"First, this does not prove that Judaism is false, but at most that its God is not moral. And even that you will not succeed in proving from here logically. This is just a short lesson in logic, free of charge."

With all due respect, your God is a good God, as you admit.
And you claim that I disproved that, nice.
So now you have a different God.

Let me understand: are you basically saying that his god is a lofty moral pinnacle, and the God of Judaism is not a lofty moral pinnacle?? That doesn’t sound good. I thought God was supposed to be the moral ideal.
Are you listening to what you’re saying? Obviously every person would prefer a God who is the moral ideal. The actions God performs should be the most optimal actions possible. I’m not saying God shouldn’t forgive David and accept his repentance, but how does he continue being king after an act like that? It’s obvious to any educated and thoughtful person that a person with such a character cannot be considered “righteous,” and it is not fitting that God should prefer him so much over other people.
And one more thing: I’m sure that if I had been in David’s place I would not have done such a thing. Does that mean my level is higher than David’s? Hint: yes.

To the two trolls up here:
You don’t conduct yourself with fools, and you don’t speak with someone who lacks elementary reading comprehension.
Read it again, try to understand it (it’s not very complicated), and then maybe there will be something to discuss. Good luck.

I’m not the Rabbi,
but I would answer that the purpose of writing the books of the Prophets and Writings in their current form (the canonization of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) — after all, there were lots of prophecies that were not written down; only 24 books were chosen… by the Men of the Great Assembly) is, as has been said, prophecy for future generations.

That is, a moral message for future generations. Not necessarily as a history book, just as the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) itself very often refers one to see the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah/Israel (a book that was lost).

And therefore, I would say that this very approach is the point,
and this is what the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) comes to teach us:
that Jewish morality is different from the way people look at things today.
Not everyone who sins must immediately throw everything away and resign.
Rather, this is the greatness of repentance — when it is done genuinely (that is, confession, abandoning the sin, regret, and resolution for the future) — it truly erases the past.

And in Psalms, by the way, you can see that King David repented.

For he testified about himself, “My sin is ever before me,”
and “My knees falter from fasting,” etc. etc.

Haha, the Rabbi answered at the exact same minute…

In any case, Rabbi, I think you don’t understand. I actually do understand the question well.

Hello Lulu. If you have another explanation of the question, I’d be happy to see it. What you answered is already written in my words above.

I noticed that only after I wrote it.
It may be because the Rabbi didn’t punctuate his words and wrote in extreme brevity.
Sometimes things need to be opened up. Not everyone is grounded in learning. …..

Honorable Rabbi,
To belittle commenters and their arguments by calling us “fools” is not an argument.
To joke about our arguments, like “But don’t worry, he won’t be out of work. He can always join the staff of Yedioth, or perhaps remain your god…” — that is not an argument.

Try to attack my arguments directly without bringing emotion into it.
You said, “By contrast, the god you are recommending is a lofty moral pinnacle, … I am perfectly willing to forgo the services of your god and prefer mine.” You are basically saying here that you do not want a God who is a “moral pinnacle.” Unlike you, I do want a God who is the best there is, and not the god described in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)…

To Lulu:
You are basically saying that this story exists to teach that everyone, no matter what they did, can repent.
I didn’t say that David can’t repent, but there is a matter of principle here: a person in such a position did something so severe, a severe abuse of his position. And he still remained king. A person with a shred of honor would give up the monarchy just from shame alone. It’s a matter of principle: the very fact that David remained king detracts from God’s honor, because He is not acting properly.

Sorce,
When I see arguments, I can try to attack them (or agree with them). So far I haven’t seen any. The questions struck me, and still strike me, as provocative and foolish, and therefore I wrote what I wrote and in the way I wrote it.
As for the moral pinnacle, I repeat and send you back to read my words. Once again, you are suffering from poor reading comprehension. In that at least, I assume King David surpasses you, despite his very low moral level, of course, compared to yours.
As for the level of God with which you ended your message, here I detect a shift in my positions. You have convinced me that you surpass Him morally. So for now the moral hierarchy is: you, David, God. And the logical hierarchy is: God, David, you.
And now, just for a moment of seriousness: do you really expect me to respond seriously to this nonsense? And if you repeat it again and again as if nothing was written in reply, will that make me treat it more seriously? I respond entirely seriously to someone who treats me and himself seriously. That is not the case here.

You’re running away from the discussion…
I’ll phrase it as yes-or-no questions.
1. Do you think God is a lofty moral pinnacle? (yes/no)
2. Do you think God needs to be a lofty moral pinnacle? (yes/no)
3. If I were in David’s situation and would not have sinned as he did, does that mean I am better and more moral than he was? (yes/no)

Please just answer them. If you don’t answer, then from what you’ve written so far I will understand that:
1. No, you do not think God is a lofty moral pinnacle.
2. No, you do not think God needs to be a lofty moral pinnacle.
3. No, you do not think I am better and more moral than David (from your sarcasm..), even though my actions are better than David’s actions.

And again, you use sarcasm and contempt in order to evade the discussion. You keep saying it’s nonsense but you don’t explain yourself. And you only refer me back to your previous comments instead of giving unequivocal answers.
In your last comment there are 4 lines of sarcasm and 6 lines in which you repeat and say that what I’m saying is nonsense and refer me back to your previous comments.

I know it’s hard for you to separate your emotion from your responses because this is something close to your heart, but try to make the effort for the sake of the discussion.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

There’s your reason for the sarcasm. You didn’t understand what I wrote on even one of the points. And here’s another statistical tip for you: even random guessing on yes-no questions should yield 50% correct answers. So how do you explain this glaring lack of reading comprehension?

When there is a discussion, if there is one, I faithfully promise you I will not evade it. In the meantime, the discussion has not yet begun. But if the conversation continues to be as infantile and inattentive as it has been until now, I will simply delete it.

All the best.

I’ll explain why I didn’t understand.
In your first response you wrote: “By contrast, the god you are recommending is a lofty moral pinnacle.”
Am I not supposed to understand from that that this is in contrast to the God of Judaism? Meaning that in contrast to the God of Judaism, the god I recommend is a lofty moral pinnacle?
In your comment before the last, you wrote *sarcastically* that I am more moral than David, so am I not supposed to understand the opposite?

Hello.
It’s hard for me to teach lessons in reading comprehension here. But there are things the reader is supposed to understand are said sarcastically. Especially a reader who complains about my sarcastic writing.

Oh, and one more note. Indeed, in my answer to your question 3 I wrote that you are more moral than David, and I did not write that sarcastically. If you do more moral actions, then you are more moral (= tautology). The question whether that is indeed the case is a different question, and you did not ask it.

I would not have acted like David in that situation, it’s not even a question…
To be with a married woman, and then to order the military commanders to abandon Uriah in battle on purpose so that he would die.
Haha, it’s not even a question, and I’m sure most sane people wouldn’t do that.

That really is a childish statement. When you are in his situation, then you can judge him. You also surely would not embezzle funds or do other improper things if you were prime minister. Olmert surely said that too before he was appointed.
This reminds me of the question of what Maimonides would say if he were alive today. Answer: if he were alive today, he would not be Maimonides. If you were in King David’s situation, you would not be you, and if you are you, then you are not in his situation. Therefore your words are, of course, complete nonsense.
But really, it seems to me that I have completely exhausted this infantile discussion.

Why does the Rabbi belittle people’s questions?

True, maybe he didn’t ask in the most proper and clever way.
But the Rabbi can use a little initiative and understand the question he asked. I’m sure that’s not so difficult….

P.S. This approach of the Rabbi’s, ignoring questions that weren’t asked in exactly the right way, repeats itself many times on the site.

I’ll end with a favorite saying.
Hillel says: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving people (as was said: what is hateful to you, etc.) and bringing them close to Torah.

Look, instead of deciding for the Rabbi what to do and how to behave, correct it and write the questions the Rabbi didn’t answer in a clear, short, and precise way, and then the Rabbi will answer according to his knowledge! True, the Rabbi can get down to the depth of the issue, but sometimes the wording is defective, and therefore it is desirable that the questions be clear to most of the population.
The Rabbi owes nothing — so the minimum is to respect him. He didn’t say anything bad about anyone!
The Rabbi answers free of charge, his reward is in the World to Come. And fortunate is he in this world, amen! Blessed be the Rabbi who does everything for the sake of our God in heaven as best he can — amen — may there be many like him in Israel, amen.

If you’re so thirsty for an answer from the Rabbi, then drink from my words in the meantime!

King David sinned because with all his great faith and “How I love Your Torah; it is my conversation all day long” — a human being, simply by being human, is liable to sin. But the problem is not to sin; the problem is to find the way back to the Creator! And King David, after this sin, was terribly angry with himself, and he regretted it, and in the end his forgiveness was accepted! And that is the great wisdom: to repent no matter who you are, where you are, and in what trouble you find yourself! “Out of the depths I have called You, O Lord” — from the depths of the heart, from full regret, from complete trust — for in You we have hoped and waited all day!
“If I have repaid my ally with evil and plundered my foe without cause,” “How can one chase a thousand and two put ten thousand to flight, unless our Rock had sold them and the Lord had delivered them up? For their rock is not like our Rock, and our enemies are judges.”

“The Lord will complete what concerns me” — “O Lord, Your kindness is forever,” “For Your name’s sake, O Lord, pardon my iniquity, for it is great!”
A person needs to know how to admit a sin, because the admission helps him atone for the transgression! “If you do well, shall you not be uplifted? But if you do not do well, sin crouches at the door.”
“I acknowledged my sin to You, and I did not cover my iniquity — I said: I will confess my transgressions to the Lord, and You forgave the iniquity of Your servant!”

And therefore he attained greatness — he knew how to admit his sins, and afterward to distance himself from them as from a blazing fire! This teaches you that there is no limit to the Holy One, blessed be He’s mercy — return to the Holy One, blessed be He, with all your might and you will gain, for He is good and the Good loves to do good!
Father in Heaven — we love You! We give thanks to You that You are the Lord our God!

To the person who encountered contempt,
Sometimes I don’t answer because imprecise wording of a question or comment indicates disrespect. If I devote a lot of time to answering people, I expect them to try to formulate themselves clearly and precisely, and of course also to try to understand what I write. When I feel that this is not happening, I stop answering. My time is not ownerless.
In other cases I don’t answer when I feel that the questions are not substantive and my interlocutor is not listening.
There are also other cases in which people expect me to just write something about their musings, as though my time were ownerless. Well, it isn’t.

A person should judge others favorably! And not give him the opportunity to say in the end, “There — I asked the Rabbi and the Rabbi is dodging!” That must not
happen!

To me it looks like a desecration.
It would be better for the Rabbi to say: I’ve explained this point quite a few times and I don’t have time to keep chewing it over!
And if you didn’t understand, then the students who read and understood will gladly answer! And if they don’t answer, then you’re welcome to waste someone else’s time on the internet, and post the answer here and I’ll check and approve it!

Have a good week,

I think that in this case (unlike many other cases)
the participant on the other side did want to be respectful. And maybe he spoke disrespectfully because the Rabbi also showed a bit of disrespect.
“Regarding ‘You don’t conduct yourself with fools,’ etc.”

And really, usually the questions are understandable to outside readers, while the Rabbi thinks they are not understandable.

Then apparently I am not up to it. Let him ask those who do understand.

To the questioner and his accuser, stubbornness doesn’t pay, because words of Torah are learned calmly. The Rabbi says “I am not up to it” out of his great humility; he knows that whoever thirsts for words of Torah will find them — “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters” — but you are not coming to receive the water from the Rabbi, and therefore the Rabbi refrains from giving you water, or perhaps he wants you to make more effort and learn to speak nicely (the questioner and his defender). “The righteous person knows the soul of his beast.”
There is no way the Rabbi doesn’t know an answer to every question, because the Rabbi also has a rabbi and he can always consult with him.