From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Subject: Re: "God is unfair" Bible passages.
Keywords: Jewish viewpoint
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:51:14 EST

In article <1992Nov11.001615.17185@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>[Elisha and the children and the bears]
>|> 
>|> So God merely mauled a group of teenagers for calling his prophet names.
>|> Forgive me if I still put this under the "God is unfair" category.
>
>I agree.  I've posted before that this is a story I
>will teach my children only with a negative disclaimer.
>
>|> >    In the case of Lot, God did NOT destroy a city of innocent people,
>|> >they were a bunch of gang-rapists, ...
>|> 
>|> God did not limit himself to destroying just the gang-rapists in the city.
>|> Even if every adult man in the city was a rapist, he also destroyed all the
>|> women and children when he destroyed the city.  This no doubt included a
>|> number of innocent people.
>
>Now bringing up this story is very timely, for it is this week's Torah reading.
>(That is, Jews divide the Torah into sections.  At each weekly Torah
>service, a different section comes up.  This week's section is Vayera ---
>which is the section of the Bible containing the story of the destruction
>of Sodom.  So Jews all over are studying this passage this week,
>
>The most important part of the story is not the destruction of Sodom.

And no wonder, this God sound like a sadistic killer.

>The most important part of the story is that Abraham *challenges God*
>on the very issue that Ken Arromdee raises in this post.

This statement implies that God can err, and has in fact erred since an
exception was made.  Oh well, nothing is perfect afterall.

>
>Abraham says (I'm quoting from memory now --- look up Vayera yourself
>if you want the exact details;  it's around the 20th chapter of Genesis)
>"Shall the righteous perish with the wicked?  Shall their righteousness
>be judged as unrighteousness?  Surely the Judge of the Universe shall
>do justice!"  

Talk about black and white!  No gray areas for individuals who have sinned
but who really should be given a second chance to redeem themselves.  

>
>So the lesson is not that God indiscriminately destroys cities,
>the righteous with the unrighteous.  The lessons are:
>
>(1) Even God is constrained by His moral laws.

Yeah, judge, jury, and executioner!  A real nice being.

>(2) The righteous man does well to stand up for righteousness,
>    even if it means calling God Himself to account.

I hereby call God into account for the wanton death and destruction
of all the inocent lives taken.  I quote:  THOUGH SHALT NOT KILL!

>(3) (less obvious but still important)  You don't need
>    an intermediary (e.g. priests, Jesus, Mary) to approach God.

Fine with me.  Let's get rid of all that junk.  

>(4) Obeying God doesn't mean shutting up and passively
>    submitting; it means *doing righteousness*.
>
Different religions different "righteousness".  But one God and 
therefore one "righteousness".  Unless of course you are polytheistic
and have to follow several/many different/contradicting "righteousness".
This is getting to non-sensical, really.

>Another poster in soc.culture.jewish pointed out the evolution
>of the merciful drive in man.
>
>Noah remained silent in the face of the destruction of humanity.
>Abraham argued to save the righteous.
>Moses argued to spare even the wicked.
>
>You see the growth of mercy and kindness over time --- and
>even God, the supposedly unchanging one, appears to evolve as well.

Uh, pardon me did you say EVOLUTION.  Creationism then only applies
to humans.  Is this silly or what!

>In the Midrash, God *regrets* having destroyed the world
>in the Flood --- basically he says he *made a mistake*!

One should never give a fool more power than he know what to do with!
Bloody murderer.

>
>These are the lessons we teach.  They are relevant for
>alt.atheism, since you can view the lessons as lessons
>even if you believe the stories are all fables, and
>that Abraham and God either never existed or are
>literary metaphors.
>
>The stories only seem evil if you violate the literary
>assumptions --- e.g. you say "well there must have been
>some innocent babies in Sodom so this was evil".  But *for
>the purpose of the story*, there are no innocent babies
>in Sodom.  Just as for the purpose of the story of Maitre
>Corbeau, crows eat cheese, whether that's really true or not.

Well it figures.  Nothing but some dumb fairy tales.  Just like
a true Believer.

>
>-- 
>Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
>IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598