From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: different planet (was paranoid etc)
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:02:13 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)

In article <4340@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk>, martin@pharaoh (Martin Gorman) writes:
>I do not recall you asking Eric of what relevance the passage was, or
>Eric evading the question, or admitting there was none. Are you sure
>all of this happened?

Here you go:

In article <72257@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@libra (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|||||||Meanwhile, I still fail to see what _YOUR_ READING OF THE BIBLE has to
|||||||do with _actual_ Jewish practice regarding child education.
|
|||As long as you refuse to answer this, there is nothing to be answered.
|||You brought up a red herring, and no matter how much you try, I will not
|||follow your side tracks.
|
||It's not a red herring, it is a side issue. It's related to what the
||"Jewish tradition" is,
|
|You have *said* that you are aware that the tradition is not literalist.
|So how is it related?  The burden is on you to show that is related.
|
|YOU brought up the Canaanites, YOU made the claim that is relevant.
|
|Back up your claims.  And do so _without_ assuming the tradition is
|literal, as when you claimed that Judaism then is to be understood
|in a literal manner.
|
||		        but not to education per se.  Surely even you
||can see this.
|
|That's right.  What relevance does it have to the discussion that was
|going on?  YOU brought it up, and now you tell me it's not related.
|
|I've asked you thrice, and now you've finally answered.

>As a recap, as far as I see the issue (and I wouldn't want to put
>words into anyones mouth so this is just my personal opinion), the
>relevance is:

>The passage appears to be teaching as a moral guide that it is
>acceptable to massacre large numbers people and take over their
>city if they follow a different religion from you, and the
>general extrapolation that ANY act is acceptable if the perpetrator
>believes that god has condoned it (eg by the government saying
>"god is on your side").

That may be somebody's teaching, but it is not the Jewish one.  I would
discourage anyone teaching Joshua 8 vis-a-vis morals outside of the
traditional explanations, precisely for the reasons you give.  These
extrapolations are completely forbidden according to the tradition.

>			 I and (I think) many other atheists, for
>this reason, do not think that instilling an absolute moral
>code into children from the bible is a good idea, as they will
>grow up not questioning authority and thus be prone to manipulation
>and "just following orders" of a potentially nefarious nature.

Jewish tradition encourages the questioning of authority.  Constantly.

>The question remaining is, how (as you suggest) could the passage
>be interpreted in any way other than a massacre? True, references
>have been posted, but what about a quick summary? I mean, if this
>interpretation exists, it HAS to mean that here the bible is simply
>wrong, which is big news for christians and a.a.

No, it means the Bible is not literalist, which is no news for Jews.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)