Gamera

The conclusion from this perspective is that Yaweh is normative and follows moralities as they evolve historical, or that God is beyond morality, and simply isn't interested in it. Essentially you're saying it was OK to kill kids back then, so God wasn't bothered by it.

A very radical view of the Judeo-Christian God indeed.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Anat;3937802]I hear you, but I don't think it's "wrong" to read the Hebrew scriptures in light of the Christian scriptures. That's because the HS have a dual existence. They both stand on their own, and they form a basis of the Christian scriptures. So it is not inappropriate to keep both in mind. The Hebrew scriptures are a bigger phenomenon than Judaism. As a poststructuralists, I"m less interested in what the "original intent" of the author was (whatever that means) and more interested in what a text means. And what it means changes. I'm reading Genesis, and I'm not a iron-age Jew and can't really reconstruct how such a person would understand that text.

Good point. What is the point. The Pauline answer is that the Law was revealed simple to show how law cannot succeed in constructing the kingdom of God. It is what people want -- hard and fast rules -- or what they think they want, and the result is disaster.

So to answer your question, God often gave Israel what it wanted to show that what it wanted was not the right thing. The establishment of a monarchy in Israel was a response to the Israeli's cry to be like other nations. That wasn't God's plan -- the original plan was to have Israel ruled by godly judges -- but God acquiesced, to show Israel how misguided their desire was.

The Law is like that in my opinion (and Pauls)

pharoah

The author of Hebrews contradicts your interpretation.

What's also interesting here is that the author implies that Abraham actually offered up Isaac and that God subsequently raised him from the dead.

Anat

You are not an Iron Age Israelite, but if you want to know why the story was written the way it was what you must do is try to get into the head of one the best you can, based on the evidence - textual, material and cross cultural. Then you can decide that as a 21st century westerner you disagree about the morality of the story, but that is unrelated to what it looked like to the author and the intended audience. But I can't understand reading the narrative of one culture as if it was intended at teaching the morals of an other one.

At any rate, I think it isn't that hard to understand how a culture could accept that Abraham's behavior was normal and expected. As I said in post #78 the idea of child sacrifice is still alive and kicking in modernity in other forms.

adren@line

Why do all Semitic faiths contain an obscene amount of violence, hate, intolerance, dogma, and antagonism?

Gamera

You've misread Hebrews. The author is saying that that's what Abraham thought would happen -- he had faith that God would keep his line going, so he figured that if he sacrificed him, God would resurrect Isaac. This didn't happen of course, as the author of Hebrew's knew -- he read the Hebrew Scriptures, pharoah. All the author is saying is that that was Abraham's "reasoning" -- he had faith that if he did kill Isaac (he was willing to), God would fix everything (by resurrecting him).

Gamera

As opposed to nonsemitic faiths, like the Greeks, the Norse, American Indian, and the Hindus.

You've got to be kidding.

Gamera

If Abraham's behavior is "normal" than it's not much of a test, is it? You've just undermined the central event in Judaism by making the sacrifice of Isaac no big deal.

These are the kinds of incoherencies that arise in taking this narrative to mean anything but that Abraham should reject God's demand (just as he did God's plan to destroy Sodom).

My three year old daughter, in hearing the story of Isaac, said it was wrong for his dad to try to kill his own son. She's three years old and she gets it. I'm sure anybody, including an Iron Age Hebrew had the moral perspicacity to see that God's command was morally odious from start to finish.

The Evil One

No, she's saying that THE HUMAN AUTHORS OF THE OT wouldn't have been bothered by it. Your interpretation is utterly dependent on the Biblical authors and all their readers sharing your personal disgust towards the sacrifice that Abraham is willing to carry out. However, every indication we have on the matter is that the Bible authors, their audience, and believers through the ages have considered Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac to be wholly laudable and the mark of a truly great and wonderful faith.

ETA: Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you'll be able to cite the theologians, priests and rabbis through the centuries who have drawn their flocks' attention to the example of Abraham as an immoral fool who just doesn't get what God wants from him... maybe you can quote such people pointing out how badly Abraham got it wrong and how morality should always trump the commands of God.

Maybe. But maybe not.

The Evil One

gioven that there are plenty of believers today - including some on this very board - at least one of whom I have witnessed you arguing with - who believe that whatever God commands is moral by definition, your surety on this point is misplaced.