Regarding Halacha and Morals

2. How does this make sense? After all, morality is the will of God, and is it an injustice that we commit against our fellow man through no fault of our own just because God did not reveal it?

I mean, apparently not revealing a moral prohibition is more “severe” full of revealing a mitzvah like putting on tefillin. Because there are many beings here who are being harmed. Without injustice on the part of the harmers.

God revealed to you that you should stone those who violate the Sabbath. For some reason, it was difficult for Him to create those who were a little more refined in nature so as not to end up with stoning. What is interesting is that to this day His will remains to stone.

It is forbidden to harm people. This has always been known. Perceptions have changed regarding the nature of harm and the identity of those harmed. Indeed, humanity is improving. There is also evolution in the field of values.
If this is the only problem you see in the leadership of God (you understand everything else), congratulations.
In any case, these questions do not touch in any way what I said. Morality is from God because without it there is no morality (and if it is atheistic then there is also a shared conscience). Beyond that, God wrote in the Torah that He expects us to act morally. Therefore, this is not my innovation. From now on, all questions are good questions, but not related to me.

There is morality without God. There are moral atheists and immoral religious ones. God is not needed to sustain life, because without morality – there is harm or there is no life. Does the fact that there is a God obligate me to anything? Beyond all this, God wrote that He expects us to act morally in certain verses – but He Himself is immoral.

1) I may have been wrong in my diagnosis, apparently in my opinion morality is an act that a person feels is the right act (according to this, even from a moral point of view).
However, maybe this is really a bad example, because really the main thing is that it is a mistake..
But there are countless other examples. For example, ‘male intercourse’, if according to the sophisticated morality of today (and perhaps also in ancient times) it is not immoral (morally reasonable) that the Torah came and forbade, it said something, 2 options in this matter:
(*) Either the Torah and morality are 1, and the Torah says that it is immoral.
(*) Or the Torah and morality are 2 different categories, but the Torah's halakha prevails over morality.

2) On the contrary, Rabbi.. If we are unable to grasp metaphysical morality (rather, it was built over the years and gradually) on its own, how can we compare it with the halacha? (Who guarantees us that the morality we have is not just a drop from the ocean of complete morality? And if so, how can we rule using that drop of morality against the halacha that is certainly divine?)
After all, Aristotelian physics did not include so much of the knowledge known to us today.. not the theory of quantum mechanics.. etc. (Who guarantees us that the ’level of morality’ that we have today [in relation to the totality of morality] exceeds the ‘scientific level’ [in relation to the totality of science] that Aristotle had in his time?). It seems to me that the parable and the parable are clear.

And another important point in my opinion, Rabbi Michi.. The Rabbi says that giving power to a moral category in itself without any connection to God is ez.
Why? The whole essence of ez is that I idolize something and say that it is spiritual and sublime, even though it is a poor toe..
Whereas in morality I claim that it has no divine validity but is purely contingent. (And I choose purely for my own sake to behave in the aforementioned moral manner).
I do not see any connection here with ez, on the contrary it shows that man is in the sense of ‘in our image and likeness’ that he has the ability to create from himself things that are good in his eyes, even though they are not divine commandments.

No, dear Shalom Achoya, I prefer not to interfere in the discussion between you and the Rabbi. But there is a point that I would like to comment on.
When the Lord says to stone someone who publicly desecrates Shabbat, you rightly say that it seems immoral.
But it seems to me that a fine distinction should be made here.
Morality in itself is important to God. (This is an intrinsic value, and this will be revealed to us little by little).
But the law is a higher level in the world of metaphysics. So it seems that the Lord does expect us to act morally (as appears in several verses) but not at the expense of the Torah law, because if morality is y and the law is x, the perfect value of y (for example 3) is lower than that of x (for example 5). If so, may God have mercy on us, to stone someone who publicly desecrates Shabbat. This is not an easy step, but in the balance, the moral disadvantage will outweigh the moral disadvantage. (I hope I explained it in a way that is understandable)

And it should be clarified that to the best of my recollection, Maimonides writes in the book of the Bewildered that the punishments of the Torah are intended for the correction of the rule. (So that the people may fear and be afraid)
That is, by means of a single immoral act (demerit 3), a repeated immoral act (demerit 5) will be reduced. And according to Maimonides, this is the purpose of the punishments of the Torah. (At least incidentally, without going into the fact that stoning in a comprehensive view is an atonement for a serious sin in the world to come, and according to this it is actually moral and how else, but we will not go into that).

Of course, add to this, in a double dose, all the commandments in the Torah that command to ‘save the soul’ in the law, and all the exemptions and ’combinations’ (Apparently) and you will find that the purpose of the Torah is to minimize immoral acts as much as possible. (And the Talmudic maxim is known that a man who killed once every 70 years was called a "fatal bastard!") Even for the purpose of sublime Halacha.

Daniel Koren, Big Lake on “While morality I claim has no divine validity but is purely contingent”, in contrast, eating is not at all a matter of”

By the way, what is immoral about ”stoning”?

Benjamin Gorlin Hello, I appreciate the like, brother 😉
You are asking a very basic question, haha
To answer, if this is in the sense of eradicating evil from within you, there is no problem with it (assuming it will be useful for eradicating), I was speaking according to the method of A. There is a problem with this.. (Even though I also believe that there is a partial problem with this. Any act of violence, whatever it may be, corrupts morals, whether it is a mitzvah or not.
If someone were to hit Levi in the face, it is not our fault, that person after the hit will be a more corrupt person than he was before he hit. Violence erodes your emotional intuition towards the pain and suffering of others. And makes you a less moral person than you were before the violence. [This includes, of course, the Amalekite sacrifice, and all the wars of the Bible], and that is without even going into the [numerous] considerations of the suffering of the person attacked or murdered.
However, there is a greater benefit in this than in burning the evil out of your midst, and therefore, in my opinion, even in the above context, the gain outweighs the loss. This is my brotherly opinion).
Best regards, Daniel 🙂

First of all, I am a point. My discussion is with everyone. Indeed, God, in all perfection, commanded that the last savage man be stoned, and there is no contradiction in this at all. God is such a moral being that He created man with certain natures that would be suitable for stoning. Or He arranged conditions that would be suitable for this - that is, whatever. It is so important to that God, in all perfection, that they keep the Sabbath because of His megalomania, knowing that He created heaven and earth and all their host, to the point of stoning among His creatures. According to Micah's explanation [elsewhere] that we are animals in relation to Him, it works out.

A. Hello, I feel like you are wrong in assuming what you are asking for, my brother. You first ask what objective morality is (? ? ?) and then ask who God should be (? ?..). Then you make it difficult for God from your assumptions..
A little humility wouldn't hurt on the issue of divinity.
If you don't believe in God, then the discussion is futile to begin with.. My previous answer is quite reasoned, it referred to a person who accepts the assumptions of God's obligation, the giving of the Torah, etc.
If not, then there is certainly no point in discussing, because everyone has different assumptions that will lead them A. Hello. I feel like you are wrong in assuming what you are asking for, my brother. You first ask what morality is (? ? ?) and then ask who God should be (? ?..). Then you make it difficult for God from your assumptions..
A little humility wouldn't hurt on the issue of divinity.
If you don't believe in God, then the discussion is futile to begin with.. My previous answer is quite reasoned, referring to a person who accepts the assumptions of God's obligation, the giving of the Torah, etc. If not, then there is certainly no point in discussing the details of the Torah, since everyone has different assumptions, which will lead them to different conclusions. (For tango, you need 2)

Forgive me, my brother, I sent a double message by mistake. (This is the original message, I would be happy if Rabbi Michi would delete my previous response, it just creates a mess)
A. Hello, I feel like you are wrong in assuming what you are asking for, my brother, you first state what objective morality is (? ? ?) and then state who God should be (? ?..). Then you make it difficult for God from your assumptions..
A little humility wouldn't hurt on the issue of divinity.
If you don't believe in God, then the discussion is fruitless to begin with.. My previous answer is quite reasoned, it referred to a person who accepts the assumptions of God's obligation, the giving of the Torah, etc..
If not, there is certainly no point in discussing, because everyone has different assumptions, which will lead them to different conclusions. (For tango, you need 2)

Regarding morality, it is a simple matter that is not worth arguing about for someone who has a clear mind. Regarding the body of the Godhead - I don't know how you personally define it, but Judaism defines it as perfect. It doesn't matter whether I personally believe or not, you have to address the things that are said.

Is there nothing to argue about morality? Things that you believe in today with all force, in another 300 years will require the opposite with all force, things that were required 1000 years ago with all force, 200 years ago they required the complete opposite, and the judgment was repeated. . . Not seeing one as seeing another, and not seeing one as seeing another, the equal side of them? That all of them have no legs in infinity! (Why is this to make metaphysics difficult?)
Regarding the body of the Godhead.. As I don't think you delved into my words in my first message to you, Es.

Regarding the fact that it doesn't matter the matter of faith to the above issue.. It also matters, there is a level of those on the inside. Those on the outside cannot make it difficult for them. (Because he doesn't see/believe like them, the path as a whole).

“Any act of violence, whatever it is, corrupts morals, whether it is a commandment or not” – What do you base your words on?
By the way, after watching many ISIS videos of various kinds, I did not feel any corruption of morals… Maybe there should be a distinction between doing an act and watching it?

Hello to Benjamin Gorlin. Simply put, I rely on my intuition, and also from a conversation with a good friend from the field of psychology.
First, for the answer, there is certainly a big difference. When you hit someone, the cruel homo sapiens in you hits them, and this also affects the image of God in you, of course. (At least temporarily, until you cool down to the other side).
Second, I personally believe that the same principle also applies to watching, only in a more micro way. A person who is not used to seeing a person bleed (because he identifies with their suffering) is more moral in my opinion in this matter than a person for whom seeing a person bleed is like drinking a glass of water. (The latter does not identify with the other person's suffering, and does not fulfill ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ [in the way of the spirit ;]).
D”A – I wanted to point out and forgot that in my opinion verbal violence is also included in this, of course. (And maybe even verbal violence in talkbacks) albeit in micro, but still.

What is there to argue about regarding Didan? Even 10,000 years ago you would have understood that murder is bad. So stoning is not a sin? Regarding the body of the deity – What is there to delve into here? Is it perfect or imperfect?

There is no degree. You can discuss everything from everything.

There is a problem with taking both ends of the rope, on the one hand, placing God in the center of the faith in this world, on the other hand, ignoring faith in the next world. (Or in the data in the equation that are not before our eyes)
Either you accept that there is a next world or not.
The whole essence of the punishment is in this world, and the Masoretic view is that it is an ‘atonement’ for the soul.
You can accept it and you can not.
But don't insert your personal interpretation and pretend that it is objective. (Then you will make it difficult of course)
I stand by my statement that you did not grasp what I wrote to you in my first message to you in the thread. But it doesn't matter, I thought then that your style of thinking was slightly different from what is depicted to me now.
Regarding the divinity - the perfection of God is an ancient philosophical interpretation..
It is intended either for believers (who interpret the scriptures wisely) or for philosophers.
If you are talking about the biblical God, where do we really find that he has a problem punishing souls in this world? (If he is complete, then that is a disadvantage. So in the options either he is incomplete. Or it is not a disadvantage.)

You don't need to be so emotional, my meaning of the concept of 'rank' is for those who hold a certain issue, those who receive discount points can advance, those who don't? Where will they advance? This is my meaning of rank, if you don't accept God's obligation, and the status of Mount Sinai, what is the argument about? You claim that God should be moral in your opinion (i.e. not allow stoning), and I will argue that God's morality is pure logic. (That is, there are many more variables in the equation that are not before our eyes, and with him everything is perfect.
Regarding the issue of stoning [and morality in general], I wrote at length at the beginning of the thread to you, and it's a shame that it was in vain)
And what ants like us can grasp not necessarily ‘ha and nothing else’… This is a pretty simple explanation, both in science and all fields, and in theology..

What does the afterlife have to do with it? The afterlife does not justify evil in this world. And what does it mean that you either accept the afterlife or you don't? How can I accept something that has no clear proof? If you really think that stoning is atonement, your thinking is distorted.

Stoning and burning are pure logic? What other variables are there that I missed? We are really not an ant. Our brain is the most complex thing in the universe. In this brain, you logically understand all the possibilities and in the case of Didan, this is not an issue of the great questions. It is explicitly written for you in the Torah.

Hahaha Just a single point that I couldn't resist (because it's not the desired assumption, compared to the rest of the..).
Our brain is the most complex thing in the universe and yet we have been wrong since the dawn of history, and will continue to be wrong constantly.. (Aristotle with all his brilliant mind wasn't wrong? Newton? There is missing data, not everything can be predicted by an algorithm). We are literally an ant (next to God, right?!? It's important that you remember the ant connection).
Good night and blessed. Best regards Daniel 🙂

I haven't had even a tiny fraction of an 'emotional outburst' since the beginning of the discussion. Just because you imagine it that way doesn't mean it's the truth. There's no 'assumption' involved here, because I've addressed everything you wrote very well. And until now I've been discussing with you, so how come you 'have no interest in discussing this'? And you're the one who reads things I write over and over again and doesn't understand, so how come I 'don't understand anything'? I don't need to accept the Torah from Mount Sinai to read clear Hebrew. I won't look at anything, leave that to you. And if anything, you should look at my words carefully. You're promoting stoning here, my dear, not me. You're promoting cruelty that the mind cannot tolerate, not me. And as for the ant? I've already explained my words and won't repeat them again.

And we say Amen 😉

From this point on, you are either a fool or an evil person.