Barbaric Oaths: Finding Middle Ground for Secular Readers - Essay Example

Both the fathers offer their sons as sacrifice without their intention. In their case, the intention of sacrifice was in line with fulfillment of the oath while the other for transgression. The two oaths are because of unwise and misguided activities of the sons’ fathers (Dawkins 45). The first case concerns Jephtha who was the bastard son of a certain prostitute. His legitimate brothers drove him away but, at some point, he received a calling aimed at leading an attack against the Ammonites who were their oppressors at the time of apostasy.

In the second case, Saul is the subject of discussion whereby his son Jonathan sought to rescue his father’s army after finding that it was going to sink in the most catastrophic battle against the Philistines. Without further a do, I would like to take stance and call attention the main as to why middle ground is important in this case. The tendency of reaction as depicted by the so-called “secular readers” brews a niche of barbarism towards such narratives of this caliber instead of focusing on the most important matters (Gill 78).

Secular readers tend to exclude the main point relevant to this discussion and with that spectrum they end up bringing colorings to the contemporary Jewish and interpretation as well as the atheist interpretation and their reactions. Most of these reactions require a common ground in which differing parties can come to an understanding. Since this discussion is non-dogmatic, it seeks to apply the middle ground resolution that, in turn, rationalizes the intention of Jewish criticism or any Christian interpretation.

It then goes ahead to address all the common tendencies found in the atheist interpretation and then attempts to provide measures for assessing the nature or kind of morality present in these two discussed narratives using a more accurate paradigm (Dawkins 66). Dawkins, Richard. The Delusion of God. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006. Print. Apart from his appealing works, Richard Dawkins is part of those authors in the limelight currently following their anti religionist views and offered a thorough condemning summary or glimpse into Jephtha’s story as he was writing his 2006 book.

Dawkins puts across that Jephtha arrived home after the battle with the Philistines only to find his daughter having grown up and coming out the house’s door. Understandably, Jephtha had promised to offer his god burnt sacrifice but he did not honor his promise. Special emphasis on this position maintains that this case is impractical as there was no intervention. There was no offering and as such, intervention did not take place as expected. The interpretation by Dawkins has an indefinite sense especially when compared to an interpretation that involves faith and divine will.

However, an intense outlook into the issue shows that his view undermines skepticism in his literature in the sense of exhibiting reflection and thought (Levine 85). Flaws that are essential with concern to atheistic interpretation portray presence of lack of understanding when it comes to YHWH and his motives. Essentially, presence of middle ground in this arena seeks to establish the bases between anti religious fervor and religious fervor. A secular reader does not find issues when reading the story of Abraham since the text avoids the issue of barbarism.

Additionally, a secular finds no issues with the story of Saul and his son Jonathan since Saul declines from favor (Gill