Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 11-18-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Here is what Yeshayahu Leibowitz said about morality and the prophets:

Morality in Halacha

(Judaism, the Jewish Nation and the State of Israel, p. 239)

This contradicts the numerous times the prophets have God opining that he doesn't want compliance with sacrifice (religious law), but mercy and kindness toward the needy and powerless. This is a direct appeal to the human conscience as preeminent over the Law.

The Evil One · 11-18-2006, 10:23 PM

I don't think I've ever seen such a rampant display of intellectual dishonesty as Gamera has displayed on this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by God

'By Myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast hearkened to My voice.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The point is Abraham clearly failed the test, by putting obedience before love in a manner that no normal person cannot find disturbing and ill-conceived.

Clearly, this was one of those tests which, if you fail it, you get a really harsh punishment such as being blessed in blessing. The mind boggles as to what God would have done for Abraham if he'd actually passed the test.

Don't you even want to attempt to address these Bible verses, Gamera? You have said that your interpretation is very clear in the text; you have gone so far as to say that "I don't see how any reader could interpret this as anything but Abraham's weakwilled character, creating a mess, that God has to send an angel to fix."

I interpret it differently from that by the simple expedient of reading the words. Would you care to explain exactly how God saying "because you have done this thing, in blessing I will bless you" is to be interpreted as something other than praise?

The Evil One · 11-18-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

This contradicts the numerous times the prophets have God opining that he doesn't want compliance with sacrifice (religious law), but mercy and kindness toward the needy and powerless. This is a direct appeal to the human conscience as preeminent over the Law.

Yes, there are contradictions in the Bible. For most of us, this is evidence that there are contradictions in the Bible. It is not reason to suppose that some sections of the Bible, apparently saying XXX, actually mean not-XXX.

Quote:

No normal person would say, wow, you've got a lot of faith, go at it man. No morally sensient person would ever do that. That's why I insist the story cannot be about faith, since it's utterly abhorrent at its core.

I agre with you that no moral person would agree that Abraham's behaviour as presented is laudable. But the vast majority of Christians through the ages have defined "moral" as "whatever God commands" and by those lights, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac is, indeed, praiseworthy.

Don't you know, Gamera, that this is how the story is presented in Sunday schools around the world? That this is what the majority of christians believe - that faith this great is to be admired and emulated? (ETA: I'm not talking fundies either. I'm talking mainstream denominations.)

The Evil One · 11-18-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

You've taken the OT literally and missed its self-subversive intent. The whole point of the Law is to show how useless the Law is.

How unfortunate that every priest, rabbi, and mullah since the Law was written has understood that the point of the Law is to be obeyed. We could have saved ourselves an awful lot of trouble if you had been around when the Pentateuch was written, Gamera. You could have explained to the rabble that their holy leaders didn't *really* want them to execute sabbath breakers, and that it was all a demonstration of how useless the Law was, and that they should actually think for themselves and apply the principle of Love Above All. Wouldn't that have been great.

Anat · 11-18-2006, 11:43 PM

Gamera, it is wrong to read Tanakh out of a Christian POV. It was not written by a Christian, nor for a Christian audience. It was written by scribes and priests with agendas, and Leibowitz read it honestly and took the conclusion all the way. If the prophets were so opposed to sacrifices and worship, why did they envision a future with a renewed temple? The prophets' message is that the law includes both temple sacrifices and supporting the unfortunate. Breaking the social laws is equal to breaking the ritual law - because both were commanded. The ideal community of Israel according to the prophets is one that obeys the whole law - ritual and social.

Here is Yeshayahu Leibowitz on loving one's neighbor:

Quote:

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself" is the great rule in the Torah not because it is a precept transcending the formalism of law and above the Mitzvoth but precisely because it appears as one of the 613 Mitzvoth. As a guide rule, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" is not specific to Judaism. Similar precepts were laid down in writing by thinkers who were not influenced by Judaism and were not even acquainted with it, by the wise men of China, India, and Greece. Moreover, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" does not, as such, occur in the Torah. The reading is: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself, I am God."

The duty of love toward one's neighbor is not a corollary of man's position as such but of his position before God. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" without the continuation "I am God" is the great rule of the atheist Kant. The novelty and grandeur of this rule in the Torah consists in the framework within which the Torah places it. That context includes Mitzvoth as various as those occurring in the Ten Commandments, laws concerned with sacrificial rites, others regarding property rights or rights of a worker to prompt payment of his wages, prohibition of interbreeding species of animals and plants, and so on, all within the span of twenty verses (Lev 15). "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" ceases thereby to be mere good counsel, a noble aspiration or sublime ideal. It becomes clothed in the reality of law, something one is compelled to take seriously as one must take police ordinances seriously. There is nothing deprecatory about this simile.

BTW if you think God gives people commandments that he expects them to ignore or object to, what is the source of the guideline by which they should judge God's commandments? What is the point of God revealing himself to the whole nation at Sinai if the laws he hands them down are worthless and not to be obeyed?

hinduwoman · 11-19-2006, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by credoconsolans

Well, maybe because to them it wasn't odious and thus was a hard nut to get rid of. Child sacrifice seems abhorrent to us, but in the context of these pre-historical societies, it could be seen as the utmost in sefllessness and loving that a parent could do.

These people were used to sacrificing to their gods - in the beginning probably the first/best fruits of their labor - grain and fruit, milk - in order to placate and honor their gods into giving them continued prosperity and fertileness or for whatever reasons. Things got better economically or environmentally and they moved to animal sacrifices. This is not an unimportant thing. Stock animals are notoriously expensive to raise and eating meat was something that was rarely done, except on the most celebratory of holidays or to give thanks. So, as a really big gift to the gods, in recognition of whatever - thanks or for some hope/wish for the future - they gave this animal.

Imagine a modern-day equivalent - giving your wide/flat screen HD liquid-crystal TV or your new Mercedes to the gods in thanks for your family living another year without problems.

These people were prey to raiders and to the weather and to disease. They could only hope and pray things went well, otherwise they were doomed to short brutish lives and horrific deaths.

Things get really really bad. Bad weather, change in climate, constant raiding, disease and plague, starvation...they figure the gods are pissed. Really really pissed. Goats and cows and doves aren't good enough anymore. The people look around for another sacrifice in the same vein that is valued by them and loved by them above all else - something that would show their ultimate devotion/honor to the gods. Something to sacrifice that would indeed be a great burden to them, but show their willingness.

Something...or someone. The most valued possession these people had - their children.

The parents would be devastated to have to offer them, but what else of value - extreme value - do they have? They're trying to save their society, their culture, their entire existence as they know it.

Like child sacrifice of the - Incas was it? - these people probably truly believed they were saving everyone else with this sacrifice. The sacrifice of their children, while an emotional burden and simultaneously a great honor, would save everyone else - literally the entire universe in some belief systems. This is not the act of selfish or unloving people, but rather the reverse.

Yes, remember Jeptha's daughter. Jeptha vowed to sacrifice whatever creature he first saw to thank God for saving Israel. When he saw it was his daughter he was horrified but one cannot play fast and loose with God.
The daughter herself went willingly to be sacrificed. In her mind she was doing the honourable thing and saving the nation of Israel and the honour of her father. That is why the virgins of Israel are commanded to lament on her tomb --- she is a heroine whose sacrifice to God is the ultimate in ultruism.

hinduwoman · 11-19-2006, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

This may be why Abraham didn't tell anybody what he was going to do. He especially didn't tell Sarah, who might have reacted normally and said, forget it.

The proper reaction to somebody willing to kill their child because of a message from God is (a) they are nuts or (b) there's something wrong with God.

No normal person would say, wow, you've got a lot of faith, go at it man. No morally sensient person would ever do that. That's why I insist the story cannot be about faith, since it's utterly abhorrent at its core.

No it is abhorrent to you.
Child sacrifice would have been perfectly normal in primitive ages however painful to the parents.

Anat · 11-19-2006, 02:12 AM

The way modern parents in many places feel about their sons (and sometimes daughters) joining the military, especially at times of active conflict. They may be anxious, even fearful for their children, but also proud. A parent attempting to stop a grown child from enlisting would be generally viewed negatively by society. We expect parents to be prepared to sacrifice their children for the greater good, just like those past societies. We don't slit their throats ourselves, we only place them in the line of fire. And those who sacrificed children to the gods believed sincerely that they were acting for the greater good.

Now in the Abraham story the greater good motivation was removed by making the sacrifice a divine decree with no explanation. The man whose relationship with God started with a command to go to a place he would be shown and a promise of a future is being commanded to go to a place he would be told and give up his future. Is it possible to remain faithful to such a capricious god?

4 billion · 11-19-2006, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

The most dangerous threat to children is God.

I have to agree with you on this point. My experience at being left alone in the hands of the Christians transformed me from a happy well adjusted person to a person with suicidal tendencies. People who went through the same system 10 years earlier actually killed themselves.

4 billion · 11-19-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quester

I think this story more than anything else is what turned me against religion. My Sunday School book talked about how faithful both Abraham and Isaac were, Isaac for not running away. To me the lesson was that children were supposed to go along with whatever their parents wanted, because it was God's will. I always knew that parents sent children to Sunday School to make them good -- that is, obedient.

The idea that children should always be obedient to parents is a dangerous one. Had I put up more resistance to the idea of going to boarding school I would not have lost so many years to the confusion the experience created.

My father went insane for a time, due to the fact he followed his fathers orders without any heed to what he wanted out of his own life.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-19-2006, 02:12 AM	#78
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	The way modern parents in many places feel about their sons (and sometimes daughters) joining the military, especially at times of active conflict. They may be anxious, even fearful for their children, but also proud. A parent attempting to stop a grown child from enlisting would be generally viewed negatively by society. We expect parents to be prepared to sacrifice their children for the greater good, just like those past societies. We don't slit their throats ourselves, we only place them in the line of fire. And those who sacrificed children to the gods believed sincerely that they were acting for the greater good. Now in the Abraham story the greater good motivation was removed by making the sacrifice a divine decree with no explanation. The man whose relationship with God started with a command to go to a place he would be shown and a promise of a future is being commanded to go to a place he would be told and give up his future. Is it possible to remain faithful to such a capricious god?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.