Anything about JUDAISM
Anything about JUDAISM
profile | register | search


This is an archived site, for new discussion please see JewsWithQuestions.com
Forums | | Post Reply Send Topic To a Friend
Author Topic
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.
Link

Link

may help you out.

<<I take a philosophy class in Uni (don't ask- i know its assur)>>
Is there any way to get out of it? Say it's against your religion (that immediately will bring them into a sensitive area) or at least get some of the curriculum changed for better.

<<Opinion Number #1 Because of G-d's will, it is good; opinion #2 G-d chose it because it is good>>
meaning is it inheritantly good, or made good? I think the second link addresses that.


<<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>>
Yes it would. Hashem didin't make pain to feel like pleasure. that doesn't make sense. pain hurts for a reason. It's still 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>>
But how could they be already good if they didint exist? Hashem made the world, and saw that it was good. Even if pain ajnd everything is hypothetically, created and then Hashem for whatever reason leaves somehow, we wouldnt know good and bad. The world is made so many things are hidden, good looks bad and vice versa.

<<how do i argue with that?>>
Artgue with what? If he doesnt agree on the most basic principles and ideas, then there's noo chance of arguin, becuase there's no basis to argue about. Mind you, I still have almost no idea what he's talking about.

taon

questions? go here:

http://www.frumteens.com/forum.php?forum_id=65

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:

www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=8480

As for Medrashim in particular, see the Asking Questions forum

MODERATOR Posted - 28 November 2007 0:25
rimon,

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