S
Splinker
Guest
It seems my prior thread disappeared into the internet void. So, to continue, any issues/questions about Judaism? Play nice.
- Status
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Are you allowed to serve glot kosher shrimp at weddings?
My Rabbi friend loved asking that question of couples being married…are you serving GK shrimp?
My Rabbi friend loved asking that question of couples being married…are you serving GK shrimp?
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Philosophically, how does Judaism deal with the Euryphro Dilemma: “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?”
Theologians have wrestled with this for the ages. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
One horn of the dilemma is that: If there are moral standards independent of God’s will, then there is something over which God is not sovereign. God is bound by the laws of morality instead of being their establisher. Nontheists have capitalized on this point, largely as a way of disarming moral arguments for God’s existence: if morality does not depend on God in the first place, such arguments stumble at the starting gate.
The second horn may be that if there is no moral standard other than God’s will, then God’s commands are arbitrary (i.e., based on pure whimsy or caprice). This would mean that morality is ultimately not based on reasons: “if theological voluntarism is true, then God’s commands/intentions must be arbitrary; [but] it cannot be that morality could wholly depend on something arbitrary… [for] when we say that some moral state of affairs obtains, we take it that there is a reason for that moral state of affairs obtaining rather than another.” And as Michael J. Murray and Michael Rea put it, this would also "cas[t] doubt on the notion that morality is genuinely objective.
answers.com/topic/euthyphro-dilemma
The dilemma has never been entirely solved by either party with a full-proof argument.
Have the great rabbis or teachers ever dealt with this philosophical dilemma?
Theologians have wrestled with this for the ages. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
One horn of the dilemma is that: If there are moral standards independent of God’s will, then there is something over which God is not sovereign. God is bound by the laws of morality instead of being their establisher. Nontheists have capitalized on this point, largely as a way of disarming moral arguments for God’s existence: if morality does not depend on God in the first place, such arguments stumble at the starting gate.
The second horn may be that if there is no moral standard other than God’s will, then God’s commands are arbitrary (i.e., based on pure whimsy or caprice). This would mean that morality is ultimately not based on reasons: “if theological voluntarism is true, then God’s commands/intentions must be arbitrary; [but] it cannot be that morality could wholly depend on something arbitrary… [for] when we say that some moral state of affairs obtains, we take it that there is a reason for that moral state of affairs obtaining rather than another.” And as Michael J. Murray and Michael Rea put it, this would also "cas[t] doubt on the notion that morality is genuinely objective.
answers.com/topic/euthyphro-dilemma
The dilemma has never been entirely solved by either party with a full-proof argument.
Have the great rabbis or teachers ever dealt with this philosophical dilemma?
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Sorry Splinker one more or to Hosh or to whoever: in a fascinating passage in Genesis 32:22, Jacob wrestled with an angel and had his name changed to Israel.
My Jewish learning gives this answer: myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Weekly_Torah_Portion/vayishlach_kolel5761.shtml
It also asks: With whom did Jacob wrestle?
What is the significance of Jacob having his name changed to Israel? If you could change your name, what would you change it to and why?
myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Weekly_Torah_Portion/vayishlach_summary.shtml
Some like the middle ages Rabbi Rashi believe Jacob wrestled with Esau’s guardian angel. Some Christian sites interpret Jacob was engaging the Son of God at the time. Some interpret the passage to mean to keep struggling for faith, or that Jacob was struggling finally and legitimately for a blessing from God and points our paths to faith and perseverance.
This passage of Genesis has so many possible interpretations. I think it is the first time “Israel” is used in the Bible. What is the significance of “Israel” which some translate as wrestling with God (El- at the end of Israel) or God struggling for Israel. Others note the use of the power of names in the Tanakh. How do you read this mysterious passage in Genesis?
Thanks Splinky,
Andrew
My Jewish learning gives this answer: myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Weekly_Torah_Portion/vayishlach_kolel5761.shtml
It also asks: With whom did Jacob wrestle?
What is the significance of Jacob having his name changed to Israel? If you could change your name, what would you change it to and why?
myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Weekly_Torah_Portion/vayishlach_summary.shtml
Some like the middle ages Rabbi Rashi believe Jacob wrestled with Esau’s guardian angel. Some Christian sites interpret Jacob was engaging the Son of God at the time. Some interpret the passage to mean to keep struggling for faith, or that Jacob was struggling finally and legitimately for a blessing from God and points our paths to faith and perseverance.
This passage of Genesis has so many possible interpretations. I think it is the first time “Israel” is used in the Bible. What is the significance of “Israel” which some translate as wrestling with God (El- at the end of Israel) or God struggling for Israel. Others note the use of the power of names in the Tanakh. How do you read this mysterious passage in Genesis?
Thanks Splinky,
Andrew
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Oh and sorry, there are lots of attempts at dealing with the Eur. Dilemma [Divine Command Theory, etc] but one argument that is always drawn up is God’s command to Abraham to bind and sacrifice Isaac or God’s commands to kill the inhabitants of certain towns. Was it wrong of God to do this (i.e. based on an independent moral compass) or was it good God ordered the killing of a child and anything God orders is good. You get the picture of the objections that come up. That’s the Eryp. Dilemma.
S
Splinker
Guest
Only if they are made from cod.
S
Splinker
Guest
Like most issues involving God, Jews generaly start off with the assumption that they will run into a little paradox. After all, when you are discussing the attributes of an infinite being and all attributes are endless, you’re bound to bump against a few walls.
I’m not sure I understand the dilemma. In a sense, all of existence is arbitrary from our viewpoint. Does the fact that God created me in a way that requires me drink water to stay alive mean that there is something fundamentaly good about water or God arbitrarily decided to make it good? Does it matter? This is the life we are given. In order to live it in a meaningful way, we believe we have to play by the rules, as best we can. Torah is our rulebook.
But to play by the rules we have to figure out what they are and how to apply them. So the book, the word, is only the beginning. We don’t arrive at how to live a moral life without interacting with God’s word. Without interpeting it.
I’m probably going off the question here, as I’m not relying on any text for this and going from memory and my personal beliefs about Judaism.
All of creation is founded on Torah. The Torah is the best we’re going to get, as finite being, to understand what the infinite God requires of us.
I do beleive I have a book somewhere from A.J. Heschel that may discuss your dilema more directly. I’ll try to dig it up later.
S
Splinker
Guest
There are different interpetations of this passage within Judaism. I personally like the idea that Jacob was wrestling with himself – With his struggle over doing God’s will. Jacob is going to father the tribes of Israel and up until this point he has not exactly behaved like God’s poster child.
Shortly before this happens, Jacob sends his family and all possessions across the river, so that he is alone, fearing that his brother who is coming to meet him intends harm. Essentialy, he is alone with his thoughts and with his God. Kind of like Jesus going out into the desert and struggling with his destiny.
It isn’t just struggling with God, I think. Jacob has to come to terms with the struggle with his brother, and how he behaved. I think that perhaps this story dovetails nicely with your earlier question about the origin of morality. Here Jacob has to struggle with the fact that his past actions may have been part of God’s gameplan but they were at least morally ambigious.
Jacob is not the only one to have his named changed in Genesis. Abraham (and Sarah? can’t recall) also have their named changed after encountering God. On one level, I’m sure there is a “power in names” thing going on. Given our reluctance to write out God’s true name, it seems obvious that that there was a belief that writing a name invoked power.
S
Splinker
Guest
The binding of Isaac is a diffuclt story for me. Couple of things. Isaac was not a young boy, but clearly an adult. At least old enough carry wood up a mountain. So I think Isaac, who is probably the most passive character in the entire Torah, willingly let’s himself be bound. I don’t think it would have been difficult for him, physically, to stop Abraham, about 100 years old at the time, from binding him. So I like to think there is an element of cooperation here.
At the same time, I like to point out that after this incident, Sarah never speaks to Abraham again, as far as we know. Also, Isaac never speaks to Abraham again. In fact, it is God, not Abraham, who passes on the blessing to Isaac. Something the father should normally do.
So why does God command this? Why does he test Abraham this way? My favorit interpertation is that the story is meant to convey God’s abolishment of human sacrifice, which was practiced by some at the time.
Also, I think Abraham tells his servents to wait by the mountain and that “we will return…” So maybe he was expecting God to intervene.
Or perhaps God never told Abraham to do it. Maybe the point of the story is – given that Sarah never speaks to Abraham again, nor does Isaac, that if God tells you to do something like kill your son, and you’re the only one who hears it, you better talk to your wife, rabbi or priest first.
Like I said, a difficult passage.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
Oh. Sorry Splinker. I forgot to mention the well-regarded Rabbi Jonathan Sacks dealt with the Euthyphro Dilemma in his book on ethics and he deals with it the same way as some Christian apologists do, or as you mentioned a “false dilemma”.
jewishbooknews.net/?p=106
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I’d agree with you here!
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
That has always been my personal understanding as well of the binding of Isaac - a story meant to show God does not require or wish child sacrifice as was practiced by the surrounding pagan tribes of the time(to Moloch, Baal, etc).
Here’s an interesting article by one specialist in Judaism and Christianity, Geza Vermes, who has written on Jesus. In this article he deals with some of the understandings of the Isaac story by Christians and Jews alike and makes his case.
standpointmag.co.uk/isaac-the-first-lamb-of-god-features-october-09-geza-vermes?page=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0
- Status