From: lerner@cs.columbia.edu (Michah Lerner)
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodoxy (was Re: O-C-R debate)
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
	<1992Jul26.214408.18665@umbc3.umbc.edu>
	<LERNER.92Jul26182033@division.cs.columbia.edu>
	<55213@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:28:41 GMT

In article <55213@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>> Path: cs.columbia.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!uunet!gatech!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin
>> From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
>> Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
>> Summary: Anti-Orthodox does not mean atheist
>> Date: 27 Jul 92 18:42:00 GMT
>> References: <1992Jul25.211027.7040@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Jul26.214408.18665@umbc3.umbc.edu> <LERNER.92Jul26182033@division.cs.columbia.edu>
>> Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
>> Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
>> Lines: 47
>>
>> In article <LERNER.92Jul26182033@division.cs.columbia.edu> lerner@cs.columbia.edu (Michah Lerner) writes:
>>
>>
>> >>>>	As far as I'm concerned, the Torah was written by many different
>> >>>>	people giving many different accounts of history.  If they
>> >>>>	actually saw us taking it leterally I think they'd be laughing
>> >>>>	at us.  But this is my opinion, I will not say that it is the
>> >>>>	only reasoning.  I just can't see how anyone can say the Torah
>> >>>>	is an accurate document.  There are parts where clearly Moses
>> >>>>	could not have gone up Mount Sinai and come back down and 
>> >>>>	gone back up, and gone back up (wait, how'd he get back up if
>>
>> >	Reader beware: The above unsupported contention is the product of
>> >	misunderstanding; while the idea of  the  Torah as an  historical
>> >	document (G-d  forbid!)  is not new, the recent emphasis of  this
>> >	is simply  an attemtp To even suggest  the Torah is (G-d  forbid)
>> >	man-made makes a  mockery of any religous sensiblity This is  not
>> >	soc.culture.atheism,  but  if you claim that the  Torah  is  (G-d
>> >	forbid) man-made then you simply made up your interpretation.
>>
>> Even the Word of God must be written in the language of man.  Few, if any,
                                                                 ===========
>> on this group take the Torah to be purely an invention of man.  But man
   =============================================================

   Well, I'm glad to heard at least part of this.  But what do yo mean
   "purely"?  You mean some people take it to be partly an invention of
   man?   

>> is not so much a rational being as a rationalizing being, and, as one of
>> the philosophers wrote,
>>
>>	   God created man in his image.  And man, being the gentleman,
>>	   returned the favor.
>>
>> I would even say that it would be difficult for man to do otherwise.
>> Now even primitive man could have envisaged a universe which took 
       =============================================================
>> billions of years to develop.  The Hindu cosmology even has a fairly
   ============================
   Do you mean the person walking around in New York City with a six-pack
   under his arm,  or the guy baralleling down the highway at 70?  This is
   indeed a primitive man,  but that is no reason to presume he is correct
   in his assumption that the universe took billions of year to develop.
   I will not argue this beyond saying "The Kuzari" is a brilliant and very
   readable text which addresses this quite nicely.
>> reasonable approximation to the age of our univers. 
>>
>> But it seems that God did not give a clear enough inspiration on even the
>> order of biological development; the Torah account is too far in disagreement
>> with our direct observations of the record of the earth to be acceptable as
        ===================================================
   PLEASE, DO ME THE COURTESY OF NOT CLAIMING THAT CARBON 14 DATING AND THE
   LIKE IS A "DIRECT OBSERVATION".  HOW MANY PIECES OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 
   ARE IN USE IN  A C14 DATING OR THE OTHER PURPORTED "DIRECT OBSERVATIONS"
   WHICH ESTABLISH?  IT IS A DERIVED CALCULATION,  NOT A DIRECT OBSERVATION.
   WERE YOU THERE WITH A NOTEBOOK?  
    
>> a summary.  Nor is the distribution of fauna consistent with any world-wide
>> flood at any time when any of genus homo was around.
>>
>> Thus it is necessary for us humans to use our mental capacities and the
>> continuing inspiration from God to separate His words from those of mortals
>> attempting to convey His ideas.



>> -- 
>> Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
>> Phone: (317)494-6054
>> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
>> {purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)




--
/M
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish