This idea of suffering from a good God is a very serious conversation; if you're religious, it's the foundation of all deeper wisdom. This idea that we are nothing, like shrimp, therefore our suffering doesn't matter should also mean that any form of creation doesn't matter, so why'd God create? The whole creation matters - to us. So the questions about creation, which matters to us, matters as much as anything else matters. As for the shrimp, they truly don't matter as much. We shouldn't be cruel to shrimp for no reason, but they are here to serve us etc. etc..
If you aren't religious, it's harder to define why being cruel to shrimp shouldn't be a major cause, if there is any cause, but being that there is no cause and everyone can pick their own morality, this guy picked his cause and others pick theirs. I'm not sure what your post adds to anything, frankly.
ya but you were answering why praise for small miracles and not condemn the atrocities, and your answer is we are not owed anything basically. if you wanna say that because of our sins we deserve the bad and we are owed nothing so it's all a plus, fine. but to say that He created us and whatever happens happens but the good - that we must thank Him for, it seems rather shallow, and even sadistic imo
(well now we're getting philosophical. Traditional sources say that nothing matters to "Him" to Himself, only Him in relation to us, see Maharal, Arizal, Ramchal etc. But yeah:)
Yeah, I’m on your side in basically defending God, but this argument is problematic. Because if God is able to intervene whenever He feels like sparing some people, then we have to ask why he didn’t intervene on October 7 or during the holocaust. If I could stop somebody from getting hit by a car and didn’t stop them, then I’ve done something evil even if I wasn’t responsible for the car being driven or the guy walking in front of it.
I think the only real answer to theodicy is answer number one.
That having been said, we should thank God for the good things not because we understand Him but because we have faith in Him to do the right thing. And because gratitude is good for us, makes us better people while blaming does kind of the opposite at least in this case.
But my point is the only way you can say "God doesn't need to get morally involved" is to say that God is beyond human understanding. Because by human understanding there's no way to defend His not getting involved, because yes, maybe if I could easily stop a snake from needlessly biting another creature without worry about getting bit myself, I would.
Also, it seems like the entirety of the Torah, from the third chapter and on, is against an approach like this. If we're shrimp to God, why does he care so much when we disobey Him? I've never gotten worked up about a shrimp disobeying me - i've never even commanded a shrimp to listen to me in the first place, because they're irrelevant to me. I've never asked a shrimp to partner with me in crafting a world together, promised to protect it and make it successful, etc etc. The fact that Hashem did all that and more would seem to indicate we're not shrimp to Him.
In fact, Tehillim 8 seems to be a clear expression of the other direction - while by nature we might have been created like shrimp, Hashem has chosen to elevate us to a position where we're no longer shrimp-like, and it wouldn't make sense for us to be treated as shrimp, either.
Sheesh. Please reread the post. We aren't shrimp to God. But we COULD be if not for the fact he chose us and cares about us. Hence we need to praise him even when bad things are happening because He has no moral obligation to get involved.
My point was I don't see any indication in the Torah of Hashem adopting the perspective you're describing here, and many indications of the opposite perspective - not only in contexts of Him expressing benevolence and choosing to help us, but in many other contexts as well.
I don’t think the shrimp analogy proves He has no moral obligation to get involved. I’m not saying He does but I don’t think this analogy proves it. If I had endless time and endless ability to stop shrimp suffering, wouldn’t I be obligated to?
No… I don’t have endless resources like Hashem does. I have to manage what I care about and what I allot my limited resources to, because my resources and energy are limited.
This theology, aside from being very depressing (and don't retort that atheism is the same), is not compatible with like anything in the Torah. As opposed to Enlil and the other ANE for whom humans are just annoying, the biblical God cares deeply about humans and constantly saves them. Open a tehillim for the most explicit sources.
He does despite having no moral obligation to do so. That's why we have to be thankful to him.
Reread the post. I never said he doesn't care - I said he has no moral obligation to care and hence it's not immoral for him to not get involved and we must be thankful.
Even if there's no obligation, the level of apathy necessary to fit your description is not the kind merciful and saving god described in the biblical texts.
טוב יהוה לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו
ויבטחו בך יודעי שמך כי לא עזבתי דרשיך יהוה
ויזעקו אל יהוה בצר להם ממצקותיהם יושיעם
The retort of atheism doesn't work because 1. Atheism doesn't have the problem of evil to begin with, so who cares, and 2. Atheism doesn't have a figure who is supposedly caring that you are describing otherwise, 3. Atheism doesn't have any personal being, kind or apathetic, just the universe which although apathetic, is not negative due to this apathy, and 4. The freedom to create personal meaning under atheism doesn't demand intrinsic value while theism generally assumes intrinsic value which you are denying (by saying that we're not valuable enough for God to care)
What inherent value if humans are as valuable to god as we are to shrimps? It's not like you can say that for God we're not valuable but for ourselves we are because that's subjective. If it would truly be objective we would be just as valuable to him as you want to say we are for real for ourselves
You are right - inherent is the wrong word. Our value is solely due to being a tzelem elokim and that creates the value. Otherwise we are just as valuable as zebras
Ok, but at the end of the day we do have value by virtue of being tzelem elohim. So why doesnt god care about us? Or is value not a good enough reason to do something? If so not sure what value means
Yeah I was gonna say that, plus I would care more about the suffering of even shrimp if I didn’t have my own weighing problems. What problems would be weighing Hashem so much that He can’t stop suffering?
Also while I don’t try to prevent shrimp suffering in my day to day, there are extraordinary people who care enough about shrimp to dedicate their lives to preventing shrimp suffering. G-d isn’t average.
While there’s a lot one could push back on here, what jumps out right away is your framing of God as basically a scaled-up person. The shrimp analogy — equating us to shrimp and God to humans — says more about the limits of your conception of God than anything about God Himself.
This is one of those never ending discussions and questions that the other side is going to say "so why doesn't Hashem" to any answer that does not eliminate the possibility of Hashem putting pain and affliction in this world for a reason other than punishment for those who the one asking thinks deserved to be punished that way. But on the general level, As the posuk says, (Hashem) אֶת־הַטּ֗וֹב נְקַבֵּל֙ מֵאֵ֣ת
וְאֶת־הָרָ֖ע לֹ֣א נְקַבֵּ֑ל? They are both coming Hashem but for different reasons. Why is never going to be obvious. One happening does not negate the other and does not require the other. Say October 7th would not have happened but the Iran war did. Most of the people who say they see nothing to thank Hashem for the Iran War would not be thanking him then either.
You really don’t care about shrimp at all? Like if we had a million shrimp hooked up to a pain monitor, you’d torture them for a few bucks even though you can see how much pain you’re causing?
I feel like the “best” (still feels wholly inadequate) response to theodicy is that suffering makes joy have meaning. Of course that still begs the question “why so much suffering?” Though you can somewhat respond to that with “is there an appropriate shiur of suffering?”
The question of theodicy is a good one, but come on Ash, terrible response
Not my best post but i still think it's pretty good
As a post, - entertainment value: not bad.
As a serious conversation: it adds very little.
This idea of suffering from a good God is a very serious conversation; if you're religious, it's the foundation of all deeper wisdom. This idea that we are nothing, like shrimp, therefore our suffering doesn't matter should also mean that any form of creation doesn't matter, so why'd God create? The whole creation matters - to us. So the questions about creation, which matters to us, matters as much as anything else matters. As for the shrimp, they truly don't matter as much. We shouldn't be cruel to shrimp for no reason, but they are here to serve us etc. etc..
If you aren't religious, it's harder to define why being cruel to shrimp shouldn't be a major cause, if there is any cause, but being that there is no cause and everyone can pick their own morality, this guy picked his cause and others pick theirs. I'm not sure what your post adds to anything, frankly.
Please reread the post. I wasn't dealing with theodicy per se as far as the specific question of us praising him for small miracles.
ya but you were answering why praise for small miracles and not condemn the atrocities, and your answer is we are not owed anything basically. if you wanna say that because of our sins we deserve the bad and we are owed nothing so it's all a plus, fine. but to say that He created us and whatever happens happens but the good - that we must thank Him for, it seems rather shallow, and even sadistic imo
well said
(I'd just add, the fact that He chose to create implies that it matters to Him as well, not just to us)
(well now we're getting philosophical. Traditional sources say that nothing matters to "Him" to Himself, only Him in relation to us, see Maharal, Arizal, Ramchal etc. But yeah:)
Good intellectual answer...however being that the question comes from a place of emotion...it will not land well.
"Good intellectual answer..." How so?
The question comes from a place of emotion? How so?
Nice lol
Yeah, I’m on your side in basically defending God, but this argument is problematic. Because if God is able to intervene whenever He feels like sparing some people, then we have to ask why he didn’t intervene on October 7 or during the holocaust. If I could stop somebody from getting hit by a car and didn’t stop them, then I’ve done something evil even if I wasn’t responsible for the car being driven or the guy walking in front of it.
I think the only real answer to theodicy is answer number one.
That having been said, we should thank God for the good things not because we understand Him but because we have faith in Him to do the right thing. And because gratitude is good for us, makes us better people while blaming does kind of the opposite at least in this case.
If you see a lion mailing a deer you'd get involved?
Ash, not a very good comparison. The lion has to eat. But the car doesn’t have to hit the person. And Hamas doesn’t need to kill 1200 people.
Would you stop a snake from biting a creature it doesn't need to eat?
My point is that God doesn't need to get morally involved so we should be thankful when he does
But my point is the only way you can say "God doesn't need to get morally involved" is to say that God is beyond human understanding. Because by human understanding there's no way to defend His not getting involved, because yes, maybe if I could easily stop a snake from needlessly biting another creature without worry about getting bit myself, I would.
What definition of morality are you working with?
Also, it seems like the entirety of the Torah, from the third chapter and on, is against an approach like this. If we're shrimp to God, why does he care so much when we disobey Him? I've never gotten worked up about a shrimp disobeying me - i've never even commanded a shrimp to listen to me in the first place, because they're irrelevant to me. I've never asked a shrimp to partner with me in crafting a world together, promised to protect it and make it successful, etc etc. The fact that Hashem did all that and more would seem to indicate we're not shrimp to Him.
In fact, Tehillim 8 seems to be a clear expression of the other direction - while by nature we might have been created like shrimp, Hashem has chosen to elevate us to a position where we're no longer shrimp-like, and it wouldn't make sense for us to be treated as shrimp, either.
Sheesh. Please reread the post. We aren't shrimp to God. But we COULD be if not for the fact he chose us and cares about us. Hence we need to praise him even when bad things are happening because He has no moral obligation to get involved.
Still curious how you're defining morality here.
My point was I don't see any indication in the Torah of Hashem adopting the perspective you're describing here, and many indications of the opposite perspective - not only in contexts of Him expressing benevolence and choosing to help us, but in many other contexts as well.
I strongly recommend "The Great Shift" by James Kugel. I think the Torah depiction of how God relates to us changes over time.
I don’t think the shrimp analogy proves He has no moral obligation to get involved. I’m not saying He does but I don’t think this analogy proves it. If I had endless time and endless ability to stop shrimp suffering, wouldn’t I be obligated to?
Did you donate to the shrimp?
I’m not trying to criticize you by the way. I admire trying to wrestle with theodicy, even if the answers end up feeling inadequate for me.
No… I don’t have endless resources like Hashem does. I have to manage what I care about and what I allot my limited resources to, because my resources and energy are limited.
This theology, aside from being very depressing (and don't retort that atheism is the same), is not compatible with like anything in the Torah. As opposed to Enlil and the other ANE for whom humans are just annoying, the biblical God cares deeply about humans and constantly saves them. Open a tehillim for the most explicit sources.
Also, why can't I retort atheism is the same?
He does despite having no moral obligation to do so. That's why we have to be thankful to him.
Reread the post. I never said he doesn't care - I said he has no moral obligation to care and hence it's not immoral for him to not get involved and we must be thankful.
Even if there's no obligation, the level of apathy necessary to fit your description is not the kind merciful and saving god described in the biblical texts.
טוב יהוה לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו
ויבטחו בך יודעי שמך כי לא עזבתי דרשיך יהוה
ויזעקו אל יהוה בצר להם ממצקותיהם יושיעם
The retort of atheism doesn't work because 1. Atheism doesn't have the problem of evil to begin with, so who cares, and 2. Atheism doesn't have a figure who is supposedly caring that you are describing otherwise, 3. Atheism doesn't have any personal being, kind or apathetic, just the universe which although apathetic, is not negative due to this apathy, and 4. The freedom to create personal meaning under atheism doesn't demand intrinsic value while theism generally assumes intrinsic value which you are denying (by saying that we're not valuable enough for God to care)
I don't think pesukin are stiros.
I also grant that other theological answers to give meaning to pain could be valid. I was just trying to answer the one question.
Finally I think and I've made it clear many times that theism creates the inherent value as the saying gors לא הולך לאיבוד רק בזכותו
What inherent value if humans are as valuable to god as we are to shrimps? It's not like you can say that for God we're not valuable but for ourselves we are because that's subjective. If it would truly be objective we would be just as valuable to him as you want to say we are for real for ourselves
You are right - inherent is the wrong word. Our value is solely due to being a tzelem elokim and that creates the value. Otherwise we are just as valuable as zebras
Ok, but at the end of the day we do have value by virtue of being tzelem elohim. So why doesnt god care about us? Or is value not a good enough reason to do something? If so not sure what value means
Yeah I was gonna say that, plus I would care more about the suffering of even shrimp if I didn’t have my own weighing problems. What problems would be weighing Hashem so much that He can’t stop suffering?
Also while I don’t try to prevent shrimp suffering in my day to day, there are extraordinary people who care enough about shrimp to dedicate their lives to preventing shrimp suffering. G-d isn’t average.
While there’s a lot one could push back on here, what jumps out right away is your framing of God as basically a scaled-up person. The shrimp analogy — equating us to shrimp and God to humans — says more about the limits of your conception of God than anything about God Himself.
This is one of those never ending discussions and questions that the other side is going to say "so why doesn't Hashem" to any answer that does not eliminate the possibility of Hashem putting pain and affliction in this world for a reason other than punishment for those who the one asking thinks deserved to be punished that way. But on the general level, As the posuk says, (Hashem) אֶת־הַטּ֗וֹב נְקַבֵּל֙ מֵאֵ֣ת
וְאֶת־הָרָ֖ע לֹ֣א נְקַבֵּ֑ל? They are both coming Hashem but for different reasons. Why is never going to be obvious. One happening does not negate the other and does not require the other. Say October 7th would not have happened but the Iran war did. Most of the people who say they see nothing to thank Hashem for the Iran War would not be thanking him then either.
You really don’t care about shrimp at all? Like if we had a million shrimp hooked up to a pain monitor, you’d torture them for a few bucks even though you can see how much pain you’re causing?
I wouldn't but I probably wouldn't stop others from doing so. (For many many bucks Id do it myself)
Do you care a little! That’s a start!
>> While he himself is not religious,
>> he believes in God
Some would argue that since he believes in God, he is, *by definition*, "religious."
(But, of course, there are various other ways to define "religious.")
I feel like the “best” (still feels wholly inadequate) response to theodicy is that suffering makes joy have meaning. Of course that still begs the question “why so much suffering?” Though you can somewhat respond to that with “is there an appropriate shiur of suffering?”