Yahzi

And what, exactly, is the difference?

Why, that one is reasonable...

So here you are, after all, defending your faith by reason. Do you remember why we said you weren't allowed to do that in the first place?

Yahzi

I think you will find that very few posters on the IIDB consider Deconstructionism to be educated.

If a text has no meaning other than what the reader brings to the table, then communication is impossible, and hence knowledge. Socrates tried to prove that slave-boys understood geometry, but all he actually did was demonstrate how quickly people pick up the art of cold-reading.

Deconstructionism is even stupider than Socrates, and it doesn't have the excuse of being 2,000 years old.

Yahzi

That's just silly. I realize your God isn't omnipotent, omniscient, or even all good: but for crying out loud, surely he isn't a chump.

If even you, mere little mortal Dado, at a distance of several thousand years, with nothing but a few lines of text, can tell that Abe was only playing brinksmanship, how exactly is it that God did not know this?

And if God knew Abe was just playing along, then of what possible benefit was the entire shadow play, especially since other people would know it was a shadow play?

You will say, "to show that God no longer wanted human sacrifice." But gosh, you know, God could have just passed a freaking law to that effect, instead of using an obscure, terrifying, confusing shadow-play that requires you, Dado, to correctly interpret for the millions of people who read the Bible and don't get the secret joke.

If God is that inept of a being, why don't we just kick his ass? I mean, he couldn't face down iron chariots, what's he gonna do about nukes?


Edit: I see that Dado has traditional backing for his interpretation. Yet my point remains. The story of Abraham only works if you add to the text. How one is supposed to know what to add to the text is the entire issue.

dado

but - isn't that exactly what you - and other aethists - are doing?

dado

you add what is necessary to make sense of the world in which you find yourself: is that not a logical approach to take with texts in general?

King Rat

So your text is as fluid as your imagination?

Mageth

IMO, the Hebrews used such stories (whether mythical or historical) to illustrate points or aspects about their understanding of and relationship with YHWH, El, or whatever his name was in the particular text. IOW, the Abraham/Isaac tale may be best understood as a "fable" that illustrates what one might call a "law" or standard for the Hebrew's relationship with their God. The Abraham/Isaac story is thus used to illustrate that theirGod would not require human sacrifice (this conclusion can be reached through either a "plain text" reading of the story or dado's interpretation, IMO).

dado

it's as fluid as you need it to be. it was never intended to be a static document, it was never, in fact, intended to be written down, which is why in Judaism it has no more value than other works. there are any number of works whose impact on daily life is considerably greater than what is in Tanakh. Shulkan Aruch comes to mind as a text far more impacting on ultra-orthodox life than even Torah.

atheists insisting on a static unchanging view of a One Message bible - and then attempting to circularly define "faith" as acceptance of such a preposterous and historically inaccurate view - are committing exactly the same fallacy as the fundie x'ians they're constantly villifying.

Yahzi

But what about...

What are we to take from this? That God stops you from sacrificing your child only if it's a boy?

Yes, Jephthah made a foolish promise, but God held him to it. And the promise he made was of human sacrifice! No where in this passage does God punish Jep for his act. Nor does God spurn or reject the offering. Nor does Jep's fellow Jews rebuke or condemn him for it. In fact, Jep makes this offer of sacrificing what could only expected to be a human being, and God accepts the bargin - he delivers the children of Ammon into Jep's hands.

Yahzi

And in that incredible fluidity, we interpert it as meaning there is no God, that he is just a mythical being made up by bronze-age goat herders.

If the Bible is as fluid as one needs it to be, then why do you object to our interpreting it to mean there is no God?

Oh, right, you meant to say, "as fluid as I need it to be."

If the Bible is fluid, then on what do you base your knowledge of God? You cannot base it on empiricism. So all you have is authority. But you've just thrown away authority.

It's like getting a check written on the back of a napkin without any routing numbers on it, but the guy who wrote it keeps telling you it's good anyway, and you're like, dude, just give me cash then. If you can't give me an authorative check, then give me cash. And he's like, this check is authorative as I need it to be.