From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "God is unfair" Bible passages.
Keywords: Jewish viewpoint
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:55:50 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov16.030326.25333@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>In article <11492@spark.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>|> >(3) (less obvious but still important)  You don't need
>|> >    an intermediary (e.g. priests, Jesus, Mary) to approach God.
>|> 
>|> No?  What purpose do all those priests and prophets serve, then?  Why
>|> does everyone consult them?
>
>In the days of the sacrificial cult, the priests performed
>the *public* ceremonial duties of the tribe.  The priests
>still had a lot of political power, which the prophets
>and later the Pharisees tried to weaken.

Fair enough.  I tend to think of priests and prophets as the same estate,
and it does appear to me that people too often get in touch with the
deity through them and too seldom try a direct interchange.

>|> >(4) Obeying God doesn't mean shutting up and passively
>|> >    submitting; it means *doing righteousness*.
>|> 
>|> But it did mean shutting up and submitting when the same man, Abraham,
>|> was told to carve up Isaac.
>
>Not according to the way Jews teach this.

There seem to be Jews and Jews.  The Vayera issue of _L'Chaim_ on
soc.culture.jewish contains a short treatise to this very effect --
that both Abraham and Isaac were convinced that Isaac was going to
die.  It may not present the most widespread Jewish way to teach it,
but it certainly is a position expressed in public by someone Jewish.

>First of all, Abraham knew ahead of time that the Isaac
>would be the father of the nation of the covenant.
>Isaac had not fathered any children at the time Abraham
>was called to sacrifice him, so the way *I* teach
>the story to my children, Abraham knew ahead of time
>that God would not break his promise.

That's fine, as long as your children buy it.  With me, it doesn't wash.
For one thing, if all participants in the show knew that it was not
for real, then it was meaningless, gently speaking.  For another, the
idea that Abraham (and presumably Isaac) knew that Yahweh wouldn't let
them die before they arranged their succession is also problematic.

Consider the story about Abraham and Abimelech (Gn 20).  What I see
here is a man who lied about a personal matter and as a result of that
acquired substantial material gain.  Worse, he abused the hospitality
of another.  The first is a crime by any law, the second is immoral by
all nations' standards.  Note that Abram had already done that once
in Egypt, and that the same trick was repeated on Abimelech by Isaac.

I have always thought of these passages as illustrating the low
morality of the biblical patriarchs, but now I see that the case is
graver than that.  If the man really was afraid that he could be
killed because of his wife, then he would have an excuse for lying,
although I can't see any justification for his failure to restore the
property obtained in an unlawful way, as payment in a contract which had
to be declared void.  But if he knew all along that his life was being
protected from above, then he lied twice, and there is no excuse in sight.

>|> [God] also said (via Samuel, whose job was to make it less apparent that
>|> you didn't need a go-between to approach Yahweh) that he had made a
>|> mistake when he allowed Saul to be made king.  Saul wasn't smart
>|> enough to start a discussion and to support his right to pardon Agag,
>|> so he lost.  Too bad, because it certainly seems that his position was
>|> the more moral one.
>
>I also tend to be on the side of Saul here, too.

Then you aren't qualified to be king.  Saul had the kingdom taken away
from him for that, remember?

>The Midrash tries to tilt the balance by claiming that Agag
>fathered the ancestors of Haman.

I thought a father was not supposed to be killed for the already
committed transgressions of his son, let alone for something a distant
descendant of his would do in the very distant future?!

>The issue is a morally ambiguous one.  Unlike other
>"bad" stories in the Bible (like the killing of the
>children who mocked Elisha) this one appears in
>the light of modern morality arguable from both sides.

Well, I don't know about that.  Agag had been an enemy, he had been
captured, and if Saul had killed him right away, I don't think anyone
would have been impressed.  But it was also Saul's right to grant him
his life, and if he had decided to do so, it does appear monstruous to
me that he should be chastised for it.

I much prefer reading the Laws of Manu, in which it says somewhere in
Chapter 8 (the one containing the laws for the king) that the enemy
who has said `I am thine' must not be killed.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism