NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/org/mensa/8957

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 1.8 KB

Xref: sparky rec.org.mensa:8957 soc.culture.jewish:24113 alt.atheism:24417
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa,soc.culture.jewish,alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!blaze.cs.jhu.edu!jyusenkyou!arromdee
From: [e-mail] (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Re^2: Atheism and Intelligence
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet news system)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:40:06 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Todd J. Dicker) writes:
>But far beyond this, very little in the way of liturgy, custom, law
>and tradition in Judaism can or should be taken at face value.  This is
>apparantly what you seem to have done, and I find it a shame.  I see many
>people who turn away from Judaism because they find the story of Noah and
>the great flood or Sodom and Gemorrah too hard to believe, or they find
>inconsistencies in the binding of Isaac.  Some study, some insight, and a
>good teacher could help you to realize that there are social and
>psychological~r meanings beyond the literal to these stories, and there
>is room for advanced understanding of these stories.

But what does this mean?  Does it means that the _only_ meanings are the non-
literal meanings, or does it mean that the non-literal meanings are there, but
we are supposed to accept the literal meanings as true too?

If the latter, criticising the literal meanings still applies.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee ([e-mail], [e-mail])