From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: God Vs. Communication
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:47:19 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA18608; Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:40:47 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA09497; Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:40:42 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0063; Wed, 18 Nov 92 14:40:12 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Gerry Palo typed:


>One could point out that God never condemned Job for arguing
>with him, just opened his eyes at a certain point.  Likewise
>Abraham.

God killed Job's wives and sons just for testing the father. Disgusting.
Or are you going to imply that hurting others is nice?

>The destruction of Amalek was even too much for Saul to bear.
>But if your own heart told you to destroy Hitler, would you
>not do it?  The reasons why Amalek had to be destroyed are
>perhaps lost to history.

Silly bait. Killing Hitler and doing genocide oneself are different.
The last sentence is a typical statement like 'I know that god is good so
it cannot been wrong', even when the story refers to butchering innocents.
By the way, this story refers to the killing of babies by demand of god.
I understand that it is a morally better thing than abortion.

>I am glad that the rabinnical scholars
>have found a way to let that commandment lapse in a practical
>sense.  Some commands must be seen in terms of a time and
>consciousness-space so removed that it is difficult to trans-
>late into modern terms.  Some things are presented in the Bible
>as simply the relation of historical/spiritual facts and phenomena.

Again you assume that it was Right (TM) because it was ordered by god. How
did you get that major proposition of yours? Through observation?

Further, when I look at the history of Judaeo-Christianity I see that
only some scholars have come to an interpretation that is a bit better
than the message of 'genocide is ok'. Others took it literally. Others
took it symbolically again  and labeled people they didn't like as Amalek.
The reason for this is quite obvious. The  bible understood literally
contradicts itself and interpreting it symbolically is just another form
of mumbojumbo. You will end at what you started with - like god is good
or exterminating Amalek is The Right Thing.

>The interesting thing is that the scriptures leave in so much that
>is difficult and often embarassing.  If the authors were trying to
>fabricate a religious system instead of writing on the basis of what
>they experienced directly, one would think that they could have done
>a better job of making it appealing.

Your god and its interpretators are losers when it comes to communication. I
suggest when you come back AFTER you have established the Right Meaning (TM)
and have also some proof handy. Until then, leave mankind alone.

>Not every commandment recorded was necessarily to be applied forever
>in a literal sense.  While committed to a literal interpretation of
>the law, the Rabbis wisely understand this in practice.  The wisdom
>of the Law and of the Logos is of bigger dimensions than our micro-
>scopic examinations of it.  Some things can only be learned through
>meditating on them, rather than through analysis.  Insisght comes in
>glimmers and sometimes bursts of light, not in comprehensive theories
>of the universe.

Prove that there is a law and a logos first, refer to history when possible.

>I agree that the license to argue with him is also a gift of God.

I used to be a Catholic believer sdring my childhood and teens. God never
argued with me although I desperately wished for it. I conclude that I am
not among the gifted then.
   Benedikt