Vorkosigan

That's pretty weak. The editor "forgot" to put Isaac back in the story? Am I to believe that this would convince anyone who wasn't already convinced? I guess it helps if you are already of the opinion that Isaac was sacrificed, but it is not evidence if you didn't.

Luv, don't be silly. First, this is not my opinion, but the opinion of relevant experts. Second, I gave two reasons for the original Isaac story being reworked. First, the text displays obvious seams in style and action, with a significant omission of Isaac from the ending. Second, the position of the ram varies in the texts we have, indicating that the ram is a later interpolation.

Forgetting to edit the story properly is a common problem with ancient interpolations, and the presence of seams plus continuity errors plus differing texts is commonly taken by text critics as a sign of interpolation. In the NT, for example, the story of Jesus and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a well-known interpolated passage which is found in some texts in Matthew, in others in John. In our current Bible it is placed in John, but it was written long after any of the gospels.

Do not accuse me of being "weak" when you are totally unfamiliar with common principles of textual analysis. Once again, I commend the Friedman book to you.

Michael

Sojourner553

Per Luvluv
________________________________________________
"There are plenty of morally repugnant commands given by God in the Bible. The sacrifice of Isaac (or Ishmael if you're Muslim) is only one example."

First of all, might I remind you all that Isaac was never sacrificed.
________________________________________________

I know I am jumping in late on this one.

But the story of Jephthah shows that a child can be sacrificed to serve God. The bible can be pretty chauvenistic -- maybe the difference was this was a daughter not a son. A religious poster suggested it was because Jephthah was punished for being brash in his vows. But I showed how biblical writers present this as Jephthah's loyalty and virtue.

Here's a quick summary. (I know this is not one of the more popular stories taught in Sunday School/Church sermons.)


* * *
Judges 11:30-35 tells how a Israelite judge named Jephthah, made the
following vow to God.--In exchange for his victory over his military enemies,
he promised to offer as a burnt offering "whatsoever cometh forth of the
doors of my house to meet me". He wins the battle, but upon returning home,
his daughter and only child comes out to greet him.

Horrified at his promise, Jephthah proceeded to tell his daughter of his
pact with God. They both agree that a promise to the Lord must be fulfilled.

Unlike with Abraham and Isaac, NO angel of the Lord arrives to stay
Jephthah's hand--and his daughter is faithfully and obediently burnt as a
sacrifice to God!

Sojourner

luvluv

Michael, with respect, I don't need the Friedman book to know that that is a weak argument. Isaac is a major part of the lineage of the Jewish people and probably was at the time the book was written. By the time the story was committed to paper the Hebrews more than likely were already reffering to themselves as the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How exactly could they do that if Isaac was dead. It is part of Jewish lore that they are descended from Isaac. The rest of the book of Genesis would make no sense unless Isaac survived. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense to me.

jlowder

I'm joining this thread late, but I just checked the link to the other board. The theist who initiated the thread immediately conflated two VERY different questions. The title of the thread was, "Can atheists be moral people?" However, in the body of the post, he does not engage in ad hominem attacks against atheists as his title suggested he would. Instead, he focuses on the very different question, "Does atheism provide a logical framework for morality?" I assume it is obvious that these two questions have nothing to do with one another.

Copernicus then asks, "Can theists be moral?" Clearly, the answer is yes. However, that isn't in dispute. Now consider the following question, "Does theism have an advantage over atheism in providing a foundation for morality?" To paraphrase what theists like to say in response to logical arguments from evil, no one has ever been able to demonstrate a logical contradiction between the nonexistence of God and the existence of objective moral values. The theist on the other board argues that materialism entails that objective moral values do not exist. But note that atheism is not synonymous with materialism. (I am a case in point: I am an atheist but NOT a materialist!) So, at best, the theist has only produced an argument against materialism. We do not have--at least not yet, anyway--a successful argument against atheism and for theism.

In fact, we can take this a step further. If morality has a foundation at all--which is doubtful--theism isn't it.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>