's word must be understood in this way just reflects your own belief about how god has chosen to communicate with us.
And it's actually a belief that does not give god very much credit. Great books convey meaning in numerous different ways at the same time. Why would you assume that god has written a text that operates on the level of an Ikea instruction manual when he could have used all of the tools available to great literature — and, through his omniscience, used them perfectly to speak to the needs of different readers in different times and places?
Ask yourself this: when you read scripture, does does it seem more like an instruction manual or a piece of literature?
> But your judgment that god's word must be understood in this way just reflects your own belief about how god has chosen to communicate with us.
I'm trying to understand it in the most likely way it would have been understood by the first man who heard it, and put in that context (as much context as I can have from back then).
> when you read scripture, does does it seem more like an instruction manual or a piece of literature?
If you read them you know they very much sound like both. So the way I read it (and I read the "major" ones as a religious agnostic) is that if I take the freedom to interpret everything from that book always in a way that's aimed at making my life or religion more convenient, then I'm in it more for show. Something that's probably true for most religious people I've met.
How else do you propose we understand? To understand any text requires interpretation. Interpretation just is the process by which one determines a text's meanings. You seem to have in mind particular kinds of interpretation which are and are not appropriate (I notice you keep using the word "reinterpretation" below, which is not the word I used.) You may or may not be able to defend a particular approach, but you can't just skip the interpretive step altogether.
Of course I don't claim to 'know' what god wants. All I can do is do my best with the information I have.
The problem with looking to a dusty old book full of loopholes for your moral compass becomes evident when you realize that pedophilia is never condemned in the Bible, and as a result the Babylonian Talmud endorses it.
> Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it. A Divine Voice emerged from Heaven and said: Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion? Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.
> God knows what He wants and wrote it down exactly like that.
When the word of God has obvious contradictions and inconsistencies what does it mean? Are there little traps that He set up for us mortals? Is God mischievous?
It is easy to manufacture contradictions by prooftexting. It isn't difficult to read in a favored hypothesis that contains contradictions, but that is by no means demanded by the text. Many can be resolved by recognizing that the same thing was being described from two different perspectives or with a focus on different aspects.
The quintessential example is perhaps #3 which purports that the two accounts of creation are contradictory. But there are a number of ways to interpret Genesis [0] that doesn't result in contradiction while maintaining the theological truths that are the purpose of biblical texts. The Bible isn't a scientific treatise.
Another typical class of examples are the purported inconsistencies within the Gospels themselves [1].
An article on inerrancy you might find interesting [2].
This is answered throughout scriptures. The problem of sin is human's rejection of the goodness of God. We love ourselves more than we love him and in that rejection regularly advantage ourselves at the disadvantage of those around us. In order to solve the problem, we would have to be wiped out. But in the wisdom and goodness of God he planned a way from the beginning to solve our transgressions.
God created all things out of love, and made humans as image bearers to tend to his creation. Out of love he did these things, fully knowing that humans were capable of turning away from God. Humans put themselves before God in the garden and by doing so brought evil into the world. The rest of scripture is God's good plan to turn the world right again, to expel evil from his good creation while also saving those whom bear his image that he loves. He does this by giving them the law to expose the sin of humankind, and sending the 2nd person of the trinity of God (Jesus) to fulfill the law. Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice to pay the guilt of the sins of humans. In doing so bringing true justice and mercy for the evil brought into the world. In his resurrection he conquered death (the ultimate punishment for evil, death is something that was never intended in God's good creation) and setting in motion the process of restoring the world, bringing about new creation in which Jesus is the first fruits. The world will be set right and all sin, evil, and tears wiped away.
No, no. He didn't give us any option. God is all-powerful and all-knowing, so he made us knowing that we would break his rules and thus knowing that he would later punish us for eternity for breaking them. The notion of free will is in complete contradiction with an all-knowing all-powerful agent that sets things in motion. And the fact that God still punishes us even though we never had a choice is proof that it's not benevolent.
So: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving. Pick two.
If you can’t or won’t see the truth in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ I pray that it is revealed to you and you have life changing faith. Either way, be blessed in your day and week.
Yes, out of love he gave us the agency and dignity to choose not to be in a love relationship with him. Faith in Jesus Christ and the arrival of the Kingdom of God to set things right provides us a means to enter into a relationship with him in a fallen, sinful world. To be adopted into his family and inherit new creation. This means he also dignifies those who choose not to love him to separate themselves from his presence for all eternity. In which case then they become less human.
In our culture it is easy to think of this in terms of Dante's "Inferno", but that is a poem from the Middle Ages, and not in fact what the Bible tells us eternal separation from God looks like. Anyways, there is a lot of context to cover that isn't possible here. If you'd like to understand all of this better, go to the Bible, but then also perhaps consider "The Prodigal God" by Tim Keller. Blessings.
If God is truly good and omniscient, why would he intentionally create imperfect beings with the capacity for evil and then judge them for being imperfect? It's hard to see this story as one of some being of pure goodness instead of, rather, a character more akin to Jigsaw, trapping his creations in paradoxical or impossible situations for some unknown pleasure.
Maybe we just have drastically different ideas of what "love" is.
God, who is referred to as love, created beings in his image to tend to his creation, and to be in a love relationship with him. He himself created out of a loving relationship (read up on his triune nature). Rather than make them automatons that simply do his will he wanted them to love him of their own will the same he loves them. You can understand his first command as "do this because you love me and trust that I have your best interest in mind". When they instead chose themselves he could no longer be in their presence because of their sin, thus they were ejected from his presence, and thus cursed to pay the costs of that sin, until his plan to redeem them through his own justice and mercy could be fulfilled.
Any love relationship that is truly loving is not created by power or authority. It is by the willingness of both parties, unconditionally.
> Rather than make them automatons that simply do his will he wanted them to love him of their own will the same he loves them. You can understand his first command as "do this because you love me and trust that I have your best interest in mind".
So he doesn't want automatons, but he does want unquestioning loyalty and trust? Is this not simply a distinction without a difference?
If someone we knew in our lives behaved like this with their children, we'd rightfully question what trauma occurred to make them this way. To create and then cast away those he created who did not act as he wished is the behavior of a control freak, not a loving god.
I don’t think it is so much “unquestioning loyalty and trust” but a loving relationship with the creator of the universe. It is hardly a distinction without difference. The story continues that God came to earth as a man who, while innocent, was brutally murdered, for spreading this message. That doesn’t sound like controlling (nor trauma-induced) behavior to me. Instead it sounds like the ultimate sacrifice for a loved one.
Finally, you missed the part where humans chose to be cast away, the consequences of sin are death.
Either way, I pray this truth is revealed to you and that you are blessed in your day and week.
One way to think about it is that we were created to be in a loving relationship with God. The same way we were created to breathe oxygen. It is designed to be that way. But we're intelligent beings, if someone chooses not to be in your presence, you provide them the dignity to make that choice. But that doesn't mean they remain in the same status as the ones you love. I think we could be honest with ourselves that our loved ones have a different relationship with us than those who choose not to be our friends? Very similar to our relationship with God. And he has done a tremendous amount of work through the ages, through his Son to show you how much he loves you and wants to be in a relationship with you.
Ultimately if someone chooses they do not like God's design and do not want to be in his presence, he honors that, but that means they are setting aside their humanity, and his design for them.
Firstly, if the article is accurate, it still separates private from public spaces. An omnipotent and omniscient God would have made the rules anticipating good faith interpretations in different times and cultures.
It still means accepting a restriction. I am Christian so do not think the same way about religious law, but if I was asked to come up with a defence of this idea, I would argue it fulfils the purpose of the rule - e.g. people still cannot pop into a office. I am sure someone who knows Jewish law could come up with a much stronger argument, but I just want to make the point you should not assume it is bad faith workaround
The article also says there is a 100 pages on this in the Talmud so that implies there has been a lot of discussion and argument about this.
>I am Christian so do not think the same way about religious law
Judaism isn't Christianity any more than Islam is.
Trying to apply Christian norms to Jewish practices usually ends up in a pogrom when Christians realize that Judaism isn't Christianity.
And just in case I hadn't said this enough: Judaism isn't Christianity.
I have no idea why the right in America has run with the whole "Judaeo-Christian Western Culture" bullshit when Christianity was founded from the start on not being Judaism and making a clean break with it. You might as well say Cristiano-Islamic culture since there was about as much impact on Western thought by Islam as there was by Judaism.
It is absolutely not a "clean break". While Judaism and Christianity are distinct, they are related in that Christianity builds on the Hebrew Scriptures. I think perhaps the best imagery for their relationship is Romans 11 and the olive tree. That takes some studying to fully understand though.
> Judaism isn't Christianity any more than Islam is
All three share common beliefs and values. Christians and Jews worship the same God.
Islam IS closely related to Judaism and Christianity and the Quran explicitly states Muslims worship the same God.
> Trying to apply Christian norms to Jewish practices usually ends up in a pogrom when Christians realize that Judaism isn't Christianity.
BS. Thinking about where we agree and where we disagree leads to greater understanding. Pogroms are motivated by ethnic differences and othering people, not by theology, religious law, or anything thoughtful.
> I have no idea why the right in America has run with the whole "Judaeo-Christian Western Culture"
Is it a right wing concept? The term seems far more widely used to me than that. They see correct to me, because western culture (that of the left, as well as the right!) is a product of Christianity, which is an offshoot of Judaism, so you cannot ignore the Jewish influence.
> when Christianity was founded from the start on not being Judaism and making a clean break with it.
It was far from a clean break, and the intention was not a clean break. There was much argument (see Acts) in early Christianity about which Jewish practices to follow. Christians use Jewish scriptures and prayers and symbolism. The first Christians were Jews, and they would not even have considered themselves converts at that point, just those who followed the promised (to Jews!) messiah.
> You might as well say Cristiano-Islamic culture since there was about as much impact on Western thought by Islam as there was by Judaism.
Not true because Judaism and Christian culture had a greater and longer lasting history of geographical and cultural overlap than Christianity and Islam.
On the other hand, all three religions have a lot in common.
I think it depends on historical period and region. There were times when there were very strong Christian presence and influences on Islamic culture in places like North Africa, Syria, Anatolia etc. where Christianity had been the majority religion before Arab and Turkish conquests. I assume Zoroastrian influences in Persia.
> Islam IS closely related to Judaism and Christianity and the Quran explicitly states Muslims worship the same God.
This is like saying that Windows and GNU/Linux are closely related because they both run on PCs, and were both (Windows originally) written in C (thus worship the same "foundations"). :-)
> Christians use Jewish scriptures and prayers and symbolism.
Quite some applications have become ported from Windows to GNU/Linux or vice versa. There is also Wine. Also keep in mind that there exist people who use gcc to compile Windows applications.
> This is like saying that Windows and GNU/Linux are closely related because they both run on PCs, and were both (Windows originally) written in C
A better analogy would be its like saying BSD and MacOS (the current version) are closely related because they share lots of common code.
You should read what the Quran says about Jesus or Mary or the Jewish prophets. Seriously, read what the Quran and the New Testament (and church documents like the Catholic Catechism) have to say about this.
I think the best analogies of the relationships between the religions is:
1. Christianity (claims) to be an updated and enhanced fork of Judaism
2. Islam (claims) to be a bug fixed fork of Judaism with some code from Christianity merged in.
> Quite some applications have become ported from Windows to GNU/Linux or vice versa.
We are not talking about optional bits, we are talking about things of fundamental importance.
It isnt about god. This is about a set of rules for living a good life. Those rules are under constant scrutiny, being reevaluated to facilitate the needs of the community. The line between religeous debate and "litigation", between theologians and lawyers, is a fiction. They are the same trade under different hats.
This sounds roughly like the sorts of criticisms Jesus would make of the ‘legalism’ of the Pharisees, by which I mean an excessive emphasis on external acts - going through the motions - to appear to obey the law while neglecting its spiritual purpose. A good example is where the Pharisees criticize Jesus for working on the Sabbath when he heals a man. Another is where the Pharisees bring an adulteress to Jesus, and he remarks that any man who lusts after a woman has already committed adultery in his heart. And then there are the parts where the Pharisees try to trap Jesus, such as when they try to find loopholes to justify divorce.
Post-Christian Judaism following the destruction of the Temple only entrenched this Pharisaism by turning the faith away from one of Temple sacrifice, complete with a Temple priesthood, to one hyperfocused on slicing and dicing the Torah. (The Catholic mass continues the sacrificial liturgy, albeit in a perfect and elevated form; the Mosaic covenant is fulfilled and the perfect sacrifice of Christ - the spotless Lamb of God - becomes the sacrificial lamb for which the prior animal sacrifice was a preparation.)
I interpret these acts (trying extremely hard to find loopholes in divine command) to be ways to absolve the observant religious person from the guilt. It has no affect on the god.
It’s more of a “I can argue that I checked the box when I meet my maker and have to explain myself.”
Also, hopefully nobody actually takes these rules so seriously that they end up hurting or killing anyone. There was a bicyclist who was injured when one of these lines fell far below installation height, but I’m thinking more about, for example, people who need to use hospital equipment during the Sabbath.
> Also, hopefully nobody actually takes these rules so seriously that they end up hurting or killing anyone. There was a bicyclist who was injured when one of these lines fell far below installation height, but I’m thinking more about, for example, people who need to use hospital equipment during the Sabbath.
What are all those [brackets] and (((parenthesis))) in your posts supposed to mean? Do you need a refresher on HN’s half-assed version of Markdown (https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc) or something?
This poster is a fan of, or maybe actually is himself, the neonazi cartoonist StoneToss; the username is an allusion to the artist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StoneToss
With users like this, I've been making good use of the "Comments Owl for Hacker News" browser plugin: add an emoji tag to the user for visibility, then insta-flag their posts whenever I see them.
(There are probably better uses of my time, but...)
