The prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge is indeed puzzling. I — BitconnectCarlos

I take this as a limitation on a mortal's ability to survive knowledge of absolute truth. It is to see the face of God, so to speak. Consistent with Exodus 33:20, God tells Moses, "But you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Consistent with the Midrash that God reveals himself to Moses through a kiss and then he dies. My interpretation of the art.

As in, epiphanies we all might experience throughout our lives might change who we were into what we are.

Believing that putting the ball in the net counts as a goal is not an act of faith but simply to understand how to play football.

Consenting to our social institutions is not an act of faith. — Banno

Is this an analogy suggesting that "Believing that murder counts as evil is not an act of faith but simply to understand how to play the rules of society"?

Are you arguing that moral compliance is just a consent to a social institution and not an act of faith?

If I've not overstated your claim here, my response is to point out the distinction: Murder is wrong no matter what we decide. We can change the rules of football goals as we wish.

Both religious and non-religious people can have faith in a moral foundation. It makes no difference. — praxis

A faith based belief in the existence of a moral force sounds theistic, suggesting that without this moral force, it wouldn't matter if we murdered. Meaning is implanted in this belief isn't it?

ask (in my previous post) because to my way of understanding, this so called "pivotal intent" of maximizing eudemonia (which can be translated as "well-being" just as much as "happiness"; and to which suffering is the opposite) is of itself ubiquitous to absolutely all lifeforms and, hence, all sentient (aka, subjective) eings. — javra

This seems to conflate happiness and eudemonia with pleasure. As with happiness, Mill spent considerable time distinguishing simple pleasure from the fulfillment of happiness and Aristotle required reason and virtue for the fulfillment of eudemonia. That is (alluding to Mill), there's a significant difference between a satisfied pig and satisfied person.

My response here is just a push back on the comment regarding the ubiquity of happiness seeking by all life forms.

It's not utilitarianism. — Sam26

It's consequentialism. If happiness is not the consequence you wish to achieve, what is?

How do you know that? — praxis

Because that's what God is to me. Faith.

group of humans sits around a primordial campfire chewing on bison. One of them says, "Hey! Why don't we do some morals?"

The rest of the group stares and one says, "What?"

They all go back to chewing. — frank

Some hypothetical cavemen sat around an imaginary campfire eating anachronistic chicken piccata. Gnurt said to Glint, "you shouldn't hair drag my sister cave to cave." Glint, taking a gulp of his Pinot Gregio says "fuggitaboutit."

And Glint begets la costra nostra and Gnurt its opposite.

Such is the morality origin story.

Note the "we". Not Me. So, where is us deciding what to do "subjective"? — Banno

We is first person, you and me, but it would work just as well if just me, or the members of my house, neighborhood, town, state, etc. Relativity, subjectivity, it all has the same problems. Is murder moral if we agree it is? I say not.

To me, this seems rather obvious. How do we access the harm? We give the evidence or reasons to support the conclusion. The evidence usually comes in the form of testimony, reasoning, sensory experience, etc. — Sam26

Is this not Utilitarianism?

This also makes the mistake of thinking that morals are found, not made - discovered, not intended. — Banno

I intend for X, so I declare lying immoral. Mustn't X be moral for lying to be immoral? The point being, how do we know the Good if not discovered? If we can make the Good, is that not subjectivism?

Moral rules don't help normal people. They exist for the soul purpose of condemnation. — frank

Clever soul/sole pun.

Following the commandments generally does yield good results. — BitconnectCarlos

Like not mixing linen and wool (sha'atnez)?

If mattering is a human concern and there are no humans in existence anywhere, how could what God says matter? — praxis

Things matter to God.

I think a very strong argument can be made that there is an objectivity to much of moral reasoning even if you remove the mystical. — Sam26

There obviously have been attempts at creating objective criteria or principles to determine what is moral (Utlilitarianism, Kantianism, etc.), but they do have feel of being post hoc, meaning we first list out what we know to be moral and immoral and then we try to arrive at what explains our list. That is, we know murder and stealing are wrong, and then we come up with reasons for why we must think that.

The second question, and the one I touched on above, what dictates the objective? Are you saying it's wrong to murder because human DNA demands that as a social rule? What are you ultimately referencing to prove something is good. With law, you point to the law. With morality, what to you point to?

If arguing from a purely secular point of view, morals are just another form of law, etiquite, custom, or tact. They may or may not be written down and there may or may not be specific consequences for violating them. They are all man made rules of social conduct, some of which are made through formal processes, some arbitrarily, and some just occur organically through interaction.

With morals, we learn them from those around us, the date of their creation lost to time. It's the reason people seem to know the morals of their culture. They just saw others doing the same thing.

If you want to make the argument that morals are not relative to time, place, and the peculiarities of different cultures, you can, but you're going to have argue either some mystical creator of morality or you're going to have argue something inherent within the constitution of the human DNA that demands them.

It simply makes no sense to speak of the world of forms, where the good exists outside the existence of humanity if you take a fully secular view of this. If a tree falls in the woods and there are no humans in existence anywhere, it does not matter. Mattering is a human concern. It is not a concern for whatever deer took a tree to the head.

On the other hand, if God says the tree falling in the woods matters (i.e. it is either good or bad), then it matters, even if there is no human anywhere to assess it.

It's what you do, not what you feel or think, that counts, isn't it? — Banno

Very Jewish sentiment. Catholics require faith and works. Protestants receive salvation from faith alone.

But god, being god, does what it is necessary to do; so if god demands a sacrifice, he could not have done otherwise. — Banno

But see, for example, Exodus 32:7-14.

God says he will destroy those who built the golden calf. Moses tells God that will make him look bad to the Egyptians if he does that and it will contradict God's covenant to provide the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob the promised land.

"Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened."

Moses changed God's mind. Quite the lawyer. This seems to indicate God is a tempermental sort, fortunately willing to be talked down. As in, don't forget your promises and don't go looking like a crazy man. Such reasoning prevailed upon God.

Your reference to God lacking free will is based upon a logical analysis of what omnibenevolence requires, and inserts more modern concerns about perfection and freedom. it's not based upon a reading of the text about this particular God (Yahweh).

While I do know the Jewish view is that angels lack free will, my understanding is that human free will comes from the fact that humans were created in God's image (part of the Creation story). That is, freedom is part of a divine nature.

I don't know your analysis of God having free will holds, but it's certainly not an issue directly addressed in the text.

What I'm pointing out here also harkens back to what I said earlier. This is a text about the ancient Hebrews and their covenant with God and their eventual receiving of the promised land. Any event that interferes with that ends the book or at least greatly changes it's theme.

If Abraham kills Isaac, there will be no Jacob (aka "Israel"). The next passage would then be: " And so now God fucked up, having talked Abraham into killing what was supposed to be the forefather of the Jewish people. Ho hum, let's now talk about Ishmael, Abraham’s other bastard child Sarah cast off into the wilderness."

Since it's just a book of fiction, it's perfectly fine to conclude some parts are inconsistent, undeveloped, confusing, non-sense, or whatever. It's not like the world's most well written story.

For example, know why Moses never entered the promised land? The Jews questioned whether it was safe because their scouts saw Nephilim there and it pissed God off that they would question the soundness of his directive to enter.

The Nephilim are giants, half angel, half mortal. They were the reason for Noah's flood (the unholy offspring of gods fucking women) to kill them all off. As in wtf?

The statement "stealing is illegal" is true, verifiable by looking the law up to see see what it says.

But the writing of law is our societal idiosyncracy. Some cultures just have their elders speak their laws, and some may just know them from watching the behavior of others. Verification is achieved by just watching what people do.

In fact, societal laws are known by the vast number without ever having read a legal book. Even those who believe morality arises from its appearance in the Bible must admit they know morality despite never having read the Bible.

Substitute "law" for "morality" in all cases. It's no different in terms of how it's verifiable.

As @frank noted some time ago. The morality/legality distinction is not something universal. That's just our peculiar state/religion distinction we've created. The Torah, for example, provides the direction for everything. It all comes from God in that tradition.

How this links to the OP is the question. We can have morality, law, social norms, etiquette, manners and all such things without any belief in a higher power. Wolves and chickens have their complex social roles too.

The foundation of these norms is the metapysical question. Do we have them just to facilitate survival and therefore ingrained in our DNA? Or do they come from a higher source of wisdom directing us toward higher purpose? If you choose the latter, you have no way of asserting that than faith. The consequence of denying the higher power is to be a complex wolf or chicken though. That worldview is lesser i'd submit.

But having so expressed, I yet maintain that (non-Orwellian) "democracy" is, and can only be, at direct odds with tyranny and tyrannical governance. — javra

If you define democracy as non-ttyranical, then it must you're saying something about a term, not a political system.

Suppose you have a non-tyranical monarchy, would it be a democracy?

Not interpreting these stories ethically but instead interpreting them in manners that, for one example, reinforces authoritarian interests by claiming these authoritarian interpretations to in fact be the so called literal word of God then, in turn, reinforces, in this one example, tyrannical societal structures. Which stand in direct conflict with democratic ideals - that can also come about via certain interpretations of biblical stories. God being Love as one such motif that comes to mind - cliched though it may sound to many. — javra

Tyranny can exist under any political system, including democracy. Tocqueville discusses the tyranny of the majority. Plato's philosopher king supposedly had the wisdom to rule and was to be selected by qualification, not democratic vote, which more emulates how religious leaders are chosen. I'm not in favor of theocracy, and I'm fully supportive of the state's power being supreme, but our recent elections hardly yielded a Solomon.

prima facie, trussing up your son, placing him on a pile of wood and holding a knife to his throat is abuse. It takes a good lawyer to explain this away. Even our Hanover is not up to the task. But the various churches have been quite adept at hiring good lawyers in cases of child abuse. — Banno

Read this: https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/vayera/the-binding-of-isaac/

After reading it, summarily reject all it says and tell me how horrified you are at the binding of Isaac. That's the process we've followed going on a couple of years here.

The Torah was accepted as the holy source of righteousness well after there were already accepted rules of righteousness. That means no interpretation would change those already accepted norms. How that was done was through rabbinic interpretations and reliance upon Talmudic law, a law of equal priority to the Torah, supposedly handed down at the same time as the written word, high atop Mt. Sinai.

This is just to say if you want to know the law in Georgia regarding X, you can't just read the statutes, but you need to read the case law and Constitution as well, all together.

To those who think child murder is advocated by the Bible, point me in the direction of that church so I can see it. Fortunately all churches I know of have misinterpreted their own sacred texts in a way that saves children. Thank goodness for their ineptitude.,

Again, I get it, it’s a very heretical interpretation of events. Given by someone who does NOT know the bible like the back of his hand. The heretic that I am, though, I will fall back on the bible / torah having been written by imperfect men via their own less than perfectly objective and, hence, biased interpretations of events, such that that part about El intervening in Abraham’s killing of Issac could well be an untrue written account of the events which actually transpired. — javra

The Bible was written by men over an extended period of time and it was not originally written as a book of values and norms. How the Bible became holy is a whole different analysis. This is also why literalist interpretations without reference to other commentaries result in interpretations never accepted by any tradition.

Norms and values are learned and known from living in a society. It's common that very religious people have never read much of the Bible. It's also the case that most very law abiding people have never read legal texts. The written word is often reserved for experts who are called upon when questions about the rules arise (priests, rabbis, lawyers, etc.).

In other words, values and norms precede text and the text eventually relied upon for thhe norms might be ad hoc, meaning the text has been made holy, so now we interpret it to say what we knew to be right and wrong already. This is not disingenuous interpretation. It's just a manner to give authority to moral claims. The meaning of the bible will always be its use, so even if it says "murder your mama," but it's used to protect all mothers from harm, it means how it's used, a dictate about protection of mothers.

Problematic to this analysis is the 19th century Christian fundamentalist position that held that the meaning of the Bible is avaliable to anyone who can read. It's the belief in "perspicuity " that God made the text plain and understandable by all, in contrast to Catholic and certain other Protestant traditions.

We battle with this strawman here constantly, where biblical objectors assume this peculiar brand of Christianity is the prevailing (and really only) view and then they offer their two cents on the meaning of every biblical passage. It can't be stated often enough that if perspicuity is rejected (which I do), then a 4 corners literalist interpretation is irrelevant

Have faith and see what you're told to see. — praxis

The old trope that faith leads to murder. I'm pretty sure secular nations have gone to war as well. Ukraine looms larger than Myanmar.

Noah also trusts in God. — BitconnectCarlos

Noah builds the ark on trust alone, but you'd have thought others would have thought something was up when the polar bears and penguins and koala bears all converged in the middle east. They'd have thought maybe Noah was on to something. Literalism demands such questions, right?

the Book of Hebrews the writer says Abraham thought God would resurrect Isaac. The command was still to murder — Gregory

NT. Different tradition. The story has many interpretations among Christians even, but certainly compared to Jews.

And to add, just to respond to the critical interpretations of the Isaac story, reference to Jewish law, not because it's the final word, but because it's from the folks who rely most heavily upon the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible):

"Pikuach nefesh (Hebrew: פיקוח נפש), which means "saving a soul" or "saving a life," is the principle in Halakha (Jewish law) that the preservation of human life overrides virtually any other religious rule of Judaism."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh

There are those amongst us who see faith, understood as submission, as a virtue. I am questioning that. I suspect you might agree, broadly speaking. — Banno

Yes, I do agree, and I see others are posting about the varying uses of the term "faith." And that's likely the source of much of the debate. I suppose this thread might have taken a more focused course if objections were phrased as "the sort of faith i disagree with is..." or "biblical passages interpreted as promoting obedience as a virtue are concerning because...," but that would have been less fun probably.

So the stories are indeed preposterous, as you say. The lesson one is supposed to take away is, as ↪praxis says, thoughtless obedience. This is not admirable. — Banno

It's been interpreted to mean that human sacrifice is forbidden. But you're the one looking at the art. See what you will. Speaking of art, I was at the Chicago Museum of Contemporary Art recently. What do you make of this?

Stop with the literalism, becasue the literal story is of an horrendous act. One needs sophistry to move beyond that. — Banno

The literal story is of a 37 year old man previously birthed from a 90 year old mother and of a father who bargained directly with God over the survival of Sodom and Gomorrah. And in the end, this grown man survived, having two children of his own, the youngest having birthed the entirety of the Jewish people.

But let's order this story for you: God promises Abraham and Sara a child and explicitly promises him this child's descendants will inherit land (Canaan) and will be a great nation. All this happens, including a child being born miraculously.

Would it not be foretold by these facts that Isaac could not have died, considering God made an explicit covenant with Abraham that Isaac was the future progenitor of Israel?

The story is literally preposterous, yet you want to imagine you were standing on the mountain side that day in shock among this crazy cast of characters in this absurdist reality with jaw on the floor watching a horrendous act?

Did the fox ever get fed or did he die of hunger for failure of Aesop to feed him? That's what we ought focus on.

No such possible account would be literalism. Quite obviously. But if any such account would be true, neither would the myths which developed from these accounts and which have taken on a life of their own be completely concocted out of thin air. Which isn't to say the same must apply to all myths out there. Anyway. Musings. — javra

Makes sense the tales would come from real events. The best horror movies exploit our deepest fears. The Nile floods enough that it brings fear that one day it will consume the city. Something like that.

i was recently told by an 80 year old that it gets better every year. :grimace: — frank

Probably true, but I heard it flatlines at 99.

I'd also point out that the faith referenced in the Hebrew Bible is not the modern faith being addressed here. The question then was of what faith did the Hebrews have in the power of God, as in to what degree could he be trusted for protection and safety. It was not as to whether he existed or whether he could perform miracles. They saw seas split and manna fall from heaven. They didn't need faith to know miracles happened. They had empirical evidence.

Isaac was the offspring of a 90 year old Sara who God told Abraham he'd provide to her. This is why I've never been impressed by Kierkegaard's claim Issac's binding was a great act of faith. Miracles were abundant back then and a God that could make good on impregnating a post-menopausal Sara (and, yes, the text mentions that) probably should be trusted with whatever request he might make.

I'd also point out that by some estimates, Isaac was in his mid-20s and Jewish sources put him at 37 at the time of the binding. https://versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/how-old-was-isaac-when-he-went-to-be-sacrificed

Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born, meaning the 37 year old son must have been compliant when his 137 year old pops tied him up. My money would have been on the 37 year old in that slug fest. This speaks to a level of consent, particularly considering the text doesn't describe a struggle.

Which is all to say, stop with the literalism. These stories were not meant for such analysis. And stop with the sympathy for the characters. They aren't real. It's like feeling sorry for the fox who couldn't get the grapes. The fox wasn't real. He talked for God sake. Isaac wasn't real. Nuclear powered Viagra couldn't have made that happen, and I'll save the description of what Sara's physical response might have looked like.

The Binding of Isaac and the Trials of Job speak of acts of cruelty, where unjustified suffering is inflicted in the name of faith. Moreover these are held up as admirable, to be emulated. — Banno

Biblical interpretation is a field unto itself, and your interpretation based upon what you believe it means from a casual reading isn't really helpful without citation to sources. What you've done is just chosen the least generous read for whatever reason.

For the many diverging views on the story: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac#:~:text=According%20to%20Irving%20Greenberg%20the,sacrifices%20were%20the%20norm%20worldwide.

Quite so. And it seems we agree that the belief is not of much import, it's the acts, what one does, that is to be counted and evaluated. — Banno

It's the act that counts when evaluating the objective value of your citizenship, but you spend most of your time with yourself, so it makes sense to evaluate your beliefs upon what subjective fulfillment it provides.

There are no circumstances where their faith must be "rationally" rejected.

It's this incapacity to reconsider that marks an act of faith. — Banno

We're in complete agreement that the choice not to treat the cancer is the wrong one.

We're also most likely in agreement that Mengele's brand of science is the wrong one. Both faith and science have things not to be proud of.

This is to say we reach agreement, faith or no faith, in the vast number of instances. I care about the consequences of my faith, and if I learn that death results from my decisions, I'd not do it again. I've not said I'd just pray for the best and damn the torpedoes.

Nor have you said the exploration of truth, damn the torpedoes, is something you're committed to. The difference would be easy if it were stark, but our day to decisions are likely very similar.

The substantial difference arises in attitude and worldview. And it's a choice. If you find that commitment to a scientific worldview offers you greater fulfilment than otherwise, have at it. What I dispute is that it's not a matter of choice. That you believe as you do because it's a matter of inherent constitution is not something I agree with.

suggesting that stories give things meaning. For example, if you ask a theologian why God created the Moon, they might say its purpose is to control Earth’s tides—assuming they are aware of the science. The scientific explanation itself has a narrative structure, offering meaning and coherence, regardless of any theological interpretation layered onto it. — praxis

I agree, but not as to the purpose of the moon. I do think a scientist would tell you a bird flies south in the winter in order to eat, breed, etc. That is, a purposeful teleological explanation is required to make sense of that. Just telling me how the bird reacts to cold and the chemical processes within the bird causing its wings to flap would be insufficient as an explanation.

Teleological explanations become necessary with biological organisms.

We explain this apparent purposeful behavior with evolution, suggesting that the urges toward particular purposes being caused by the death to those that rejected it.

But I suppose if you make evolution uncontradictory in the sense that all that exists is by definition most suitable for survival, then you'd have a complete explanation, with the ironic result being that disbelief in natural causes is more advantageous than strict adherence to scientific fact.

Funny result.

highly recommend Nahum Sarna's work on Genesis if you're interested in exploring a little further. It left me convinced that many of these Genesis stories are Mesopotamian in origin brought down to Israel and repurposed. — BitconnectCarlos

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out.

The historical analysis, the authorship, the evolution is all super interesting, as is how it became to be looked upon as a for source dictating norms.

It's devotional use is an entirely different matter.

And Abraham is originally from Ur in Mesopotamia according to the Bible. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, lech lecha, another parable.

Like I said, it could be entirely fiction, which doesn't make it lack truth. It's like saying Crime and Punishment is nonsense because none of that stuff happened.

To be clear, “a cosmic coincidence awaiting a return to dust” also sounds rather meaningless to me. — praxis

What it means is that my being here under a purely causative explanation will have occurred without purpose, but just the result of various reactions over time (a cosmic coincidence) that will eventually result in my death and return to my constituive parts (decayed orderly cellular composition back to dust).