Toxic relationship?

Well, what can I say, you're right.

But,

It's true that I don't have the tools, because I don't know what the damage is. But the spiritual damage is also my hypothesis, God claims that there is one, and I believe him, I haven't seen it.

The question is whether I manage to assume and evaluate that there is any justification for such terrible behavior.

I'll give an example:
When I see someone beating and raping a little girl in an abandoned warehouse, and he's purring with lust.
Can I speculate and say that there is probably no justification for such an action.

I guess that nothing right now will convince me why this is a normal and good situation. Just guessing at a high level.

The question is whether I find a potentially possible justification for God's violent and brutal behavior.
Is it possible to accept the possibility that such behavior is incredibly moral.

If the rapist had presented you with a reasonable argument that justifies his behavior, there would certainly be room for consideration. I can understand that when you are faced with the situation, it will be difficult for you to accept it, but it would be a mistake to follow emotion. Even in such a case, one must examine his claims in their substance and only then formulate a position.
In our case, God also presents such a justification. Now you must decide whether you accept it or not, and try to neutralize the anger in the face of the harsh descriptions you read in the Torah. I have faith in Him. This is where everything begins and ends, and on this everything rests.

Okay, thank you very much.
I'm trying to build trust.

I have to point out that this is not an emotional outburst,

This is really a feasibility test of any justification for this behavior.

I would love to understand something else that is actually related to the matter.

I saw that you were asked in the past in Şashot about the commandment to kill Amalek, and there you answered that there is the moderate interpretation of the Rambam, which calls them first for peace.

The questioner made it difficult for you that Rashi's method is to kill the Amalek race in any situation.

And you answered him: Why choose such a harsh interpretation.

And now for the question.

If we assume that the spiritual damage is immense and terrible and justifies a terrible punishment.

So why choose the Rambam's interpretation? It is true that it is more moral, but who knows what damage a living Amalek causes?!

I assume that the Rambam himself interpreted it this way because the moral issue was difficult for him.

And this is also the reason you chose to go with his interpretation.

So the question is why interpret in such an interpretation that is seemingly less suitable for the interpretation of the verses in the Prophet.

After all, the spiritual damage can be no less terrible, and as we have seen, it justifies severe moral costs to prevent it.

Obviously, from the possible options, you choose the one that is less directly in conflict with morality. It is true that a commandment may not be in accordance with morality, but the apocrypha of disagreement does not understand it.

For those who insist on believing in a moral God, there is another way to deal with the dilemma: to conclude that although He fulfilled the curses in the Bible, He did not write them.

Although anyone who can tie their own shoes can also understand that the entire Bible was written by humans, some of whom probably did so under the delusion that God was speaking to them, the dilemma you present does help to free oneself from the absurd religious story.

Wow, it's good that it's getting closer to not having to lace up shoes. I really feel like my lacing ability is declining a bit. (Also my control over the clasps)

I don't know if you tie your shoes alone on weekdays. Either way, I'm convinced that the moment you dare to think for yourself and independently, you too will come to the conclusion that the 24 books that make up the Bible are a human creation, partly miraculous and partly morbid.

We'll wait until I muster up the courage. In the meantime, I'm really afraid to think and hold unacceptable religious positions, and certainly not to say what I think out loud. Maybe these are the closing ones?…

Holding unpopular or controversial positions does not mean that you think alone. Even a yeshiva student who reads Derrida in the Hebron yeshiva thinks of himself as a subversive intellectual, even though in reality he is swimming in uncharted waters. Even a child who is rude to his parents believes that rudeness has a purely rational source and does not understand that it is a simple psychological reaction of youthful rebellion.
To take a specific example: your inability to admit that you do not believe that there was a Mount Sinai situation, for example, is a clear example of your lack of courage to think independently.

Right. He's what I said. Thanks for putting me on my toes. Do you know any good geriatricians?

I didn't understand your answer. Rabbi,

Why choose the interpretation that is less in direct conflict with morality, even when it is less suitable for interpreting the verses?

After all, perhaps when you choose a moderate interpretation, you inflict a harmful and terrible spiritual injury by not killing an Amalekite. On the other hand, the truth is that Karshi.

Although you saved yourself the risk of killing an innocent person when you went to the Rambam,
but perhaps Karshi should kill all Amalekite for spiritual reasons and you leave the world with this terrible danger?

For two reasons:
1. Discussion of what is truth. In most cases there is an overlap between morality and halakha. The world was created so that spiritual goals are also achieved by not killing, not stealing, charity, honoring parents, etc. The exceptions are evidence that moral goals are different from spiritual ones, but one Creator gave them.
2. Discussion of the decision even if I doubt it. Even if we don't know what the truth is, the moral goal still stands and the moral compass exists. To get out of it, you need evidence. The heavier the price, the stronger evidence is needed to get out of it. To kill a baby, I need to be absolutely sure that this is what the Torah wants.

By the way, these two reasons are what cause people to get confused and think that there is an identity between halakha and morality. And it is not.

Elchanan,
It seems to me that this question can be asked about reality itself, without any connection to the Torah. After all, on the one hand, the world is full of goodness, with billions of people who experience many pleasant and enjoyable experiences during their lives, and on the other hand, in that same world there is also a lot of evil and suffering. How can one understand this enormous contradiction?

This question has preoccupied many throughout history. Some have concluded from it that the world is run by two forces that are struggling with each other, some have concluded that it is run by a blind, mindless force (known as 'nature'), some have concluded that the manager is evil, and some have concluded that he is good but that his behavior is incomprehensible to us.

The Torah undoubtedly takes the latter approach, so if you accept it regarding reality, you can accept it regarding the Torah itself, which in total adds some important details to clarify that reality.
If you do not accept the latter approach, then you really cannot accept the Torah as truth even before the specific question about the curses.

For simple rationality,
I don't know exactly what parts of the Bible you call "sick creation," but I assume that it is a small minority of the text. If things are honest, then it is more likely to assume that there is some logic behind the "sick" things, since it is mixed with other wonderful things, and it is more obvious that there is some logic here than to diagnose the author as schizophrenic.

Even if we assume that this is a completely separate author and only the editor was sick and mixed contradictory texts together, many wise men over the years did accept the things as fitting with the rest of the text, so it turns out that they had some rationale for thinking so, and it is worth trying to understand what it is. The assumption that everyone was so stupid and only you and a few other academics in recent generations are wise and rational, has quite a bit of arrogance in it.