From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: An open question...
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:00:16 GMT

hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
: 
: For me, the presence of material from multiple sources gives us a
: better basis on which to judge the amount of variation that was
: present in the material, and it gives me more confidence that the
: editors didn't impose an artificial uniformity where it wasn't there
: in their sources.

I agree that the redactor(s) didn't include uniformity as an important
part of their agenda.  I suspect that they truly believed that the
documents they cobbled together were divinely given and thus the
contradictions were to be retained.

: >How do I decide if this is a case of progressive revelation or just
: >the advancement of civilization?  Would you claim that the Israelites
: >were advancing at a pace that can only be explained by progressive
: >revelation?
: 
: I claim that in the light of Christ, we can see Israelite society as
: being led by God towards a point where Christ's teachings would make
: sense.  

I don't find this at all remarkable since this is the culture
into which Jesus was born.  It is natural that this forms
the basis for his teachings.

:  I'm not interested in getting into arguments about whether
: their advance was unique or not, since I think God is at work in many
: places.  The judgement of whether the advance was due to revelation,
: as the people responsible for it claimed, is one that I find it hard
: to argue on any objective basis.  Some things are a matter of
: judgement.  This is one.
: 
: >Do you believe these records are materially superior to those of
: >other contemporary civilizations?
: 
: I'm not competent to make this evaluation for the entire history of
: Israel.  I do believe that the final product, i.e. Judaism as it had
: developed by the 1st Cent, was the most advanced religion in the Roman
: empire (before Christianity, of course).  Like the above, this is a
: value judgement that I'm going to find it hard to prove in any
: objective fashion.

I don't expect you to prove this objectively, but in what sense to
you consider them superior?  Tolerance?  I think the pagans have
them whipped in this area in spite of the bashing Christians give
them.  I don't think the pagans are the over-zealous tormenters they
are portrayed to be.  I won't deny Christian persecution, but it
is certainly no worse than that invoked by the Christians themselves.

: >Why is atheism a bad thing?  Simply because God said so, or is there
: >a material reason?
: 
: Well, if God exists, atheism is a bad thing because its primary claim
: is wrong.  This doesn't mean that no good can come from atheists.  But
: I happen to be optimistic enough to think that there's an advantage to
: knowing the truth.  It's not the only consideration -- people can know
: the truth and not make good use of it, and people can be wrong but
: still do fairly well with their lives.  But I do think truth helps.

If you will notice, this argument works equally well for us atheists if
God doesn't exist.
-- 
Jeff Young

Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc