Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Are All Golden Rules the Same?
Every “ethical” society seems to have a Golden Rule, some variation on Luke and Matthew’s “Do to others what you would want them to do to you.” Confucius stated it as a negative: “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others,” which is functionally identical to Hillel’s, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.”
And yet there is a gaping chasm between all of these forms (the Wiki link contains dozens of other examples), and the formulation which is the middle topic of the middlemost text (Leviticus) of the Torah (Lev. 19:18). In other words, the Torah formulation makes the Jewish version of the Golden Rule at the heart of the text. And it is, upon reflection, very different from the Golden Rule of Confucius and Luke and Matthew and Hillel. The Torah says, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
How is this different? Consider firstly that the negative construction of Confucious and Hillel do not require any engagement – you can fulfill the Golden Rule by simply leaving other people alone. No relationship is required or even encouraged; people who separate from each other have followed the rule. Which is fine, as far as it goes. But this version of the Golden Rule does nothing to build relationships, to build families and communities and societies. It enables and condones solitude and isolation.
The positive constructions are better, in that one should treat others as you wish to be treated. But that in itself does not necessarily entail a relationship. Instead, it suggests a quid pro quo, doing to others as you want them to do to you. If you want to be left alone, then you can fulfill this rule merely by leaving others alone as well!
Perhaps most importantly, the distinction of “loving others” is that love is an ongoing investment, not a mere thing or product. To truly love others means that one needs to empathize with them, to care about them in ways that are not readily measured by keeping score of who was nice to whom. Love is a lifelong, ongoing and neverending process, not just the sharing of rations or the kind of polite courtesy with which decent people greet one another on the street.
So while people all-too-often “keep score” in their lives about whether they have received their due share, whether they have given more than they have received, etc., loving them as you love yourself means caring about someone else, about learning to see through their eyes, hear through the ears, and feel as they feel.
In this sense, then, the Torah is quite distinct from other ancient documents and texts. The existence of the non-Torah Golden Rule can readily be used as a defense of a godless moral society– after all, the Golden Rule surely suggests that civil societies can logically deduce an ethical social structure and body politic.
But for Judaism, the idea of loving someone else like yourself is much richer in religious overtones. Each person, we are told by the ensoulment of Adam, contains the very spirit of G-d within them. So when we love other people, truly love them, then we are drawing closer to G-d, by connecting with and empathizing with His spirit as it is found in each person. This is a positive commandment: we cannot fulfill it by leaving them alone as we want to be left alone or even by treating them as we want to be treated. In order to be holy, we have to connect with others in love, to try to see things their way, and seek to make them feel the love that we, in turn, want to enjoy ourselves.
Golden Rules are necessary for any ethical society. “Do/Don’t do unto others” represents a baseline in human rights. But “Love your neighbor as yourself” is one step up: love is a prerequisite for holiness.
For Judaism, this Golden Rule cannot be separated from religious faith. Loving other people is a way to love G-d.
Published in General
Why should withdrawal entail a lack of omnipotence?
I believe that is precisely what happened, but the e-paper trail is back there for anyone interested in examining it.
Thank you. Now you have addressed my concerns from # 20. You’ve given two reasons that “dwell” should be considered a correct translation: that it makes more sense in the context of the word ruach, and that the letter beis is used which means “in.”
Again, thank you. I will jot this reply down and maybe sort it through later. For the moment, one question: Why do you say that “dwell” makes more sense given the use of ruach? Is it just because you presume that dwelling in man is what the divine ruach does?
If so, you can’t argue for your position on the divine ruach on these grounds, since this reason would obviously presume your position on the divine ruach.
You seem to be saying that a spark of G-d is the same as the entirety of G-d. I am not saying that.
The combination of “in” and dwell/strive is the argument.
The use of the word “ruach” can be seen everywhere else it is used, and with which prepositions – the spirit hovering over/on the waters, for example. I list all the examples here, with the word “ruach” highlighted. Here is a parallel: Genesis 6:17 – “destroy all flesh wherein is the ruach of life.” So this other example of the “in” preposition with “ruach” is definitely about the ruach being internal. Of course, that is a more generic “ruach” – the ruach of life, as opposed to G-d’s own.
Oh, good! That’s a good reason. It’s because the normal use of ruach involves the ruach being in something. That’s good. I’ll make a note of it.
What I say matters little, and I’ve said little enough of it.
I am asking about what you say. Sometimes you say the soul is “a spark of G-d,” or “G-d’s extended self” or something. Other times you apparently deny it–as in # 27 where you say that we only contain “a potential channel to G-d” and deny that your interpretation of Gen. 2:7 is even about what human beings are!
Now about this idea that the soul is a spark of G-d. Perhaps this makes it the same thing as G-d. (This would entail that it really is the entirety of G-d, unless we understand G-d in materialistic terms as a being divided into as many pieces as the number of spaces He occupies. But that is mostly beside the point.)
Continued:
The point concerns this inference from “The soul is a spark of G-d” to “The soul is the same thing as G-d.”
I am not making this inference.
The only inference I really am making is, once again, from your words from # 13 of the current thread and #s 62 and 65 of “Gratitude”, which, again, I must ask you to explain, retract, or clarify.
The inference is from “iWe says that the soul is G-d’s extended self” to “iWe says that the soul is the same thing as G-d.” Is there something wrong with that inference?
Continued:
iWe, sometimes you say that the soul is divine, or a spark of G-d, or “contains the very spirit of G-d” (as in the opening post). Other times you say that the soul merely has a potential channel to G-d, that it resembles G-d, or that it is the image of G-d but not the same thing as G-d.
I might speculate that your view is actually that the human being and the human soul are both not G-d, and not divine, but that the soul has the ability to image G-d and to be connected to G-d, and may sometimes contain the very Spirit of G-d.
That sounds good, and it fits my theology just fine, and it sounds like everything I ever thought I read in the Torah; for that matter it, it’s pretty much what I’ve been trying to tell you all this time!
But if that‘s your view, then why would you ever make these exaggerated claims that each human being “contains the very spirit of G-d” or is literally divine, or that the soul is G-d? Why do you persist in disagreeing with me when I deny that the soul is G-d?
And if that’s not your view, what is your view?
We have a light for our path and a lamp for our feet, and the choice is always ours.
If I may quote Spock, “fascinating.” This raises two immediate questions – one about the mechanism, and one about the victims. First, the mechanism. Is it your claim that there are some sinful acts which cause an earthquake through natural processes? Perhaps some laws of physics with which I am unfamiliar? Or is it your claim that the mechanism for causing an earthquake is outside of natural law (that is to say, miraculous) and is sent by God as a punishment for the sins at issue? Or, if not as punishment, simply as a way of expressing God’s displeasure (sort of like the way that leftist Earth-worshipers claim that hurricanes are the Earth’s way of striking back at humans for harming the environment)?
Second, the victims. It would appear, to a non-omniscient observer like myself, that the victims of a natural disaster are random. If an earthquake is a response to human sin, and especially if it is a miraculous punishment for human sin, is there a reason why it doesn’t strike the sinners in particular? Or do you believe that it does?
Because when a helicopter parent gives their kid space, it means the parent is no longer hovering.
G-d CAN do anything. But He chooses not to. You might say that makes him omnipotent. But if He is self-limiting, for all practical purposes, He is not omnipotent, because He has chosen not to be.
I keep feeling that you are trying to mathematize concepts.
The spiritual world deals with emotions and feelings and fleeting snippets of thoughts and symbolism and connections. It is inherently resistant to any form of certainty.
So I have no problem saying that G-d loaned each of us a divine spark, a piece of Himself. And at the same time it is clear that very few people connect to that spark. Most people are not very self-aware, let alone aware of the possible opportunities afforded by their lives. Those who are in fate-based or other pagan mindsets are blissfully ignorant that their lives are not necessarily prewritten.
We are only connected to G-d to the extent that we actively seek that connection. In that sense, the soul is a doorway, a common element that allows for communication. The Torah is the guide book for how to open that door and maximize the connection between us.
As I understand it, as a Christian he probably does believe that at least human frame can contain the entirety of G-d; I’m not so sure about the rest of humanity.
Yes, I do say that makes G-d omnipotent. That’s what the word means. It means having all power. Opting not to use it is not the same as not having it.
Ok, this isn’t precise enough. I don’t think G-d can sin, die, or make a square circle. But I don’t think the ability to do those things is a power; it’s a weakness. (I follow Anselm and Aquinas here.)
It’s always good to quote Spock!
Well, yes. The sinful act of Adam caused creation to stop working properly.
Bear in mind that this is a natural process which is not strictly physical. Nature isn’t purely physical. Nothing is–hylomorphism and all that.
No. Just some laws of nature, like the law putting it under the care of man (Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:15).
Your formulation of a miraculous punishment for sin is not far off the mark; I just wouldn’t want to formulate the punishment for sin in Genesis 3:17-19 and Genesis 3:23-24 as being applied billions of times, once for each natural disaster or disease. It’s a single general punishment that affects all of creation. But I think it may be considered a natural consequence of sin–the breaking of creation as a direct result of our mismanagement of it.
Continued:
Jesus/Yeshua addresses this question in Luke 13. His answer is apparently that the victims were guilty, and that the non-victims were different from the victims not by being innocent, but by being lucky enough to escape punishment themselves up to that point.
It’s important to keep in mind the biblical doctrine that each of us is very guilty of sin. There’s Romans 3, quoting from Psalm 53 and elsewhere in the Tanakh/Old Testament. And there’s the analysis from James and from the Sermon on the Mount. I summarized elsewhere:
As I recall, I have only been asking you to say things I can understand that don’t contradict other things you say (at least since your # 27 apparently contradicted your # 13, as documented in my # 32). There’s nothing mathematical about that, unless you think logic is a part of math.
Ok, sure. And, I presume, you would also add that it resists any form of precise formulation of metaphysics. Then you should, again, go back and retract or qualify your agreement with the first point of my attempt at a precise formulation of your theory of what man is. It’s in # 13.
My only problem with that is that G-d doesn’t come in pieces; that is a description of G-d in materialistic terms.
Aside from the “a piece of Himself” phrase, I also do not have any particular problem with this. I actually agree with and am delighted by quite a bit of this formulation. (Like I said in # 16, I agree with rather a lot and think well of the Jewish humanism you articulate!)
But why, if this summarizes your view, do you also say that each human being actually contains the spark, and that the spark is “the very spirit of G-d”? Why do you also say that humans are each literally divine with the same divinity as G-d? Why do you say that the soul is that piece of G-d if your view is merely that it can access the piece?
I might, but I’d feel better about it if I could get a cup of tea first and then think for a moment about what exactly that means. However, what I think as a Christian seems entirely irrelevant here, and he who cares to look over this conversation should find as much.
(As a metaphysician, I do say this: If we contain G-d at all, then we must contain the whole of G-d. Otherwise G-d comes in pieces; but only matter comes in pieces, and G-d is not matter. But this is parenthetical, and I’ve only parenthetically mentioned it before at # 109 and # 96!)
What I was really talking about is just what I overviewed at #s 96-98.
Continued:
As a logician, I object to saying that man is such-and-such while denying that one is saying anything about what man is. I also object when someone both says that the soul is literally divine and is G-d’s extended self and that each human being “contains the very spirit of G-d” and says that we only have a potential connection to G-d and that a human who does not seek G-d is not connected to G-d at all.
If some of those things are true, then the human soul is G-d, and each human is connected to G-d. If other of those things are true, the soul is not G-d, and not all humans are connected to G-d. There is a contradiction here.
If once it gets sorted out, I may have no major objections–if the sort of view summarized at # 102 is all there is. Or, if it turns out that the other stuff is really iWe’s view, then I have at least those major objections from #s 18, 19, and 21. (#20 was not so major, and two answers were given to it in #s 92 and 94).
Augustine, I think we have reached the logical and amicable end of productive conversation on this topic. For whatever reason, we are no longer making progress.
Thank you – I have really enjoyed it!
Ah. You rather seamlessly make the leap from collective guilt to collective punishment. And to arbitrary and inconsistent punishment at that. While the doctrine of collective guilt for original sin is something I am familiar with, the doctrine that God (or the universe, acting consistently with God’s will but without God’s direct intervention) chooses certain “unlucky” people to be punished in this lifetime for our collective guilt is not familiar to me. I say “in this lifetime” because it would not be novel to assert that God applies appropriate punishment in the afterlife. Even then, though, I believe the orthodoxy is that the punishment is tailored to the crime. There is a reason that Dante had different circles of hell for different sins.
This raises so many interesting questions. I could ask, why make it a lottery? Why let “luck” be the determinant, rather than the degree of guilt? Does God, contrary to Einstein’s postulate, actually play dice with the universe? Earlier in this thread I believe you suggested that Hitler was more guilty of more sin than other people, even if we are all guilty to some degree. I’m tempted to go there, but I think I’ll pass on that question, because I am more interested in your answer to a different question. Specifically, do you believe that collective punishment is moral, or do you rely instead on the principle that God and his universe are not bound by the moral principles that God applies to man?
I’d hardly call it a leap. (Though I’m not sure I’ve actually made it.)
No. If anything, it’s the mercy that is arbitrary and inconsistent. But, more likely, there are unseen reasons.
It’s not a lottery. There are likely reasons hard for us to see, although I think sometimes we can see some of them. People write books about this stuff; if we read those books or just think about the reasons, we might find some of them.
Degree of guilt is very likely a reason for some suffering. Another one is the direct consequences of human sin and negligence. People who drink and drive are more likely to die young. More people die of tsunamis in places where people do a poorer job caring for themselves, their communities, and their environment (I’ll grant that this would seem to involve collective punishment).
I don’t see why collective punishment should not be moral.
But I wouldn’t presume that it has to be collective. It seems likelier that each set of consequences in this life and the next fits each individual. I also see no need to rely on that principle you mention.
Hey, iWe, any idea what thread it was when we talked about idolatry? We had some dispute about the objective existence of divine reality or something. I found this old thread, but I’m fairly confident there was another one. I remember you suggesting that pagan gods were real enough for the people who worshipped them and me objecting very strongly. I think @susanquinn was there, and @sonofspengler, and probably @mjbubba.
(I ask because I’m wondering if maybe are metaphysical differences are behind the communication problems in this thread, and I thought maybe reviewing those difference would help me think through it.)
I don’t recall the thread, but I recall my understanding: the Torah makes it clear that there are other gods, because people believe there are other gods. Our creations have meaning to us, and so they are our reality.
I also know that I don’t believe that the existence of G-d can be proven or disproven, that such a solid argument would make it impossible for people to freely choose for themselves.
And, of course, we differ on the notion of guilt. Judaism does not rely on the foundational idea that we are all sinners (in no small part because the Torah does not call eating the fruit a sin). We are always forward looking: what can and should we do now.
Oh, no. Don’t tempt me to address it here again. My brain is too full already!
Even though I was not asked, I’d like to offer an answer anyway, if I may.
Those who do not have a relationship with G-d are in the natural world, with all the randomness and uncaring aspects that exist in nature. Statistics rule. Nature has NO morality, none. (I think Natural Law is bunkum.)
Those who have a relationship with G-d can see G-d’s hand in their lives – from little things to big ones. Our lives have value to G-d inasmuch as we choose to do good with the opportunities we have. The world is here for us to fix. Disease is an opportunity to find a cure. Evil is an opportunity to show that we can change things for the better.
And so I believe that G-d’s morality is different from ours. After all, everything that is alive will die – so what matters is not the death, but whether our lives have been good.
This is all, in my opinion, from the Torah.
Sure, iWe, I welcome your input. I directed this question to Auggie only because he made the assertion that natural disasters are the result of man’s sins – specifically, of original sin (although in his last couple of comments Auggie seems to be inching away from that position). You have made no such assertion, and you specifically disavowed the doctrine of original sin. So I would have no reason to ask you this question.
Nevertheless, the question is a version of the challenge that all religious people must face, one way or another: Why do bad things happen to good people? I think your answer is probably as good as one can do, although I’m not sure that your answer is necessitated by the Torah. If there is an answer in the Old Testament, it most likely is to be found in the book of Job, which is a subject worthy of its own discussion.
Auggie’s answer seems to be that there are no good people, because everyone is infected with original sin. Personally, I find that answer very unsatisfying – while no one is perfect, some people are good. At least, that’s my opinion. I think that Auggie’s explanation of natural disasters is very unorthodox (I’m sure he disagrees with me on that point), and I would like to understand it.
By the way, I am also curious as to Auggie’s opinion on Christian redemption. Original sin can be redeemed by Christ. Yet natural disasters affect the redeemed as well as the unredeemed. This seems to be a problem for Auggie’s position.