4 billion

When Abraham threatens to kill a child old enough to know what is going on, to prove he believes in his God, and then is magically rewarded for this perverted act, I see a precedent being set for the next 2700 years. This is, that it is ok to abuse children.

Doug Shaver

That is one possible interpretation of the story. It is not the only one.

aa5874

And ok to destroy abortion clinics.

douglas

What about it being ok to have adulterous sex with your maidservant? How's that for a precedent? :jump:

Seriously though, I don't think that the original audience for this story would have interepreted it as permission to abuse their kids. In my humble opinion, the story has more to do with discouraging ritualistic human sacrifice than it does about child abuse or "obeying God."

Also, I wonder if this story may have served as a way of seperating the God "Ba'aL" who was rumoured to require child sacrifices, and the God "Yahwh," and the God of Abraham. I seem to remember reading somewhere that early Hebrews sometimes got the two Gods confused. I know just enough about this subject to be dangerous, so maybe someone who knows more will jump in and clarify.

WishboneDawn

There was quite a bit in the old testament regarding the hebrews taking up Baal rituals and worship. I don't know if it addressed that religion specifically but I think the main points I remember from the story ARE that it was speaking against child sacrifice and that it was framing the relationship the ancient hebrews were expected to have with god, trust and obedience. Looking back it's a little horrible. Standing in the time when the story was written it may have been bleeding heart liberal stuff.

Dean Anderson

The very interesting thing about the story is that the middle section is so out of place.

Notice how in verses 1-10, it is "Elohim" (God) who talks directly to Abraham, and then suddenly in verse 11 it is "an angel of Yahweh" talking to him.

Notice how verse 15 has to have the angel speak a second time in order to introduce new text, when it was already speaking.

According to scholars who follow the Documentary Hypothesis, the middle section (verses 11-15) is by a different author to the main story, and was inserted into it later (along with the phrase "word of Yahweh" in verse 16 to make the two bits join better.

Without this incongruous middle section, the story is clear that Abraham did sacrifice Isaac.

Notice how God in verse 16 commends Abraham for "doing this thing" and "not witholding his son" - the implication being that he did sacrifice him.

Notice how it refers to Isaac as Abraham's son as being the "only one" - the author of this story never mentions Ishmael anywhere, all the passages referring to Ishmael are by other authors.

Notice how it talks about "the two of them" going up the mountain, but only refers to "Abraham" going back down.

Another interesting point is that the author of this story never mentions Isaac again. He is mentioned again by other authors, such as the one who wrote the middle bit - but not the one who wrote the main story.

What all this adds up to is very good evidence (assuming you give credence to the Documentary Hypothesis) that in the original story - as written by the "E" author - Isaac was Abraham's firstborn, and Abraham sacrificed him just as God commanded...

doubtingt

It's not about advocating abuse. It's about advocating the abandonment of one's own reasoning and moral sense in deference to blind, unquestioning obedience to God's authority.

That's what monotheism is mostly about.

What is factually true is whatever God says is true.
What is morally right is whatever God says is right.

Neil List

Surely the most interesting aspect of this story is the metaphor of the religious mindset in the character of Isaac - I mean, think about it, he wasn't too bright was he? No sheep - but there's going to be a sacrifice anyway and Dad is being strangely distant since he last heard voices in his head? Run boy run! There you have the beginnings of millions of people going to church with the nagging feeling that they really would be better of doing something else.

On a serious note there is an issue with the OT and the attitude of present day Christians vis a vis "discipline" & child abuse: when the Book of Proverbs contains verses such as "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child" parents are able to justify their physical abuse as "God's will". I've seen at first hand children in church toddler groups being systematically and repeatedly smacked for the most trivial of infractions such as not hugging a complete stranger on the say so of the minister/elder/pastor etc. Probably a bit of topic for this thread but the impact on children of relgion in otherwise modern society deserves discussion elsewhere.

Anat

Neil, there certainly is an implication that Isaac understood perfectly well who was going to be bound up on that altar. For two modern interpretations by a deconverted Jew, see Yehuda Amichai's Akedah

4 billion

Pervy Bonza points, I thought that the story had a 'funny' feel to it, that is, apart from the child sacrifice angle. When one reads it, ones perspective does seem to change, I always put this down bad writing skills, which are not uncommon in the bible. Your proposition certainly rings true as when some body can't write too good, their lack of skill manifests itself in a consistent way. In this tale the style of writing changes in ways that are consistent with there being different authors.

The bit about Abraham coming back by himself really lets the cat out the bag. That's the great thing about the Bible being the word of their God, it means that they can't change it much, therefore, the true barbarity that is their religion, cannot be hidden by rewriting.