Idle question about Abraham and Human Sacrifice (page 6)

Terry

We start with SOMETHING rather than nothing.

If that something is a real something, then, we are on our way.

If that something is nothing, we're off to a bad start.

Once we grow very fond of that something it is difficult not to defend it.

Sometimes, even against actual reasonable proof to the contrary.

How do we select where we begin?

Were we born into it? Did we hear it from friends?

If we were born Jewish or Muslim would that same something look ridiculous?

What if we were Chinese?

Everybody everywhere has a something they hold to be true and right and dear.

They defend it against all contrary facts.

Where does this leave our something?

Would any of us, today, knowing what we know ever think human sacrifice is a good thing?

And yet---apparently, if we are Christian...it is the thing we appreciate the most!

JESUS is human sacrifice.

Robdar

I'm Jewish so I will tell you my Jewish (and other Reform Jews') perspective on this story:

You have to remember, although all Jewish bloodlines descend from Abraham, Abraham was a Semite and not a Jew. The tribe of Judah came later. It is very likely that at one time in Semetic history, human sacrifices, mostly of children were performed. It is believed by many Reform Jews that the story of Abraham being told by God to sacrifice Issac, but then telling him not to, was concocted in order to get the Semites to stop the slaughter.

It would be nice if Christians stop trying to interpret the Hebrew scriptures. It just confuses the heck out of you. Especially when you interpret literally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

ziddina

Haw!!!

Corpusdei, that is an EXCELLENT question, and one that always bothered me as a child being bullied into the Jehovah's Witness religion.

However, when I got away from the cult, I did a little research and found out several things...

First of all, keep in mind that 'Abraham' was supposedly living amongst the "Philistines" - but more likely among the Canaanites - prior to this attempt to sacrifice 'Isaac'....

Now, here's the interesting part...

The "Canaanites" weren't actually wiped out by the Israelites - if indeed the Israelites were ever a real threat to them. Apparently, changing forces in the area caused the Canaanites to migrate across the Mediterranean - and one of the places in which they settled was CARTHAGE, North Africa.

The Carthaginians became a force to be reckoned with, even presenting a threat to the Roman empire. The "Punic Wars" were basically caused by the Roman attempts to defeat and obtain Carthage as a base of operations for the rich North African farmlands [the area was greener, back then....]

Remember Hannibal crossing the Alps?? His name - Hanni bal - is basically "Hanni - Ba'al" ... And WHO was it that worshipped Ba'al?? Remember??

Anyway, the Romans claimed that the Carthaginians practiced - are you ready for this?? CHILD SACRIFICE....

Now, let's segue back to ol' 'Abraham'...

I strongly suspect that 'Abraham' was initially worshipping the "Philistine" or Canaanite gods... Apparently, these gods required child sacrifice.

So, here's old 'Abraham', going up onto the mountain to practice child sacrifice, when "suddenly" a 'new' god - or a variation upon the gods 'Abraham' knows - initiates a "new" practice... And you'll notice WHY, in Genesis 22:17... "I will indeed bless you and make your offspring as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seasore. Your offspring will possess the gates of their enemies. ..."

I suspect that canny old 'Abraham' realized that he wasn't going to become numerous if he continued worshipping the "Philistine" or Canaanite gods... So he "SUDDENLY" got this message from a "new" god... And saved his legitimate son - the one born of the woman with the tribal connections that WEREN'T "Philistine" or Canaanite, [edited... instead of the slave woman with NO practical tribal connections and therefore no real opportunities for political alliances with powerful tribal groups...] and therefore more likely to produce a large fighting force... Pragmatic old sheepherder, 'Abraham'...

I was always amazed at the idea of [male] child sacrifice, as it is a recipe for disaster, from a military standpoint Any nation, civilization, or tribal group needs to have a LARGE population of young males to successfully wage warfare. Sacrificing children - especially the male children - seemed counter-intuitive. If the Carthaginians HADN'T practiced child sacrifice, they might have been successful in fending off Roman incursions...

Going back to the Romans.... Many archaeologists and scholars of Roman and North African history discounted the Roman tales of child sacrifice as mere propaganda. However, recent discovery of a Carthaginian cemetary with multiple child skeletons - very young, and mostly male - has changed the archaeological viewpoint of the Carthaginians/Canaanites...

It seems that the Canaanites - Carthaginians - might have practiced child sacrifice, after all...

And it only made the most practical sense for 'Abraham' to have that sudden 'revelation', thereby saving his younger - NOT THE FIRSTBORN - son - which, as I mentioned above, gave 'Abraham' tribal, political alliances that he could actually use...

Zid

Robdar

Zid, if I were a man, I'd kiss you! Thanks for the history lesson. I loved it.

Band on the Run

I see it as a remnant of an older, punitive, amoral god before the God of the Bible. As with Job, Jung's point with Christ is why the blood thirst? Myth frequently involves a dying god, reborn. The same theme repeats throughout the world. There is no way to justify it. None.

People aren't resurrected every day. How many resurrected people do you know? Death was even more obvious in the desert before funeral homes were abundant. It wasn't a remote event as it is today. How many animals were resurrected? The Bible does not say whether Sarah was told. Abraham was willing to lower himself to the absolute bottom to listen to a god speaking voices in his head. I doubt if anyone else heard the command to slaughter Isaac.

Isn't there a time when you god shop? Find a better god. God is so completely lawless in the early OT. Of course, God does not have to follow laws. Maybe the other person can submit his thesis about limiting life spans in heaven to a reputable law review. When man is more moral than God, you have theological problems.

The early OT reads as though it were different layers of tales. It is not consistent. We know about canonization but how were these scriptures compiled? Who had the authority to accept one story and reject yet another. God needs to be chastised.

Band on the Run

It is manifest that Paul did not consider his letters sacred scripture. He would have been much more careful if he knew he were writing scripture.

This is one weird thread. We are adults. Masturbation can be discussed without giggles. Why mention it when it does not at all relevant? Why critique a woman's anatomy in such detail. A medical examiner could not be as exacting. All for no point. Someone is still in a junior high school locker room.

Sulla

Corpusdei,

My difficulty with that is that it's takes a viewpoint that's very end-justifies-the-means (though to be fair, that viewpoint can be applied to the majority of the bible). Even though Jehovah may never have intended Abraham to kill Isaac, he still required the choice to be made. He made Abraham choose between love for his God and love for his family (a morally destitute choice that Jesus would echo his support of many years later). The ritual loses viability if Abraham knows it's a test, or that Isaac would be resurrected some time later (which removes any actual sense of sacrifice, and thus significance, from the act) which means that, as far as Abraham and especially Isaac were concerned, God has just ordered the ritual murder of a faithful follower by another faithful follower. Anyway I cut that, it points to nothing more to take away than the danger of faith at the cost of morality.

Perhaps you think it a morally destitute choice because you are so deeply influenced by Jewish and Christian morals -- that is, by this story itself. The degree to which human sacrifice was part of the generally accepted moral universe of 2500 BC cannot be overstated. All the cool tribes were doing it.

And, not to make you wrong here, I would suggest that we really have to deal with the fact that the moral code by which you condemn this story is partly the result of, well, this story. In the history of human beings, we have been sacrificing children for a much longer time than we have been thinking child sacrifice is horrifying.

I take issue with the fact that religion has hijacked morality as completely as it has. Not so very long after this event, Jehovah had his chosen people running around engaged in wholesale slaughters, killing men and murdering children (not virgin girls, though, they make good ... um.... slaves. Yea.) and one of the rationalizations was because they engaged in worship of other deities which involved filicide. Even barring that, the very significance of the sacrifice underscores the depth of the cut here - if the sacrifice of Isaac were not shocking and painful and hard, it's difficult to call it sacrifice.

I doubt that violence and the sacred can be separated. But that's another thread. You are correct to note that the Jewish conquest of the Promised Land is pretty hard to read with Christian eyes. They weren't Christians, of course, which it my point.

Idle question about Abraham and Human Sacrifice

Terry

Robdar

ziddina

Robdar

Band on the Run

Band on the Run

Sulla

Sulla

Glander

Robdar

Share this