WishboneDawn

So if I offer up some right wing commentaries on 'freedom fries' I can gain confirmation that the USA rails against the french?

Christianity is distinctly un-Jewish. We have Jewish roots but we also have greek, roman and pagan ones that make us a much different beast then Judaism. Likewise, our view of God may come to us from the Jews but also from greek philosophy and other influences so that the relationship we have is very different from the one you'll find the Ancient Hebrews or modern Jews have with God.

But even as I say this I think your comments do apply in some denominations. Fundamentamentalists seem to have a very jewish reading of the OT even though they interpret it through a literal christian lens and have non of the flexibility or debate the Hebrews likely had. They often have anti-semitic elements to I think (someone more familiar with them could comment on that).

I don't think there was any psychological unhinging that enabled those acts. It was greed, politics, entitlment and 'rightness' on the part of the states and churches involved. You're giving them too much credit by leaving a mental health out.

4 billion

You would need to find the bit in the American Constitution that says "croissants suck". C'mon I am talking about Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Church not some yokel with a microphone.



I don't remember the bit where Plato pops up in the Bible.

I disregard the concept of denominations, it is merrily a ruse which is used to hide inconsistancies.


Exactly "God made this planet for his followers and all other people shall be destroyed" simple and effective.

What do you mean?

The Evil One

Before I answer, I would just like to note for the lurkers that you have not answered the majority of my substantive points about the retrojection of C21 morality onto ancient texts.

you've provided your meaning for this? where, I must have missed it...

oh right, you must mean here:

This is, to be quite frank, insane. You are proposing that Abe had another son, and that Abe knew this, and that God knew this, and that God (in conversation with Abe) referred to Isaac as "your only son".... and that this can be explained as God "going along" with Abe. WTF?? This isn't an explanation. It's a non sequitur.

You say I'm "at a loss". Very far from it. My "meaning" for God's words is that God (or rather, the author) thinks that Abraham has only one son. IE exactly what the words of the text directly say.

I consider this contradiciton with other partsof Genesis likely to be an artefact of the assemblage of the account from separate myths about Abraham. Maybe some traditions didn't include Ishmael, or maybe they were assembled in the wrong order so that Ishamel's birth happened before the binding of Isaac instead of after. I don't know, and to be frank I don't care. The point is I don't expect the Bible to be without contradiction and thus am not astonished or put out when a contradiction presents itself. And the original point, that Abe's action is a particularly big sacrifice because it's his only son, matches the immediate context of this story (God's direct words), and this trumps anything you might point out in the more distant context (another part of Genesis).

Anat has already covered this, but again, it's total non sequitur. It is entirely possible for God to bless someone with specified Good Things and for an unconnected Unfortunate Thing to happen to that person; the Unfortunate Thing does not demonstrate that the blessing did not exist. (And why, I might ask, are you so eager to paint your God as a liar?)

WishboneDawn

So if I offer up some writings by Thomas Jefferson on slavery and race I can gain confirmation that the USA rails against freedom?

I don't remember where Luther pops up either. But regardless, this is where study and criticism come in. It's not hard to see greek influence on chrisitanity. Certainly christianity didn't arrive at such un-Jewish ideas like an afterlife and salvation out of the blue. Heck, just read the threads on this board and you'll find out about all kinds of different influences other then Judaism.

Ah. Then let us disregard ice cream flavours, literary genres and states of the US. Just because I want to.

Gamera

The God of the Hebrew scriptures is complex and inscrutable.

John says to understand that God we need to look to Jesus.

That's what makes us Christians.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Anat;3962775]This is not my problem at all. Your problem is that you think the Hebrew texts are about God, when they aren't. They are about what God is doing. Which involves various agenda that change over time. The only coherent interpretation of the Binding is that God is trying to teach Abraham the preminence of love over obedience, but Abraham fails.

You're quibbling now. The text is deemed inspired by beleivers. Genesis isn't "attributed" to God either, but traditionally to Moses, and of course through scholarly study to at least two authors whose work were redacted.

Now, you're getting it. God in Genesis is playing the god game. He's dealing with people who already believe in gods, but who beleive in false, hateful, violent gods. He's agenda in Genesis and much of the OT is to show that he's the real God. Which he accomplishes by making promises and keeping them, by giving material victories and material riches. That's what Abraham and his primitive contemporaries understood, so that's what he gave them.

Are you actually arguing that that's what God is "about" -- giving gold to believers. It's conceived as a process of teaching Israel, and then the world, that the real God is about love and mercy, not about material gain and selfishness.

It's very hard to know that since we know very little about Judaism before that time. You're simply assuming a conclusion. That fact that resurrection was such a big deal to Jesus -- a first century Jew -- suggest otherwise.

I assume (like Abraham) that God is just and good, and if he isn't, screw him. That's the premise of the OT texts. But God acts. He's doing things with real people. And you have falsely assumed that means that God condones those things. I think the attitude of the OT is that he tolerates them. He gives his chosen people what they want -- to make a larger point, which is ultimately the preeminence of love.

Yep, he knows Abraham's heart all right. And he knows that Abraham has abandoned Ishmael, because there was not percentage in keeping him around.

Isaac is doing his duty. Nonetheless, there is no record of them speaking together after the Binding. It's not I who noticed this but various scholars of Judaism.

Anat

On what basis do you consider a God that commands atrocities one after the other, who calls himself jealous, who promises to punish decendants for several generations for their ancestor's sins a just God? He is a capricious god who may or may not follow any coherent idea of justice, or who has a very idiosyncrastic idea of justice and righteousness. There is no reason to think he was trying to teach Abraham about love to his son, or anyone else, when God is a lot more interested in how much people love him, to the expense of other love interests. He is playing the mind control game.

Genesis contains speech attributed to God. Psalms does not. One is to form an opinion of a literary character from what that character is reported to have said or done.

Yes, but Abraham was willing to give what had been promised to him away. See Genesis 15:2-3 "And Abram said: 'O Lord GOD, what wilt Thou give me, seeing I go hence childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?' And Abram said: 'Behold, to me Thou hast given no seed, and, lo, one born in my house is to be mine heir.' "
What Abraham was interested in was an heir who was his descendant, but at God's command he was willing to give this up.

We know that pre-exilic Israelite and Judahite belief did not have these concepts, that they entered Judaism after exposure to other beliefs in exile. Just read any pre-exilic text. The 8th century and 7th century prophets don't talk about afterlife, resurrection and what not. They live in this world, and all events take place in it.

He commands these things, even when the people aren't doing them. He punishes them for not doing them well enough.

There is also no evidence of them talking to one another before the trip to Moriah. So I can't take that line seriously. We know the Hebrew Bible is fastideous in its style.

aa5874

You have contradicted yourself. Your argument is based on fallacy.

If the Hebrew text is not about God, then they cannot be about what God is doing.
It is virtually impossible to exclude the actions of God from God himself.

You appear to be in a state confusion, which may explain your illogical satements.

Gamera

Sure you can. You make a common mistake that fundamentalists make -- if it's in the bible, then it must be "good." So Solomon gets rich and accumulates concubines, so it must be considered good by the author. Never mind there is a specific law in Deuteronomy against a king accumulating money and women, and never mind that concubines were nothing less than sex slaves raped by Solomon. Solomon is called "wise," so you and the fundis take it at face value.

Let me suggest that Solomon's "wisdom" is ironic from start to finish.

Similarly, God is doing something with Abraham. You want to conclude that what he does is "good" and condoned by the author. When in fact, God is proposing he do something bad and he hopes Abraham doesn't do it.

Irony, complexity, contradiction -- they are all in the Hebrew Scriptures and intended to be there.

God didn't just "forget" that Abraham had another son. He intentionally disregards Isaac -- we are invited to ask why. What is God doing? You can't provide a coherent answer. I can.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Anat;3965038]God in the Hebrew scriptures manifests himselves in way these primitive Iron Age folk could understand. They wanted a warlike god. He gave them one. And then in that context he attempts to wean them to a higher purpose, the commandment to love one another. It's a big task.

Again, I think you're quibbling. Jews consider the entire text inspired, or not at all.

Abraham was willing to give up Ishmael only because Sarah didn't like him. He seems rather feckless in that regard.

We know nothing of the sort. We can only speculate. Things not in a text are often what the text is really about. The fact that Judaism developed the notion of resurrection by the 1st century suggests some tradition that predates the 1st century.

Not always. He commands Solomon not to accumulate women and money, and what does Solomon do -- accumulate women and money. Then he calls Solomon "wise." You think maybe some other agenda is happening in that narrative?

Isaac at the very least told him "Ouch":

Genesis 21:4
When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God commanded him.