profile | register | search
|Forums | |||Post Reply||Send Topic To a Friend|
|Forlorn||Posted - 16 November 2007 19:02
I take a philosophy class in Uni (don't ask- i know its assur) and my teacher is a yid! obviously not frum So i think i have to adress his points in class because hes frum. So basically he was teaching about the Divine Command theory which is saying that things are good if G-d approves of them and right if G-d commands them. Now why is that so? Opinion Number #1 Because of G-d's will, it is good; opinion #2 G-d chose it because it is good......Now I beleive that it is number 1, things are not inherently good or bad/ right or wrong, if Hakadosh baruch Hu loved murder, it would be right and good, as evident by numerous example, the one that comes to mind is pinchas and also beis din. But my proffessor says that opinion #1 is impossible (even assuming that G-d does exist) because if G-d wouldve approved of pain and would have made pain good but it would have still felt like pain, it wouldnt be good so it must be that G-d just chose the things that were already good, meaning that without G-d people can know what is good/bad or right/wrong...how do i argue with that?
|taon||Posted - 16 November 2007 19:54
I have almost no idea what he's talking about.
<<I take a philosophy class in Uni (don't ask- i know its assur)>>
<<how do i argue with that?>>
questions? go here:
|MODERATOR||Posted - 16 November 2007 20:23
before you decide whether G-d's command is the cause or effect of being good, first you have to define what you mean by "good." until you do that, the question is meaningless.
so please tell me: what does "good" mean in this question?
|MODERATOR||Posted - 16 November 2007 20:26
secondly - and this is an offshoot ot the first Q I asked:
Who said either of the two are true? Who says "good" is either a cause or effect of G-d's command?
It all depends on how oyu define the term -- which is wht your prefessor is obligated to do if hes asking that question.
so go ahead and ask him. then we'll figure out your dilemma.
|Forlorn||Posted - 19 November 2007 3:21
Thanks taon and R' Mod, I posed the q's to my professor and he was a but taken aback and decided that we were done with the topic BH
|MODERATOR||Posted - 20 November 2007 19:56
lol. Exactly. Now you know how serious to take those secular classes about G-d.
|green||Posted - 20 November 2007 21:26
Oh well...I was curious about what he was gonna say:)
|rimon||Posted - 27 November 2007 19:39
I know this is not directly related to the topic but it's about G-d and Torah so here goes:
there are ppl that say that certain things in the torah are nor literal-i.e. the mabul
they say it's a metaphor. Is this apikursus? I know that many things in the torah are not literal, for example Hashem's hand, what the torah calls a day(not sure about this one)
my question is, where does one draw the line of real and metaphor and how do you know?
|MODERATOR||Posted - 27 November 2007 19:53
There's a basic outline of whatt qualifies as apikorsus here:
As for Medrashim in particular, see the Asking Questions forum
|MODERATOR||Posted - 28 November 2007 0:25
Yes, what you are describing is apikorsus.
We know what is a metaphor the same way we know the meaning of anything in the Torah: via Torah she Baal Peh and our Mesorah.
There is no shitah anywhere that the mabul was anythign except a mabul.
Hashem's "hand" on the other hand (pardon the pun) cannot mean literally because of what Torah shebal peh says about Hashem.
And also, it is impossible that Hashems "hand" means literally a hand because thats an oxymoron. Hashem cant have a hand, or He couldnt be the Creator of the world - please see the G-d forum.
So the simple meanin of Yad Hashem MUST be a metaphor - theres no other choice, plus our Torah shebal peh says so as well.
As opposed to the Mabul, where people just deny that it happened, which is a contradiction to torah shebiksav and bal peh. It is absolute apikorsus.
Click Here To Close Thread, Administrators & Moderators Only.
Show All Forums | Post Reply