Johnny Skeptic

Are you saying that God chose Abraham?

Anat

hinduwoman, you seem to be expecting the author(s) of the Abraham story cycle to give information about Abraham's life and character prior to the moment God spoke to him for the first time. The author(s) of Genesis found this to be superfluous, as Abraham's life and deeds from that moment on serves as sufficient evidence to justify the choice. Abraham proved himself worthy of having been chosen.

And Johnny, one can discuss the motives of fictional characters from within the fictional work in which they are portrayed without the need to claim, let alone prove, that the literary events are related to historical ones.

CJD

What Anat said the first time. But in even simpler terms, Abe was called to rectify the problem begun by Adam. That's why he was called. Why he was chosen per se appears to fall within a deliberate "gap" in the narrative itself. He was YHWH's man, the one through whom all the nations would be blessed. That's all we get from the story.

Johnny Skeptic

Why should anyone believe that the story was true?

Philadelphia Lawyer

The midrash were originally part of an oral tradition. They were not written down until after the time the Torah was written. On the other hand, this article claims that the origins of the midrash go back pretty far.

And, from what I understand, one of the purposes of the midrash was to "fill in the gaps" in the Torah.

CJD

Do you mean then or now? If then, the answer is a bit easier: oral tradition is powerful indeed. It is the glue, if you will, of the community. Just a few generations of passed-down oral tradition and it's objective as the ground you're standing on. Get it?

Now is another question. But I would attempt to answer it in the same fashion, i.e., the story of Abe is just as much my story as it was for those ancient peoples. As such, it becomes objectified (within my community), and is part and parcel of the narrative that makes up my community. This is the social construction of reality 101. And, it is worth noting, I am not a community of 1.

CJD

Johnny Skeptic

I mean then and now. What makes one group's traditions any more credible than another group's traditions? And, what about Deists? They don't have any traditions. Why do you reject Deism?

Who is Abe? Are you a fundamentalist Christian? If you are, I would like to challenge you to a one on one moderated debate. The topic would be 'Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, and even if God can predict the future, is that sufficient evidence that everyone should become a Christian'?

CJD

That's the million-dollar question, isn't it? Think: "plausibility."

How do you know I'm not a deist? And further (contrary to your supposition), deists have typically come from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Lincoln? No. I'm talking about that guy from Ur of the Chaldees.



:snooze:

CJD

Perm

CJD: Those are the most vague answers ever.

CJD

Ever?! Come on, you've seen more vague answers than that. Besides, Johnny Skeptic should know what I'm saying. He knows I'm no apologist. He also does not have a healthy view of the word fundamentalist. But for the reader's sake, here goes:

Plausibility. Certain traditions are more plausible than others. It's that simple.

The second question I answered adequately. He just revealed he knows little about Deism and from whence it came.

"Abe" is short for "Abraham." I mean, for the love of Pete!

Eek! Because of what I gather he thinks "fundamentalists" are, I screamed. No comment. He can decide for himself. I have over 600 posts here.

What's so vague about a smilie that snores? The topic is one that I am not even remotely interested in debating.

Best,

CJD