K. A Zetnik from the Holocaust and a summary of the nature of God

1. Yes. I already said, interesting support for your words.
2. I accept the evidence for the existence of a designer, but even if it is true and there is:
A. He is certainly not the biblical God unless you are willing to accept that he is cruel and infantile. And I am willing to open any discussion as long as they prove me otherwise. And this is before I touched on the references to hell and the slingshot towards him, apparently a coward who includes sadistic and psychopathic descriptions. All of this concerns a reflection of human fragility.
B. There is no need for a separate designer, nature itself is like that. I accept the possibility of panpsychism as an explanation for this. And why is he the way he is? He is his own cause - that's how it is. Or as Adi Shankara summed up all the Upanishads in one sentence: "Tat Tvam Asi".

It seems to me that we have already discussed panpsychism here and I see no point in going back to it again.
Regarding his sadism, I do not accept it. No biblical description makes any difference in this matter, because everything can be understood in other ways (including Job. If only because, according to certain sages, he did not exist and was not created). The descriptions of the sages are drawn from their own world, and I do not feel obligated to their perceptions (as opposed to their halakhic rulings). By the way, no one will prove you otherwise, as far as I am concerned, it is enough to prove the possibility that you are wrong. As mentioned, one should settle the matter with difficulty and not make it difficult with difficulty. Therefore, I do not see much point in this discussion.

You have to settle in a hurry and not make things difficult in a hurry – You first have to settle for me. After you settle for me, tell me you can't make things difficult in a hurry. I want to see if someone close to him commits a Torah murder, which for me is cruelty that is not perceived at all like "burn in fire" and he will continue to support it. And don't tell me it didn't happen, because the scripture itself indicates that it happened. In my opinion, your support for the Torah and its God, who is depicted there in a psychological analysis as no less than an infantile-fascist tyrant, is a crime against humanity and I'm not kidding at all. I perceive you as a smart person and you present yourself as a liberal (the complete opposite of the Torah), but I'm very puzzled by how all of this is perceived by you at all. As if you too are being swept along in the imagined and very bewildering current of everyone else. But I can't judge, because I was there too.

A. Dear, I have already warned you once that decisiveness is no substitute for arguments. Even if you repeat fascist, fanatic, cruel, etc. a hundred thousand times, you may feel a blessed catharsis, which is also important, but you have not left the generality of slogans.
Killing Sabbath desecrators is not cruelty at all. We are talking about people who knew that this was forbidden and required death, were allowed to do it by two witnesses, and accepted the warning and the punishment. If so, we are talking about people who commit it intentionally even though they know that it is wrong and that it requires death (otherwise they are in their own minds and are exempt). What is cruel about this? Beyond that, I suppose you assume that Sabbath desecration is not a problem, and you would not say the same about a murderer or a thief. But if you accept the Torah's assumption that Sabbath desecration is a serious offense like murder and even more so than theft, then from its perspective it is like saying that punishing a murderer or a thief with life imprisonment is cruel.
As for me, it should be made difficult, I've already explained that. There's no point in repeating things.

Where does the Torah say about the warning of two witnesses, or is this a refinement of the sages? Even after witnesses and a warning, it is clearly cruel and violates human dignity and freedom. Desecration of the Sabbath is nothing to me. There are double payments for theft. And I will tell you a story for a night, Joshua completely confiscates the cities he conquers. About Jericho it is said: “And they devoted all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword… and they burned the city with fire, and all that was in it, only the silver and the gold and the vessels of bronze and iron they gave to the treasury of the house of the Lord’ (Joshua 6:21, 24). Achan was above the destruction, and the wrath of the Lord came upon all Israel (Ibid. 7:1). To Joshua's prayer-complaint following the failure in the Lord's presence, God answers: "Israel has sinned and has also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them, and has also taken of the devoted thing, and has stolen, and has also defiled, and has put it in their weapons: and the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, they turned their backs before their enemies, because they were devoted. I will no longer be with you unless you destroy the devoted thing from among you: and you shall be brought near in the morning according to your tribes." And he who is caught in the devoted thing shall be burned with fire, he and all that he has, because he has transgressed the covenant of the Lord, and because he has committed abomination in Israel" (ibid. 11). From this it is implied: 1. That the sin of an individual is considered the sin of the whole nation, and the whole nation is liable to suffer because of it. 2. The obvious conclusion is not only the duty to inform on those who deviate from the commandments of faith, but also active intervention in the lives of others, since his sin is liable to bring a holocaust upon the whole nation. The sinner Achan is caught in a trap, and he confesses his sin, but his confession does not save him or his household. God demands destruction, and this must be fulfilled: “And Joshua took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the robe, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his ox, and his donkey, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had, and all Israel with him, and brought them up to the valley of Achor… and all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, and stoned them… and the Lord turned from the fierceness of his anger (Ibid. 24:26). What a blessing.

When there is no listening, there is no point in discussing. We have exhausted ourselves.

Okay, and how do you explain what led to his sons and daughters being killed due to his sin, contrary to what is stated in the Torah that sons will not suffer for the sins of their fathers [as if Sada had, what are we barbarians?]

Rashi there:
(24) And his sons and all Israel – to see his disgrace and be deterred from doing like him: and his ox and his donkey – to destroy them, as it is said, and it shall be that whoever is captured shall be burned with fire, and all that he has:

Yes, every time you can't, you write "We've had enough" and it's like I'm the one not listening. I'm not one of those people who would buy that, you know. Wow, what a Rashi that really put my mind at ease. What would I do without this Rashi?

Another thing I didn't write was "fanatic", but rather cruel and fascist, and there are no slogans here, because I stand completely behind my words and easily prove it from the scriptures.

A. I am forced to duplicate here what I just wrote in a parallel thread about your bitterness that disrupts your judgment. Too bad. Because of your anger, your sentences don't even connect to the discussion and each other. Blowing off steam is a very positive thing, but doing so at the expense of others who are trying to discuss things is inappropriate in my opinion.

So I too am forced to double what I wrote. Because I don't know what you want from me, really. You haven't even seen my facial expressions, so how do you know if I'm bitter or angry? What are you becoming a prophet? I'm neither bitter nor angry, I'm peaceful and pondering life. Disruption of judgment, where? Sentences that don't connect to the discussion and each other, where? You're just a chatterbox of words sometimes and don't prove your words, as I've experienced with you for a long time. You're not even willing to start a debate with me from the Bible because you're afraid of me. And if there were an objective judge here to decide who wins according to the Maharal, I would take you for a walk.

Eliezer, as you saw, he doesn't have an answer to the question you wrote. But I do. The Torah contradicts itself left and right, and that's nothing new. And just as you saw in Rashi that he has no answer (and for some reason Miche brought him here), he also shocks us, as does the words of the Torah itself.

“But to do this at the expense of others who are trying to discuss things is inappropriate in my opinion” – I didn't do it at their expense and as you'll see from what I wrote there, it was specifically about what you said. And excuse me, since when do I need someone's approval for expressing an opinion?

Now I really won't repeat what I wrote there. Take it from there.
Here's a reading comprehension tip: Rashi here answers Eleazar's problem well. They simply didn't kill his sons. The problem is basically Litha.

My intention was to say that you are blowing off steam at the expense of others who are expecting a discussion and not blowing off steam. When you write arguments, there is certainly no need for any approval. I did not delete your Hector expenses either, so this is not about approvals. In short, I asked you to take a breath and think for a moment before you write and waste our time. As stated, I accept any argument of any kind and whatever its conclusion, but let it be an argument.

Right. I didn't pay close attention to Rashi's words. I read it in passing. But that's his interpretation, according to the Torah itself, his family members also went there. And it's actually Rashi's words to take them and see that, it's unparalleled cruelty.

Apparently, with the viewings, I'm not only wasting anyone's time, but also raising the site's ratings. And my arguments are bombs, not arguments.

In the margins of the discussion, I will mention here the heated debate between the Rambam and R. Aharon of Lunil (in the book Igrot Rambam).
The Rambam ruled that in the remote city, every soul, man, child, and woman is prepared by the sword.
The Rambam was very surprised at this: “My women, imagine, if we were the people of the remote city, we would not be slaves of this, if we were not slaves of this, we would be killed, if we were to sin and commit adultery, and if we were to prepare all the children. And God forbid, do not be wicked, and where do we find a small one who is obligated, this one is obligated.”
Rambam Aaron answered him, “And since you have greatly exaggerated the words of our Rabbi, the Rabbi, who said, ‘He prepares the child by the sword,’ and your thoughts are astonished and your thoughts are terrified, and the matter is wonderful in your eyes, in your saying, ‘God forbid that God should be wicked, and where do we find a small debtor who is a debtor?’ Why are you astonished and amazed? Open your eyes and see the congregation of Korah, who went down with their wives and their children who were entrusted with a life of sacrifice. And look at the men of Jabesh-gilead, who, because of the men who sinned and did not come to the Lord, the camp, the children and the women were slain.”
The Lord answered him, “This is certainly a good wonder. The act of Korah and the act of the men of Jabesh-gilead were written for generations, and they were a temporary ordinance, and they were like a milch tree for generations. And how many times did they break them? It was a temporary ordinance. And especially since Korach's rebellion brought about a complete collapse of the covenant, it is in the hands of God that I am. And indeed, the Sages said that for the sin of vows, a man's sons and daughters die when they are young, and why did they say that a man's sons and daughters die when they are young? And it is also the law of Nami Gabi, the act of the Danites of Yasef Gilead, and the act of the Gibeonites, which was a temporary decree. Indeed, in the Law, one prepares and punishes that are not from the Torah, and not to transgress the words of the Torah, but to make a reservation for the Torah.

In any case, according to everyone, we found several places where the Almighty decided (or the people while they were still worshipers of God) that even those who are attached to sinners outside the framework of the laws of nature or the granting of free choice would die. And according to Maimonides, this is also the law for generations in the remote city. In the case of Achan, there are indeed some hands that prove in the literal sense of the verses that the sons of Achan did not die (and that is probably why R”A of Lunil did not mention it), as R”G wrote there.

Joshua, so what *do* you say?

In my opinion, the assumption that God is interested in suffering is incorrect, although any specific question can be weeded out.

Therefore, I advise you. Take off your religious hat (because as you close the gates of your mind are getting smaller and smaller) and go and study the Bible itself attentively without traditional, classical interpretations and judge for yourself as objectively as possible. You will discover a lot, I am sure. Not that there is a lack of it in the literature of the sages, of course, but start at the source.

It is very reasonable to assume that I know the Bible itself and its interpretations and studies a little more than you do. I do not derive my opinions about God from the Bible (in any direction).

Sure, we sat as friends for years and then you understood what you were writing here. Well, here's another common religious vainglorious. So tell me, Mr. 'It's very reasonable to assume', where did your assumption come from that he's not interested in suffering, not the Bible? After all, the Bible is what we're discussing here.

I think so I am.

Wow, it's interesting that A. used to write arguments and not trolls.