From: ingles@dennison.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: The Canaanites(was Re: Achilles heels for religion?)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 18:22:44 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <1992Apr14.164913.25144@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> In article <WSm+P0_@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@crane.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
> 
> 
> |>  Ah, but doesn't it say that these self-same children in so
> |> much danger were in fact killed along with the adults by the
> |> Jews?
> |> 
> |> > And the stories don't describe real Canaanites but symbolic
> |> > Canaanites designed to (a) teach a lesson about righteousness,
> |> > (b) serve as a myth of how our nation showed up in this land ---
> |> > a once-in-history event.  They're not supposed to be
> |> > generalized to allow *us* to judge some other nation
> |> > whose land we want as unrighteous and to wipe them out.
> |> 
> |>  How does one ensure that the meaning "not supposed to be"
> |> gleaned from the text is not in fact gleaned?
> |> 
> You have to teach it.  That's why there are Bible
> commentaries, Sunday schools, seders, etc.
> 
> It's just like anything else.  Suppose you want to teach some
> science, e.g. Darwinian evolution.  You also have to guard
> against common misinterpretations --- e.g. Lamarckian
> evolution, "social Darwinism", etc. --- which could
> be made by someone who didn't understand the whole
> subject, but who made wild generalizations from
> random snippets of text.

 Ah, but do you try to teach evolution from a textbook that
makes many of the same errors, and then include and "errata"
to explain where the text is wrong?

> |> > I'm glad you used the word "morally abhorrent" in your post
> |> > because although we may disagree as to which things fit
> |> > in this class, we seem to agree that there is such a class.
> |> > Other responses to my post seem to imply that some posters
> |> > believe that there is no such class.
> |> 
> |>  Well, sort of. *I* think someone could be very moral and
> |> still engage in human and even child sacrifice. Remember,
> |> in such things it's generally held that the gods *demand*
> |> these sacrifices, and failure to pay up will bring doom to
> |> the whole tribe.
> |>  So a priest could easily regret *having* to kill a child, but
> |> still do it because they believe it's *necessary.*
> |>  Mind you, I'd still try to stop a child sacrifice. But I
> |> wouldn't necessarily hate the people trying to do it.
> 
> Now I've lost you.
> 
> I thought you were arguing that it was wrong for
> the Israelites to kill the Canaanite children,
> using "righteous future world" as an excuse.
> Now here you seem to be arguing that a Canaanite
> priest might sacrifice a child for the sake of
> a "righteous future world" his theology promises,
> and his actions would be righteous.
> 
> This seems to be a contradiction, or at least
> you're holding the Israelites to a higher standard
> than you seem to be holding the hypothetical Canaanite.

 Well, first off, the Israelites supposedly hold themselves to a
higher standard, do they not?
 In any case, I don't see where the "righteous future world" comes
into this on the Jwish side. They seemed to think that these kids
were irredeemably evil or something. Perhaps this is or was a
part of the Jewish tradition you talk about, but I doubt it.

> |>  It still seems to me that, just as "holy wars" are sold
> |> to the "gullible masses" as being "God's will," calling
> |> moral laws "God's will" could lead to a misapprehension
> |> of the nature of morals on the part of the "masses."
> |>  Why not say, "This is right because it works, and here's
> |> why..."? I mean, sure, saying "It's God's Law" could be
> |> used as a shorthand for that, but it's also *much* more
> |> subject to misinterpretation...
> |> 
> I think we do say "This is right because it works, and
> here's why".  Some of the Bible stories are used as
> examples --- they're passed on because they have
> value as examples.   We also say "It's God's Law" to
> emphasize how important it is.
 
> Rob Strom

 Why do you need the emphasis? Or do many but not all people need
that emphasis? Certainly I and my family and many of my friends
did not need any such emphasis.

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8253 alt.satanism:1334