Board index ‹ God

[Pumpkin]

If god unchanging.

And god is ultimate good, incapable of immoral acts

Then are all the immoral actions and commands of god in the old testament infact perfectly moral? Like stoning gay people or cheating women. Or the entire situation of rape of 12y/o girls in numbers 31 17-18?

[jimwalton]

Thank you for asking. No, God is not immoral.

> If god unchanging.

Correct. God is unchanging.

> And god is ultimate good, incapable of immoral acts

Correct. God is ultimately good and incapable of immoral acts.

> Then are all the immoral actions and commands of god in the old testament infact perfectly moral?

There are no immoral acts and commands of God in the OT.

> Like stoning gay people or cheating women.

In Leviticus 18-20, these commands are for the covenant people. They aren't lists of rules to be obeyed, but legal wisdom to circumscribe for God's people the bounds of civil, legal, and ritual order. They are hypothetical examples to illustrate underlying principles (just like we use word problems to teach math. You can ignore what the words are about as long as you are getting how to do math. The purpose isn't to teach about trains, buildings, running, or apples, but to learn trigonometry.). The point was to shape Israelite society in such a way that God's presence would remain with them, not to provide a set of instructions.

The sexual practices written here defiled the people in the presence of God. The word used ("detestable") identifies the behavior as contrary to the character of God. These situations give examples of behavior that violates the purity of the covenant community. The violation of sexual codes is placed on par with idolatry. They were believed to undermine the relationship with God and to undermine the family as the foundational element of Israelite society, and therefore to undermine the covenant itself. There is never any clue that these guidelines were applicable to anyone except Israel, God's covenant community.

The overriding concerns of the ancient world pertained to order, non-order, and disorder. (We have no such worldview in modern society.) In the ancient world, some aspects of cultic and sexual behavior were regarded as not conducive to order, and therefore "detestable" (which is not a great translation, in actuality. The term applies to things inappropriate, idolatrous, icky [sick people in the minds of well people], undesirable [good people in the minds of bad people], or anything deviating from convention). Basically the Hebrew term describes behaviors or attitudes contrary to order. (We have no English term for such a thing.) They were never meant to pertain to universal standards, but only with regard to God's order for His people and meaning that is relative to sacred space.

Please don't jump so quickly to God being immoral. Please explore the subject before arriving at a conclusion.

> Or the entire situation of rape of 12y/o girls in numbers 31 17-18?

Am I to presume you have read all of Numbers, all of the Torah, or all of the Bible so that you are making a good analysis rather than having gotten this from somewhere else?

If so, I can also assume that you can see that these two verses, nor any of the chapter, nor any of Numbers, nor any of the Bible, allows, condones, encourages, commands, or teaches rape. "Save for yourselves" means "keep them alive." The soldiers were to spare their lives. There is nothing in the term "for yourselves" implying sexual pleasure, let alone rape. In a *cherem* situation, which this was, all war benefits were considered to be the possession of God, for the praise of His name, and for the benefit of the whole community. There is nothing here about rape.

You may also know, if you have studied it, that in Deuteronomy 21.10-14, it was against the law for a Gentile female POW to be used as a sex object. Rape was outlawed. This Numbers text doesn't allow rape, and God is not immoral.

An Israelite male had to carefully follow certain proper procedures before the woman could be taken as a wife. A wife. In light of the highly sensitive nature of sexual purity in Israel and for Israel's soldiers, specific protocols had to be followed. Rape was most certainly excluded as an extracurricular activity in warfare.

God is not immoral. Nor were His people allowed to be immoral. Nor were they commanded to rape or allowed to rape.

[Pumpkin]

hello! Yes, in fact i have read the entire torah, in the original hebrew at that, cover to cover as part of my israeli highschool degree

as for leveticus, i whole heartedly disagree. The text reads, in hebrew as well as english, as a list of rules to be followed, if it is direct orders of action, or guidelines to a soicety(set by god). the existence of one of those is proof enough of my point. If you mean to claim those parts were merly metathorical, or rather 'in theory alone' status, how can you know which is which? at this point it just seems like you pick and choose which commands are to be followed to the letter and which are merly "guidelines" as you said. the word you reffred to, the one which has to translation, is "תועבה", a word for something disgusting, something used many times as a reason to kill other tribes who lived in the land of israel, the line "כי תועבה הם" (because they are 'disgusting') used as a motive enough. So i must repeat and say that this piece of text directly refers and advocates the killing of gays and cheating women

yes, i have read all of numbers, and the word used is "שמרו", or 'keep' when talking on what to do with the young girls.

rape was not outlawed infact, in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 it was somewhat legalized, with the punishment for raping a virgin girl is being forced to marry her, a quick way to get a wife. and to add insult to injury, according to the jewish law of the time (Hahalacha) a girl is only to be considred raped if she screamed and fought back agaisnt the rapist(many raped women nowdays describe being frozen and unable to move during their attack). otherwise she is considered a temptrest

[jimwalton]

> hello! Yes, in fact i have read the entire torah, in the original hebrew at that, cover to cover as part of my israeli highschool degree

Excellent. Glad to hear it. That opens up other avenues of conversation for me, knowing that I'm speaking this time with someone who has actually read it.

> as for leveticus, i whole heartedly disagree. The text reads, in hebrew as well as english, as a list of rules to be followed,

Then you know that the law codes are not lists of God’s mandatory moral commands, nor are they lists of rules to be obeyed. They are not legislation. Because they are not comprehensive, and because of the literary context they are in, they are better viewed as legal wisdom—the means of communicating wisdom with regard to this area. Lists of symptoms and treatments, for example, were gathered to give practitioners wisdom about disease. Lists of divinatory observations and the resulting prognoses were gathered to give divination experts wisdom regarding the messages they believed were embedded in the signs provided by the gods. These served the utilitarian purpose of preparing experts in these fields to give competent advice to their clients. They are a gathering of legal situations and the appropriate judicial response to guide judges to make wise decisions.

As I mentioned, therefore they are not intended to be read as rules, but to circumscribe the bounds of civil, legal, and ritual order. They are hypothetical examples to illustrate underlying principles (much as we use word problems to teach math).

But the underlying principles are not moral commands either. It is wisdom to guide, not a list to identify a moral code. When fans read the baseball rulebook, it’s not to follow them but to understand what is happening as they watch the game. We don’t expect a referee to show up at the house to penalize spectators; we also should not expect God to show up handing out judgments on individuals or institutions because they have not behaved according to the principles that were set down for Israel. This legal wisdom was to shape Israelite society, not to provide a set of instructions by which anyone in any place or time can construct God’s ideal society.

> If you mean to claim those parts were merly metathorical,

Oh, I'm not claiming at all that they are metaphorical, nor "theory alone" status, but rather casuistic principles of of wisdom literature to circumscribe order and to guide the people in keeping the covenant.

> תועבה

תועבה, as you probably know, describes what is contrary to the inherent sense of order reflected in one’s inclinations or conventions. No English word captures this meaning and its Hebrew nuances successfully. Whether aspects of sexual ethics and identity are classified as nonorder (morally neutral) or disorder (morally defective) is not as relevant as the accepted fact in the ancient world that some aspects of cultic and sexual behavior were not conducive to order and were therefore to’eba (counterproductive to order; in Israel, contrary to holy status).

The word is often translated as “despised” or “detested,” but it covers an interestingly wide range of activities whose common denominator is that something is contrary to the sense of order.
* It can be relative (the Israelite sacrifices and vocation as shepherds are both to’eba to the Egyptians.
* It can describe inappropriate sacrifices, worship practices, or animals deemed unclean.
* It is often applied to the worship of foreign gods or to the images or other cult objects, including divination and human sacrifice.
* Violent or dishonest behavior are both considered to’eba, as is the sinfulness of wicked enemies.
* Even someone who is suffering may be considered to’eba to their acquaintances.
* The upright are considered to’eba by the wicked.
* Since a fool’s life is fraught with evil, it is to’eba—contrary to the pseudo-order in that way of thinking for such a fool to turn away from evil.
* When used technically in the legal literature, to’eba is used to designate deviation from the conventions of sexual conduct.

They are all identifiable as practices that are contrary to order. When God considers something to’eba, it is being characterized as contrary to order established as God to Israel. They were never meant to pertain to universal standards, but only with regard to God’s order for his people and meaning that is relative to sacred space.

Not everything that is to’eba is to’eba to YHWH. Behavior that is to’eba to YHWH is behavior that he hates or is contrary to that in which he takes delight.

So I must repeat that the text is giving casuistic principles, not commands to kill. If the situation warranted, a judge would be allowed to execute. As you know, there is no such incident in Scripture. There is no indication or record of a homosexual or a prostitute or adulteress being killed by the community. Since you've read the Torah, if you know of such an incident, I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

> yes, i have read all of numbers, and the word used is "שמרו", or 'keep' when talking on what to do with the young girls

Excellent. Having read Numbers sets you apart from most of the people with whom I speak.

Are you looking at Numbers 31.18 when you say, "the word used is "שמרו", or 'keep' ?" I'm seeing וְכֹל הַטַּף בַּנָּשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדְעוּ מִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הַחֲיוּ לָכֶֽם׃ The word is הַחֲיוּ: "You shall keep alive." I'm not seeing "שמרו" in the verse.

> rape was not outlawed infact, in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 it was somewhat legalized,

Well, this is a terrible distortion of Dt. 22.28-29. The law there was to protect the women, not to legalize rape. My goodness. It's the 3rd casuistic scenario: the seduction of an unengaged woman. In each of the 3 scenarios, the men are considered guilty and are punished. Here, where this innocent woman has been violated, there are two possible courses of action:

1. If the father and daughter agree to it, the seducer must marry the woman and provide for her all her life, without the possibility of divorce. The father (in conjunction with the daughter) has the final say-so in the arrangement. The girl isn’t required to marry the seducer.

2. The girl’s father (the legal point person) has the right to refuse any such permanent arrangement as well as the right to demand the payment that would be given for a bride, even though the seducer doesn’t marry his daughter (since she has been sexually compromised, marriage to another man would be difficult if not impossible). The girl has to agree with this arrangement, and she isn’t required to marry the seducer. In this arrangement she is still treated as a virgin.

This is not a legalization of rape, but a protection of the woman's wellbeing, her reputation in the community, and a provision for her economic future. A plain reading shows that it does not, any more than our own legal code condones rape by saying that if a man rapes a woman, he should be given free food and shelter for five to ten years. Specifying a punishment for rape isn't condoning or legalizing rape.

If it were possible to un-rape the woman, no doubt that's what the law would provide for. But since that is impossible, the law makes sure that the entirety of the financial burden falls on the rapist.

You may have read the Torah in high school, but I would venture a guess that it was not explained to you well. Let's keep talking.

[Pumpkin]

Your first point is self contradictory, my friend. You claim those weren't rules to he followe, but then say they were God's rules to the covenant. The context of the entire chapter infact further disproves you, as it contains all the commands on who not to sleep with (mainly your parents and other first rate family members). If they are legal wisdom as you said they are rules. Such rules who were given by god to the Israelites.

Excuse me, but the text exactly calls for stoning to death, it's not even implied. "So I must repeat that the text is giving casuistic principles, not commands to kill" Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." The entire chapter is dedicated to reasons to execute someone, such as adultery, worshiping another god, cussing at your parents, sleeping with a menstrating girl,. Those are the merciful stonings.

Of course it someone sleeps with a girl and her mother. You must burn them all alive.

Followed by it god tells the Israelites to ignore the local laws, and follow his stated rules. What are those if not commands directly from God, incredibly immoral ones?

Oh please, we both know how women were, and are, treated in such environments. A women is less then property in the old testament, especially when you examine the source of your claims, the Halacha. The father has the say. And who'd have a daughter he can't marry off? Especially when 50 silver shekels in a very good price.

[jimwalton]

> Your first point is self contradictory, my friend. You claim those weren't rules to he followe, but then say they were God's rules to the covenant.

You have misread. I've read through my first point several times, and nowhere do I say they were God's rules to the covenant. What I said is...

* they are not lists of God’s mandatory moral commands
* nor are they lists of rules to be obeyed.
* They are not legislation
* they are better viewed as legal wisdom
* They are a gathering of legal situations and the appropriate judicial response
* As I mentioned, therefore they are not intended to be read as rules
* But the underlying principles are not moral commands either. It is wisdom to guide, not a list to identify a moral code

Where did I self-contradict and say they were rules? I didn't.

"If they are legal wisdom as you said they are rules." Not so.

> Excuse me, but the text exactly calls for stoning to death, it's not even implied.

These are casuistic legal wisdom, not rules calling for exactly stoning to death. Given the right circumstances, the judge was allowed to give the sentencing of death, but it was not required, just as in our culture capital punishment is allowed in certain situations, but the judge has the option not to enforce it, which is what happens the majority of the time. As I said, we have no example or record from ancient times that the death penalty was ever enacted for homosexuality or adultery.

> The entire chapter is dedicated to reasons to execute someone, such as adultery, worshiping another god, cussing at your parents, sleeping with a menstrating girl,. Those are the merciful stonings.

The chapter is a holiness code (20.7-8), and the chapter is about punishment for sin, starting with sacrificing children to Molech, then cursing parents, then sexual sin. The violation of sexual codes is placed on par with idolatry: both defile persons and the land, violating and undermining the covenant.

A rabbi once told me that "Leviticus is big on the orderliness of the microcosm that informs the orderliness of the macrocosm. How we express desires defines us. Holiness means self-restraint in food, work, and sexuality."

As I've shown, these law codes are not lists of God's mandatory moral commands. They are not legislation. We have to understand the macrocosm to understand the microcosm.

> Of course it someone sleeps with a girl and her mother. You must burn them all alive.

Milgrom says, "That both are put to death implies that they gave their consent in marriage. If the women were married consecutively, the text would read differently. The severity of the punishment predicates that the two women conspired with the man. So this is not just depravity, but a scheming plot. The mother and daughter have connived with the man for this arrangement."

> Followed by it god tells the Israelites to ignore the local laws, and follow his stated rules. What are those if not commands directly from God, incredibly immoral ones?

As I've said all along, the cultural and worldview context of ancient Israel is that these are legal wisdom, casuistic, and not apodictic.

> Followed by it god tells the Israelites to ignore the local laws, and follow his stated rules.

What He says is they they are not to live the way the Canaanites live because they have been set apart. That is NOT followed, however, but a statement that they must instead follow His stated rules.

> Oh please, we both know how women were, and are, treated in such environments.

We can't assume the heinous behavior of ancient soldiers characterized the covenant people of Israel. They were set apart from the nations. They followed a different God with different standards. You have no basis to assume (1) that these verses implied rape, or (2) that rape was common behavior among Israelite soldiers. There is no record of such things, and you are not free to make them up to fit your case.

> A women is less then property in the old testament,

Not so. Women are given quite a bit of dignity and a lot of rights and recognition in the Tanakh. You're entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to manufacture your own facts.

[Pumpkin]

That is correct, we are not entitled to our own facts, i derive my conclusions from the treatment of women throughout the bible, if it's the servant of Abraham, Hagar, which was knocked up then banished to the desert because Sarah got jealous. The very fact soldiers inspected young girls to see if they were virgins, and more. But, that goes both ways, please show me where it's stated that what seems like a list of rules and puniments "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Say to the people of Israel,""(leviticus 20:1-2) given directly by god through moses to the Israelites is infact not rules or legislation or moral guidance but wisdom of some sort. And where it states the judge has room for judgment

Furthermore, if it is nothing but wisdom, why is it followed? If it must be followed then by definition those are rules, if they aren't. If they aren't a must do, why list punishments?

As you are an interesting conversationalist, I'll expand to another question. The problem of evil

1)God exists.
2)God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
3)An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
4)An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
5)An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
6)A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7)If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.
8)Evil exists (logical contradiction)

[jimwalton]

> i derive my conclusions from the treatment of women throughout the bible,

So do I. We would have to talk about specific incidents rather than generalities to really discuss it properly.

> Hagar and Ishmael

The problem with your comment is that it was not by God's directive or approval that Hagar and Ishmael (in utero) got kicked to the curb. In Gn. 16.7-9, the angel of the Lord found her and told her to return to Sarah. God didn't approve of that "treatment of women." He even gave her a blessing (Gn. 16.10).

Later (Gn. 21), Sarah again mistreated Hagar and Ishmael, still not with God's approval and endorsement. This time, however, God removed Hagar & Ishmael so that the covenant could go forward with the child of promise (Isaac). We read in Gn. 21.17ff. that God cared for them, provided for them, blessed them, and "God was with the boy as he grew up" (Gn. 21.20). At what point does all this qualify as God's maltreatment of women through Scripture? By my observation, it doesn't.

>The very fact soldiers inspected young girls to see if they were virgins, and more.

C'mon, you have to show some understanding of the text. The Midianite women seduced the men of Israel (Num. 25) not only to sex but also to idolatry. When the Israelites made war against them, the women who were not virgins had likely been engaged in the worship of Peor (Num. 25.2), and they were killed to preserve the purity of the community of Israel (holy space, holy times, holy people—which is what Leviticus is about). The holiness code was to allow God's presence to remain with His people, and that was to be protected at all costs, and particularly against idolatry.

The girls who were still virgins could not possibly have been guilty of cultic fornication. That's what's going on here.

> But, that goes both ways, please show me where it's stated that what seems like a list of rules and puniments "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Say to the people of Israel,""(leviticus 20:1-2) given directly by god through moses to the Israelites is infact not rules or legislation or moral guidance but wisdom of some sort.

It's because of archaeological discoveries, artifacts, and documentation that we come to understand that the context and worldview of the biblical world was casuistic. The decrees of the Lord were not apodictic commands. The first one ("if anyone curses his father or mother...", i.e., treat with contempt, Lev. 20.9) is quite the judgment call—not at all like murder or adultery. Do you think every time a teenager said to his parent "I hate you" they were killed? Of course not. It was written for intractable rebellion, and was not at the whim of the parents but instead by decision of an authorized court.

The next verse mentions adultery as a capital crime. It was also a capital crime in Hammurabi's Code, Middle Assyrian laws and Hittite Laws. In Israelite practice, however, adultery, bestiality, and incest were all believed to undermine the family, which was the foundational element of Israelite society. To undermine the family was to undermine the covenant. The judge could pronounce a sentence up to and including death, depending on the circumstances. Deut. 22.22 (cf. Prov. 6.32-35) tells us that the husband might be willing to accept compensation. But if guilt can't be definitely affirmed (Num. 5.12-31), God would have to be the judge. And they couldn't just punish the woman; they could only punish her if they punished him the same. There are all kinds of mitigating circumstances that a judge was allowed to consider.

> Furthermore, if it is nothing but wisdom, why is it followed?

Because it was God's wisdom. It was the foundation and ground of the covenant.

> The Problem of Evil

Where your argument fails is at #3 & 4. The premises may not be true. Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do anything. It doesn’t mean there are no limits to what God can do. It means God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power. It is no contradiction that God is able to bring about whatever is possible, no matter how many possibilities there are. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power. He can never be overwhelmed, exhausted, or contained. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature, though often he lets nature take its course, because that’s what He created it to do. He has power over the course of history, though he chooses to use that power only as he wills . He has the power to change human personality, but only as individuals allow, since He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm.

What all of this means is that God’s will is never frustrated. That's what omnipotence is about. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.

There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatever we may conceive of in our imagination. In other words, there are things that an omnipotent God cannot do.

* He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory (like make a square circle or a married bachelor)
* He can’t act contrary to his nature. Self-contradiction is not possible. He can only be self-consistent, and not self-contradictory.
* He cannot fail to do what he has promised. That would mean God is flawed.
* He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.

Leibniz & Ross philosophically state omnipotence in what’s called a “result” theory: theories that analyze omnipotence in terms of the results an omnipotent being would be able to bring about. These results are usually thought of as states of affairs or possible worlds: a way the world *could* be. A possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs, a complete way the world could be. The simplest way to state it may be, “for any comprehensive way the world could be, an omnipotent being could bring it about that the world was that way.” In other words, it's not necessarily true that an omnipotent God can do anything and everything. Ross formulated it as “Since every state of affairs must either obtain or not, and since two contradictory states of affairs cannot both obtain, an omnipotent being would have to will some maximal consistent set of contingent states of affairs, that is, some one possible world.”

So we have to ask the legitimate question of "Is it always true that an omnipotent God has the power to prevent evil from coming into existence, and that an omni-benevolent being would want to prevent all evils?" Not necessarily.

I can't write everything I want to, so I'll just start us off, though there is much more to say.

We have established that God’s omnipotence doesn’t mean He can do all things. We can also say that His goodness doesn’t require that He eliminate evil at every opportunity. Every parent knows that sometimes the only way to get a splinter out of a child’s finger is to cause him or her pain in the process. Every doctor or oncologist knows that surgery, radiation, chemotherapy (basically putting poison in the body and taking them much closer to death), and even amputation at times are the path to healing. We know from our observation of parents and physicians that a moral being can not only allow pain but sometimes even cause it as the path to ultimate good. In other words, some evils cannot be eliminated without also eliminating the greater good. This would be true of pain perpetrated by a moral agent as well as suffering allowed by a moral agent. Allowing the evil to stand is at times the only way to arrive at the greater good. Therefore we can conclude that “good” and “pain” are not automatically contradictory, that moral beings can allow and even cause pain (with a beneficial and moral intent), and therefore there is no contradiction between the existence of evil in the world and the existence of a good and all-powerful God.

We also know that some evil and suffering actually accomplishes some good, because there are times when suffering brings out the best in people. In the face of suffering and evil we may see love, caring, compassion, nobility and courage. Sometimes people get stronger because of the pain and suffering, or learn important lessons that could not be learned in any other way. In illustration of my point, Phil Yancey writes, “Bishop Desmond Tutu, in South Africa, sat through the hearings of the crimes that whites committed on blacks in the name of God and the government. Yet after two years of listening to such horrific accounts, Bishop Tutu came away with his faith strengthened. The hearings convinced him that perpetrators are morally accountable, that good and evil are real and that they matter. Despite relentless accounts of inhumanity, Tutu emerged from the hearings with this conviction: ‘For us who are Christians, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof positive that love is stronger than hate, that life is stronger than death, that light is stronger than darkness, that laughter and joy, and compassion and gentleness and truth, all these are so much stronger than their ghastly counterparts.’ … The tragedy in Newtown, CT, in December of 2012, tells a [similar kind of] story. There was an outpouring of grief, compassion, and generosity. ... There were acts of selflessness, not selfishness: in the school staff who sacrificed their lives to save children, in the sympathetic response of a community and a nation. There was a deep belief that the people who died mattered, and that something of inestimable worth was snuffed out on December 14.”

Good and evil together can be a good state of affairs (a point I will address shortly). God can be all-powerful, allow evil, and still be considered good as long as in allowing evil there is a possibility of a greater good, and as long as there is more good than evil in the universe as a whole, which is exactly what the Bible teaches (Rom. 8.28).

Those who argue that all evil is unjustified (and therefore God is immoral or impotent) must prove their case. Yet that case is necessarily impossible to prove because we all know of times where suffering produced strength or courage and even goodness and nobility. If only one case exists where evil has brought about a greater good, or if it’s even remotely possible that evil brings moral and beneficial results, then this accusation against God fails (that all evil is unjustified and therefore God is immoral or impotent).

I am asserting that God is perfectly good, despite allowing evil to exist in the world although He in his omnipotence could prevent it. There are valid reasons He doesn’t prevent it, and therefore the existence of evil and suffering doesn’t prove He is cruel. If good can come from suffering and evil, then possibly pain has a potential benefit, and is therefore not automatically cruel.