Re: A comment and question on Jews God and History
- From: Andy Katz <amkatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:07:31 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:11:24 +0000 (UTC), Don Levey
<Don_SCJM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>THere are a number of books I won't read to my children; one of them
>is "The Giving Tree". To me, the moral is "go ahead and abuse your
>friends, because the true friends will keep coming back for more."
>I see it as more of a sad co-dependant story than a heartwarming one.
God isn't people. And even if He were, I'd expect His relationship
with humankind and the Jewish people to resemble that of a parent
toward his progeny, and a certain degree of abuse is part of the
process by which children mature and develop separate identities. Of
course I realize this can go too far quickly, and children ought to
treat their parents with respect even while carving out their own
unique identities.
And therein lies the problem. What is meant in the original
supposition? Who is abusing and/or defying God? What constitutes abuse
vs honest error? Why, if we're including recent history, were
overwhelming majority of those punished *not* normally defined as
being in defiance of Hashem?
Most analogies break down because no two things are precisely alike.
Analogies between the divine and mundane break down even faster, and
in this case they don't even get off the ground. I honestly believe
there are too many variables here, too many issues begging definition
to say that the abuse of ones' friends or even relatives can be
compared to the alleged abuse of God.
>Assuming for a moment Lisa's initial premise regarding our actions,
>why would you assume that a Gd you've (general 'you') openly defied,
>denied, and insulted would continue to "take you back"? How long
>would you expect that to go on - especially when the demand for
>protection is made while continuing to defy, deny, etc?
Well, assuming Lisa's premise, then one would likely also have to
assume her conclusions. I don't necessarily agree with the unstated
premise that God is just a non-corporeal version of King Lear.
Mark Twain said that man is the only creature that blushes, or needs
to.
God fashioned a being in such a way that eternal forebearance is not
only highly desireable, it's also probably essential;-)
I don't know how many readers are familiar with John Morresy, but his
short story "Final Version" is a pretty good literary alternative to
conventional views of the God/mankind relationship.
Andy Katz
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A comment and question on Jews God and History
- From: Don Levey
- Re: A comment and question on Jews God and History
- References:
- Re: A comment and question on Jews God and History
- From: Joel Shurkin
- Re: A comment and question on Jews God and History
- From: Lisa
- Re: A comment and question on Jews God and History
- From: Lisa
- Re: A comment and question on Jews God and History
- From: J J Levin
- Re: A comment and question on Jews God and History
- From: Lisa
- Re: A comment and question on Jews God and History
- From: Rafael
- Re: A comment and question on Jews God and History
- From: Lisa
- Re: A comment and question on Jews God and History
- Prev by Date: Re: A Little Halakhic Primer on Kapporot
- Next by Date: Re: A Question about The Tzimtzum...
- Previous by thread: Re: A comment and question on Jews God and History
- Next by thread: Re: A comment and question on Jews God and History
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|