The Evil One

No one has attempted to argue that stance. We have argued the rather less revolutionary stance that if (a) God commands "it" and (b) God praises one who demonstrates willingness to do "it", then "it" is "good" from the point of view of the literary character who is God (and, therefore, the author).

Deuteronomy is later than Kings, as I understand it.

Will you please stop retrojecting. The OT doesn't consider slavery bad, has no concept of "sex slave", and has a concept of "rape" vastly different from what we understand by that term today.

Er, yes, if someone describes someone else as "wise" I tend to understand that to mean that, all other things being equal, the speaker thinks the person under discussion is wise.

If you think all other things are not equal then it is up to you to provide the evidence.

Do you have any evidence, at all, for this irony other than the fact that you personally disapprove of Solomon's morals? any textual evidence, perhaps? or eany external evidence that this was the ancient view of Solomon?

I'm sure you've noticed that this irony principle allows you to interpret anything at all as meaning exactly the opposite to what it says. That must come in handy.

There is NO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE for the notion that he hopes Abe won't do it. This is something that you are adding to the text based on your conception of God's character. Which wouldn't be so bad except that the text contains something that directly contradicts your understanding of God's thinking here: the fact that God PRAISES and BLESSES Abe for being willing to do something which, according to you, he was really secretly hoping Abe wouldn't do.

But you haven't. (Unless it was very, very well disguised.) Could you please state this coherent answer. One sentence will do. Why does God say to Abe that Abe has only one son (twice, in the setup to the test and in the blessing that follows) if both parties are well aware that is not true?

All we've had from you on this point so far is some guff about "God going along with Abe" which doesn't explain it at all.

And my answer - it's an artefact of the redaction process - might not appeal to you - and it might even be incorrect - but I don't see that it is incoherent.


ETA: this post repeats some points from this post, which you did not reply to and may have missed.

4 billion

Well I give you New Orleans, Americas black prison population and Kramer as shit ain't changed that much, but I digress.

The bottom line is the Martin Luther hated Jewish people and wanted them to be destroyed.
Christians blame the Jews for the death of their Jesus and have been persecuting them for the last 1700 years because of this. If you want to deny this then that is your business.
The Bible states that the Jews will be persecuted forever for the death of it's Jesus. You can try and say "oh thats just Peter or Pauls or whatever opinion" this is unacceptable as the Bible is sold as the word of your God so therefore it's instructions are binding.



Just cos they tack on a few extra's doesn't change the fact that they follow a prophet of the Jewish God, therefore they worship the Jewish God, by definition they are Jews. But of course they are not, this is why the Christians think the world is a bad place, cos they know they are phonies and thieves, they have stolen a God.


The Christians hide behind different denominations. I choose not to waste my time and play this shell game that is designed to confuse. They all believe in the same cause so I just look at the root cause of this mental illness called monotheism.

Anat

Gamera, you insist on reading the Bibles as a single text. It is an accumulative text, written, rewritten, edited and redacted. Worldviews changed from 7 century BCE to 1st century CE. And one cannot ignore obvious major influences such as the Babylonian exile and Helenism.

Solomon's wisdom is exemplified by a concrete example - the case of the two women - and later hyperbole (the stuff about understanding animals and trees). This was the work of a pro-monarchic author. The stuff about the concubines was the work of an anti-monarchic author explaining the events leading to the exile. The early description of Solomon was of a wise king. The later author had to build on that tradition, using the materials from Deuteronomy. One can be wise and weak.

Inspiration has different meanings for different parts of Tanakh. Had Psalms been perceived as representing God's explicit views it would have been in the Prophets, not Writings. In the Writings you find works that were perceived even at the time of canonisation as human interpretation of God's views.

Abraham was willing to have Ishmael as his heir: Genesis 17:18 "And Abraham said unto God: 'Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!'"

But God decided that was not to be:

"And God said: 'Nay, but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thou shalt call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee; behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But My covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.'"

IOW God is telling Abraham that Ishmael will be promoted to the next year, but not at our school. Ishmael will have to go at some point, but since Abraham cares for him God will look after his future as well.

See also Genesis 21:11-13:
"And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight on account of his son. And God said unto Abraham: 'Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall seed be called to thee. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.'"

Abraham was reluctant to send Ishmael away, but God reassured him all will work out fine.

James Brown

Gamera wrote:

I've seen this argument in other discussions. God had to change his loving and perfect character in order to appeal to primitive people. One person told me that God had--HAD to--order the Hebrews to commit genocide in Canaan in order to "sweep the decks" and create a society from the ground up, so that God could then, and only then, begin to teach them to love their enemies.

It seems there is no behavior that God exhibits that is not re-interpreted to mean its opposite. If God asks someone a question, it's not because the Omniscient is seeking information. No, the question is actually rhetorical. If God asks someone to commit an immoral act, it's not really a command, it's just a test. If God praises someone for being willing to commit an immoral act that will cause personal pain, it's not really praise, it's . . . sarcasm, I suppose.

So both Genesis and Hebrews laud Abraham for his actions, and according to some, this was a failure of a test. If being blessed, and promised countless descendants, and promised possession of many cities, and being the forefather of the Messiah that will save all humanity, and being listed in the Faith Hall of Fame is the reward for failing a test, I wonder what God would have promised if Abraham had passed it.

Of course, in other contexts, we are told that God's ways and commands were so superior, so moral compared to the other "warlike" gods of the region, and that's why the God of the Hebrews is to be worshiped. So which is it? Does Jehovah act like other gods to appeal to our lowest common denominator? Or does Jehovah act more righteously than other gods to give us an example of how to live? We really can't have it both ways.

Never, in all my years as a Christian and my few years as an atheist, have I ever heard anyone argue that God was secretly hoping that Abraham would flat out refuse to obey the command to sacrifice Isaac. Never has this story been offered up as a cautionary tale, a warning about what terrible things can happen if God asks us to do something and we refuse based on rules of decency and honor. There are plenty of biblical stories of people who don't do as God commands, and never do they end with the words, "Because you have done this, I will surely bless you."

Anat

If you want alternative interpretations, YHWH and Abraham were testing one another, and YHWH blinked first. This symbolises the history of the Jewish people ever since - God puts them through all sorts of mischief and disasters, but eventually changes his mind at the last minute.

aa5874

And if some claim that God is our moral standard, then how can there be some independent rules of honor and decency, exclusive of God?

Gamera's arguments are fallacious, based on his statements, mankind has a higher moral standard than his God and have some redundancy that neutralises the ethics of God.

WishboneDawn

Neat thing about commercial apple orchards. If you looked at the roots of the trees you wouldn't know a damn thing about the apple on the tree. Grafting means the root that would produce MacIntosh's now supports a tree that produces Golden Delicious or Cortland's. You'd know it was an apple tree but I feel sorry for the person who passes up a Royal Gala or Ambrosia because, well, it's an apple.

Anyhow, you're ascribing intent and design to the fact that there are different denominations and I doubt you could even begin to support that assertion. I don't think you've thought about supportng it because it works for you. It neatly allows you to generalize and excuses you from looking into what you're railing against. I think it's a simplistic and possibly dishonest way of approaching an issue but I understand you may not share that view.

Gamera

[QUOTE=The Evil One;3965807]There you go again. You have a tin ear. Here let me show you how wrong you are with a NT passage:

35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

Does Jesus really mean that the disciples have done the right thing by rummaging up two swords. Nope. He is clearly being ironic. They have misinterpreted his metaphoric use of the term sword (they will now face strife and must prepare for it), in a literal way (arm yourselves with swords). They have completely missed the point. And not for the first time. They did the same with Jesus comments about the bread of the Pharisees.

But Rather than correcting them, Jesus simply smiles sadly and says, fine, boys, good job. Because he knows they've got a lot of learning to, but now's not the time.

The same applies to Abraham and God. Abraham has missed the point entirely, but it's time to move on. So God say, fine, Abe, good job. NEXT!

Gamera

[QUOTE=Anat;3965965]I understand that the Hebrew Scriptures are a pastiche. But they are also redacted, and the redactor attempted to have some unified message. In the case of Genesis 18-22, it's unlikely there was even a redactor. It seems like one coherent story. But again, let's assume it's not. Let's assume they are unrelated narrators. Some redactor brought those stories together to make up Genesis, which has meaning as a text beyond the individual narratives as a result of the redaction. That's why it is proper to ask what Genesis means, not just what a single incident in Genesis means. And it's proper to ask why the redactor brought Genesis 18 and Genesis 22 together in the same texts.

Homer's works are also a pastiche. But somebody redacted them into the Odyssey and Iliad, and it is appropriate to discuss the meaning of those texts as full texts, not as pastiches.

One can, but the point is God knows he's both, so he is using the term "wise" while knowing Solomon is weak. Knowing more than you say is the essence of irony. The entire text drips with irony in that sense. Solomon was the biggest fool around.

What text is not a human interpretation of God? Very rarely in the Hebrew scriptures does God speak for himself. He usually speaks through the words of a prophet. Even in the case of the binding, God doesn't speak directly, but the angel of God speaks for him

That's the point -- both God and Abraham are explicitly aware that Abraham has another son. It's not like it wasn't a concern of theirs. The text rubs our noses in it: ABRAHAM HAS ANOTHER SON!. So for God to ignore this fact in the Binding episode suggests that we need to ask why. Your solution, that God means Isaac was the only hier is unsatisfactory since he didn't say only heir. He said only son. It appears he does so because Abraham has utterly and completely forgotten about Ishmael. He's just not a very good father. He forgets one son (sending him out to what appears to be certain death), and he then willing tried to slit the throat of his other son. Do you see a pattern developing here, because I do.

Gamera

[QUOTE=The Evil One;3965807]

There you go again. If it's in the bible, then the authors must think it's "good."

Slavery isn't a good thing in the bible. Slavery is forbidden among the Jews. The accumulation of concubines is forbidden among Jewish kings.

But you have to keep reading to see the irony:

1 Kings 11:4
As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

Solomon become a bumbling old besotted fool. The prototype of the rich old man who's taken to the cleaners by younger women.

Hence the passage where he asks for wisdom comes true -- ironically:

1 Kings 3: 10 The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. 11 So God said to him, "Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, 12 I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. 13 Moreover, I will give you what you have not asked for—both riches and honor—so that in your lifetime you will have no equal among kings. 14 And if you walk in my ways and obey my statutes and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life." 15 Then Solomon awoke—and he realized it had been a dream.

It was just a dream, indeed. Solomon was never wise.