Gamera

That's simply argument by definition, which gets one nowhere. If you define morality as what God commands, then of course God's commands are moral. But that isn't what the word moral means, and so we can reject that tendentious definition and require discussion.

Gamera

[QUOTE]If the author or authors weren't bothered by the act, then Abraham's action isn't a big deal is it? That contradicts the historical meaning of the Binding in Judaism and Christianity. Why have the narrative at all, if killing one's son is no more difficult than flossing one's teeth.

Kierkegaard for one. Though with some subtleties and caveats that show even he couldn't face the enormity of Abraham's immoral conduct. He points out that if Abraham wanted to be a true hero, he should have gone to Mt. Moriah, picked up the knive and killed himself.

Anat

Sacrificing a child for the 'greater good' as it was understood was normal then and is still normal today. People sacrificed children for better productivity of their fields or for success at war or whatever reason they found compelling enough (and with the need to avoid cognitive dissonance they then had to justify the cause to themselves and become ever fanatical in their belief). These days, every parent that encourages a child into a stint in the military on grounds of patriotism, every parent that expresses pride in their child's participation in a military effort on grounds of patriotism is experiencing exactly the same psychological phenomenon of the child sacrificers of the past.

As I said, what makes Abraham's act of child sacrifice different is that he was doing it for no purpose whatsoever other than fulfilling a divine commandment. In fact, had the sacrifice gone through, he would have negated the fulfillment of the divine promise that had been (as far as a reader can tell) motivating him all along. That he was willing to obey God at the expense of all the future he had. He was willing to turn the two-sided deal God had offered him into a one-sided deal, where he is loyal to God while getting nothing in return.

hinduwoman

Gamera, this is the God who floods the whole world and kills babies --- why would he be bothered by a few children beings sacrificed to him?

hinduwoman

RE the voluntary sacrifice angle ---
In 18th century a minor rajah built a fort. To make it enduring human sacrifice was decided to be appropriate. A couple from the Mang caste volunteered in return for the Mang caste getting 50 special privileges. They were sacrificed and that is why Mangs enjoy special privileges.

Sacrifice was normal and a good thing, but it was still a big deal and those who sacrificed themselves or their children are honoured.

adren@line

im not kidding.

Read the Vedas or Upanishads and compare them to the Quran or Old Testament.

The Evil One

It is, because it's his own son, and his only son: it's not just some spare. Thus it's a big sacrifice and therefore impressive and a token of Abraham's great faith. Good guy, that Abraham.

I can't believe we are even arguing this. The story is blatantly straightforward on the face of it. God commands that Abraham do X. Abraham is willing to do X despite its unpleasantness. God praises and blesses Abraham for his willingness to do X (although in the text as it stands he doesn't make him go through with it). Given that the praisings and blessings are the words of the author, not the words of God, I can't see any way to conclude that the authors thought of Abraham's stance as anything other than praiseworthy and blessing-worthy. And this is almost the univeral interpretation.

One modern theologian agrees with you (almost). And this is meant to demonstrate the universality of your interpretation? Remember, your stance is dependent on the Bible authors, their readers, and believers through the ages sharing your view of Abraham's praiseworthiness.

Are you actually reading what I write?

You say: "I'm sure anybody, [...] had the moral perspicacity to see that God's command was morally odious from start to finish."

I say: "there are plenty of believers today [...] who believe that whatever God commands is moral by definition"

You say: "If you define morality as what God commands, then of course God's commands are moral. But that isn't what the word moral means"

you have shifted the goalposts. You say that ANYBODY would have understood the immorality of the command. I point out the existence of a class of people who would not. You say, in effect, that they're wrong. Well, of course I'd agree that they're wrong. But the fact that they're wrong doesn't alter the fact that your claim that ANYBODY would have understood the immorality of God's command is blown out of the water solely by their existence.

doubtingt

I agree, because the culture of faith in which they were couched was one which equated morality with blind and unquestioned obedience to authority, even if it means sacrificing oneself or personal feelings of empathy for others.
Abrahamic faiths still have this perspective, it is inherent in most monotheistic conceptions, shared by a large % of Americans, and essentially defines social conservatism. That is precisely why people like Dawkins are spot on when they acknowledge the inherent danger that such faiths pose to human liberty and natural empathy via their promotion of fascistic and authoritarian values.
The fact that neither the authors nor their audience, nor many believers today found or find the story repulisive only goes to show just how fundamentally dangerous the culture of faith is that produces such a perspective.

Amaleq13

Then you are simply mistaken because there really is no basis for your claim.

Thanks for the clarification.

adren@line

ofcourse there is.

Both Islam and CHristianity proclaim that they are the only truths and those who do not follow them will recieve a punishment.

Mohhamed was a warlord and his faith is based on antagonism towards idoloters, Jews, and Christians.

All three of the Semitic faiths are against idolotry and idolaters, pagans, etc. The Jews actually beleive that they are "God's choosen people" and the old testament is extremely violent and hatefull.

They are all based on power-struggles between supposed monotheists and pagans/idolaters and the antagonism is the life-blood of these faiths.

Do you think it is some coincidence that idolotry is an extremely bad sin (unforgiveable in Islam) in all three faiths, while eastern faiths (sans Sikhism) accept idolotry?