quote:It seems that that night a large band of robbers had raided the place, killed most of the men, took everyone else as slaves and put the entire city to the torch.
"Aha!" He said to himself, "Truly everything that G-d does is for the good!
I think that's the part I have trouble with... how is allowing an entire town to be destroyed "for the good"? Couldn't G-d have saved them from the robbers? Or caused the rabbi to save them, thus teaching everyone a lesson without anyone getting killed?
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was meant to be that even though things seem like a really bad run of bad luck for the Ketchup Clan, they may just discover in the end that G'd was watching over them after all, and that all will turn out to be for the best.
I'm sorry if the destroyed village and animals caused distress for anyone reading that parable.
Of course the story takes on a different point when told from the point of view of the donkey.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I'm just pointing out that the line "Truly everything that G-d does is for the good!" in that story has to be reconciled not just with the minor inconvenience of one rabbi but the destruction of an entire village. I think it says a lot about the story and the people who tell it that they think the rabbi's inconvenience is more important.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The destruction of an entire village that refused to offer hospitality to a traveller. Which in that time and place, was not much different from leaving him for the local bandits. With a target painted on his back.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The lesson being that if someone knocks on your door looking for free food and a place to stay, you'd better say yes?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if the village was doomed regardless of whether the Rabbi were taken in or not?
It seems to me that the point of the story is not about letting travellers stay, or about whose problems are more important. Rather, it's about how the relatively small inconveniences suffered by the Rabbi that night saved him from being killed along with the villagers.
IP: Logged |
quote: What if the village was doomed regardless of whether the Rabbi were taken in or not?
Then it would be just as possible that none of the things which happened to the Rabbi were part of a greater plan. And if it WERE, it would be reprehensible of God to not save the villagers as proactively as He saved the Rabbi.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
And if the village were full of evil people, as evidenced by their refusal to take in a traveller?
IP: Logged |
posted
I came up with at least five ways to answer that question, and unfortunately all of them sound incredibly patronizing. So I'll let you come up with your own answer, but will point you first in the direction of the story of Sodom.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
