From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: The Canaanites(was Re: Achilles heels for religion?)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:49:13 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <WSm+P0_@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@crane.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:


|>  Ah, but doesn't it say that these self-same children in so
|> much danger were in fact killed along with the adults by the
|> Jews?
|> 
|> > And the stories don't describe real Canaanites but symbolic
|> > Canaanites designed to (a) teach a lesson about righteousness,
|> > (b) serve as a myth of how our nation showed up in this land ---
|> > a once-in-history event.  They're not supposed to be
|> > generalized to allow *us* to judge some other nation
|> > whose land we want as unrighteous and to wipe them out.
|> 
|>  How does one ensure that the meaning "not supposed to be"
|> gleaned from the text is not in fact gleaned?
|> 
You have to teach it.  That's why there are Bible
commentaries, Sunday schools, seders, etc.

It's just like anything else.  Suppose you want to teach some
science, e.g. Darwinian evolution.  You also have to guard
against common misinterpretations --- e.g. Lamarckian
evolution, "social Darwinism", etc. --- which could
be made by someone who didn't understand the whole
subject, but who made wild generalizations from
random snippets of text.

|> > I'm glad you used the word "morally abhorrent" in your post
|> > because although we may disagree as to which things fit
|> > in this class, we seem to agree that there is such a class.
|> > Other responses to my post seem to imply that some posters
|> > believe that there is no such class.
|> 
|>  Well, sort of. *I* think someone could be very moral and
|> still engage in human and even child sacrifice. Remember,
|> in such things it's generally held that the gods *demand*
|> these sacrifices, and failure to pay up will bring doom to
|> the whole tribe.
|>  So a priest could easily regret *having* to kill a child, but
|> still do it because they believe it's *necessary.*
|>  Mind you, I's still try to stop a child sacrifice. But I
|> wouldn't necessarily hate the people trying to do it.
|> 

Now I've lost you.

I thought you were arguing that it was wrong for
the Israelites to kill the Canaanite children,
using "righteous future world" as an excuse.
Now here you seem to be arguing that a Canaanite
priest might sacrifice a child for the sake of
a "righteous future world" his theology promises,
and his actions would be righteous.

This seems to be a contradiction, or at least
you're holding the Israelites to a higher standard
than you seem to be holding the hypothetical Canaanite.


|> 
|>  It still seems to me that, just as "holy wars" are sold
|> to the "gullible masses" as being "God's will," calling
|> moral laws "God's will" could lead to a misapprehension
|> of the nature of morals on the part of the "masses."
|>  Why not say, "This is right because it works, and here's
|> why..."? I mean, sure, saying "It's God's Law" could be
|> used as a shorthand for that, but it's also *much* more
|> subject to misinterpretation...
|> 
I think we do say "This is right because it works, and
here's why".  Some of the Bible stories are used as
examples --- they're passed on because they have
value as examples.   We also say "It's God's Law" to
emphasize how important it is.

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