From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re:      Re: God Is Unfair
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 02:10:13 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <1992Nov12.181409.18649@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov12.024754.27590@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> >|> Further, can you give stringent evidence that your interpretation of the
|> >|> passage is the right one? That it was what your god meant when it destructed
|> >|> sodom/invented the fabula of destructing sodom? It rather looks as if another
|> >|> chain of theologic pseudo reasoning that aims at making the brute base of its
|> >|> beliefs more palatable for our 'enlightened' times.
|> >You can't have it both ways.  If you criticize traditional religion for
|> >being ancient and single-minded and inflexible, you can't turn around
|> >and complain that my interpretation is flawed because it's too modern
|> >and ambiguous and flexible.
|> 
|> You can, in fact, criticize religion for both of these things.  The second
|> part is worthy of criticism, not because flexibility itself is something to be
|> criticized, but because of the inconsistency between the flexibility and the
|> lack of flexibility elsewhere in the same religion.
|> 
|> Suppose I say something like this: "the rules about [so-and-so Jewish law] were
|> indeed given by God.  But just like God's orders about Sodom, these are orders
|> which it is right for human beings to use their intellect to question.  My own
|> intellect tells me that there is no good reason to [follow law], so I am going
|> to dispute God on this point."
|> 
|> I don't think this would really be considered acceptable.  If I were to use
|> that as a reason for not following some Jewish law, the answer would be
|> something like "I'm sure God must have a reason.  After all, he knows more
|> than you do.  Even if you don't understand God's reason, you should trust that
|> he has one and knows what is best."  That it _is_ acceptable for Abraham at
|> Sodom seems inconsistent.

Yes, there are plenty of inconsistencies in the Bible.

There are trivial ones (like how many of each species was on the ark).
There are deep ones --- in some places the Bible seems to say that
the children aren't punished for the sins of the parents;  in others
the Bible seems to say that they are.

And these inconsistencies are a challenge for study and commentary,
just as the Zeno paradoxes, and the Kantian antinomies were.

Unfortunately, different Jewish commentators resolve these
inconsistencies in inconsistent ways.  This provides fruit
for an entire new layer of scholarship and commentary.

In that respect there's a difference between Jewish tradition
and, for example, Christian tradition.  In Christian tradition,
where right belief is critical, and the fate of your
immortal soul depends on it, it's very important to get
the credo, and the Christology, and all that metaphysical
stuff *right*.  So councils would debate it, and define
a very finely-honed authoritative interpretation, declare
it Orthodox, and anathematize those who disagreed.
But in our tradition, we love the contradictions, the
pilpul, the argumentation.

And often the mainstream interpretation not only sounds
odd, but even seems to contradict the Bible.  For example, the
Sanhedrin virtually abolished capital punishment,
even though the most casual reading of the Torah
shows dozens of capital crimes.   Of course, the
Torah can't appear to be contradicted, so what was
worked out was that the *procedural* obstacles
to convicting someone of a capital crime became
so enormous that it was an impossibility in practice.

Similarly, there is one commandment of the Bible
which appears to require genocide --- we are commanded
to destroy Amelek.  But the "authoritative interpretation"
is that it is impossible to know who Amalek is,
and therefore the commandment is permanently
disabled, as it were.

This happens in secular law all the time.
The 13th (US Constitution) Amendment appears to
abolish "involuntary servitude", but military
conscription was held not to violate this amendment.


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