No, I am merely distinguishing between murder and the institution of sacrifice. God lets us know very early on that murder (including the murder of animals) is wrong. Yet animal sacrifices were offered throughout the Second Temple era and were offered by many of the forefathers. Giving an animal as a sacrifice is not the same as murdering it, even though the animal is slaughtered in both. — BitconnectCarlos

This is just legalistic stuff, but for what it's worth, retzach is the type of killing forbidden in the Torah. It is not a universal prohibition against killing humans (as killing in war and self defense are examples of lawful killing). That word does not relate to the killing of animals. That is, you can't "murder" an animal, but it is forbidden to kill an animal for the purposes of causing it suffering.

There are laws against sacrifice (referred to as "passing through fire"), but I'd think sacrifice would be a form of retzach, but also a particularly forbidden type. I'm not saying the distinction isn't relevant, but I do think that human sacrifice is a form of retzach, among other things.

The Isaac story is generally viewed by Jews as further support that human sacrifice is forbidden. There are other passages that forbid human sacrifice. There is not a reasonable interpretation that it is supportive of human sacrifice.

Christians see it similarly, but also as foreshadowing Jesus's life, death, and ressurection, a human sacrifice of a child directly of God, brought to earth to purge humanity of its sins. A metaphorical sacrificial lamb.

This strengthens the idea that Isaac was a willing participant. — BitconnectCarlos

Kierkegaard's focus wasn't as much on Isaac's acceptance of his fate as it was on Abraham's pure faith in not resisting or questioning God. Since I see the story as metaphor, what is it that is added by concentrating on Isaac's complicity? There is no evidence Isaac knew the sacrifice was God's will, so what do we say about Isaac that he did whatever his father asked without question? Abraham was over 100 years old at the time. Isaac would have easilly taken him.

But will you happily judge a faith sufficient to risk one’s life to save another as good?

If so then there is nothing good or bad necessarily involved in acts of faith qua acts of faith.

So your argument’s reliance on child murder is smoke.

You are avoiding. — Fire Ologist

What are these sentences? Not a syllogism. Yes, we might judge a faith that is sufficient for self sacrifice to be good. And that faith of itself is neither good nor bad is one of the consequences of the argument I presented, and is meant to be contrary to those who insist faith is always a virtue.

So we have agreement on these issues?

, the case I referred to and I've been using throughout the argument is that of Elizabeth Rose Struhs.

You might think that a father trussing up his son and holding a knife to his throat is fine if the child gives consent, but both I and the law disagree.

I read Banno as referencing the Akedah story as he has often done, and equating the institution of sacrifice with murder. — BitconnectCarlos

Pretty much.

Kierkegaard's focus wasn't as much on Isaac's acceptance of his fate as it was on Abraham's pure faith in not resisting or questioning God. — Hanover

This is a reading of the Binding that is told in parallel to reading it as an admonition against human sacrifice. It's the target of much of my argument. In an alternate story, Abraham says to god "This is an evil thing you ask, and I will not do it, even for you", and then god comes clean and says that it was all a test, solving the Euthyphro by showing that god wills what is good, not the good is what god wills.

And what do you think of this? Will you be off to join an exclusive religious community - or are you already a member?

Do you think this an admirable way to live?

That is, you can't "murder" an animal, but it is forbidden to kill an animal for the purposes of causing it suffering. — Hanover

Yes, killing animals is only acceptable for food, sacrifice, and necessity, as I understand it. Initially, I held Genesis 9:5 as demanding an accounting for the unnecessary slaughter of animals, but I was wrong. Interestingly, it holds the animal accountable for the shedding of human blood.

I'm not saying the distinction isn't relevant, but I do think that human sacrifice is a form of retzach, among other things. — Hanover

Yes, one is forbidden to offer their seed to Molech. Abraham pre-dates these firm commandments. Human sacrifice may have been defensible in Abraham's day. Sacrifice is established as a valid institution; the question is its proper boundaries.

There is not a reasonable interpretation that it is supportive of human sacrifice. — Hanover

Agree, although Dan McClellan argues that the earliest layers of the Hebrew Bible are supportive of human sacrifice. I mention this because McClellan is prominent in biblical scholarship today.

Since I see the story as metaphor, what is it that is added by concentrating on Isaac's complicity? — Hanover

Make it more palatable to Banno. Isaac's complicity in the matter would be a morally relevant factor for many secular moral theorists.

So you could have written the Bible in a way that better represented God, a blown opportunity by the author to have described God as a testing being, teaching by temptation. I'm not sure that's consistent with the greater story line of our sometimes flawed protaganist Yahweh.

I don't take the Bible as the inerrant word of God, and so pointing out better ways it could say things doesn't prove much other than we don't have a divine document.

As to the question of whether it is the source or horrors, less so than other laws documents, maybe more so than others. What is the bigger point you wish to make? Do I discard the wisdom extracted over the millenia because you can show me it's not the perfect book?

Agree, although Dan McClellan argues that the earliest layers of the Hebrew Bible are supportive of human sacrifice. I mention this because McClellan is prominent in biblical scholarship today. — BitconnectCarlos

Interesting, but not surprising. In the earliest passages, it wasn't monotheistic and gods procreated with humans to form monsters, so God wiped out the planet with a flood.

You might think that a father trussing up his son and holding a knife to his throat is fine if the child gives consent, but both I and the law disagree. — Banno

Would it be ok if Isaac were an adult? What's the issue with an adult consenting to be a human sacrifice?

Is wisdom found in the book, or in the conversations and interpretations of the book? The alternate story might be understood as a way of showing how not to misread the story of Issac as advocating extremes of faith.

Would it be ok if Isaac were an adult? — BitconnectCarlos

What do you think? Should we allow the sacrifice of willing, compliant adults?

Is wisdom found in the book, — Banno

Meaning is in your head. Squiggly symbols are the book. Authorial intent is irrelevant.

Let us suppose you read a book, used it to form moral analysis, to form charitable works, used it to form community, used it to form positive identity, do you destroy all that you created if you later learn it was meant as nothing more than a book of humorous tales?

And you needn't point out all could have been done without it because that doesn't justify removing it.

Meaning is in your head. — Hanover

Nuh. Instead of worrying about meaning, worry about what folk do. I'm not asking folk to burn their book, just that they not to use it as an excuse for abominations.

faith of itself is neither good nor bad — Banno

Yes, we agree.

What do you think? Should we allow the sacrifice of willing, compliant adults? — Banno

This is a political question, but my answer would be no. Admittedly, my perspective is shaped by my theology, and I can understand how others might disagree.

So we now agree that the binding of Isaac would be immoral even if he were a consenting adult. Ok.

This moral question has been resolved, but in Abraham's day (2000 BC?), it wasn't.

This moral question has been resolved, but in Abraham's day (2000 BC?), it wasn't. — BitconnectCarlos

I like Heath Dewrell's view (partly because I think he's right) that child sacrifice probably wasn't part of the deep history of the Israelites. The laws against it are probably related to the rise of a child sacrificing sect, possibly influenced by the Phoenicians. This would have been around the reign of King Ahaz.

the deep history of the Israelites — frank

Which period is he referring to?

This would have been around the reign of King Ahaz. — frank

Plausible. We know that by the time of the Second Temple era, the practice had ceased among the Jews.

Which period is he referring to? — BitconnectCarlos

The end of the Bronze Age.

This moral question has been resolved, but in Abraham's day (2000 BC?), it wasn't. — BitconnectCarlos

I think you've helped to show the real complexity of a story that is often treated with historically and exegetically tone-deaf canards.

If we don't understand the act, then we don't understand what the angel of God ultimately told Abraham not to do. Abraham was told by the angel not to sacrifice his child; he was not told to abstain from murder. Abraham presumably did not need to be told that you shouldn't murder your children.

And what do you think of this? Will you be off to join an exclusive religious community - or are you already a member?

Do you think this an admirable way to live? — Banno

I was wondering if the religionists would agree.

How should I interpret silence?

Some cryptic answers there! Regarding the Berkeley quote, I see no reason why the secularist cannot appreciate the order, the beauty and so on and leave God out of it. So I don't see it as a case of, "the secularist will never miss it" if that means that there is an experience of awe, wonder, beauty or whatever that they don't have, and that they don't miss it because they simply don't know about the possibility of such feelings. On the other hand if you mean that they don't miss it precisely because they have it just as the religionist does, then I agree.

On the latter interpretation then, we are still left with the question as to waht the secularist doesn't have in the life experience as opposed to the religionist (other than the obvious beliefs in God and immortality, and whatever comforts they bring, of course).

:wink: Did they not recognise the peace offering?

How should I interpret silence? — praxis

I would interpret it this way: people are not interested in entire posts of AI-generated content. The only words of your own were, "All AI generated, btw."

AI will be the end of us.

The end of the Bronze Age. — frank

So around 1500-1200 BC? The Merneptah Stele mentions Israel in ~1208 BC, but I place the Exodus in the 13th century BC. One could put the Exodus earlier, around the 15th century BC. Sounds like Dewrell believes in an earlier Exodus because when I hear "late bronze age" I think slavery.

You've probably read that there's no evidence that there was ever a community of enslaved Israelites in Egypt. If you're interested in what we know about the emergence of the Israelites, check out 1177 BC by Eric Cline. There are some intriguing archeological tidbits that suggest that the Israelites may have been among the so-called sea peoples.

Was there ever any community of Israelites in Egypt? So no Joseph then?

If the Israelites were the Sea People, then why did they need to invent a story about Egypt? They have their own history. Why not just tell their own story of arriving by sea instead of passing down a complete fabrication?

I would agree that there is no evidence of a large-scale Exodus, as described in the Hebrew Bible, where millions of people are said to have escaped Egypt. Numbers in ancient sources are notoriously unreliable.

Was there ever any community of Israelites in Egypt? So no Joseph then? — BitconnectCarlos

The archeological record doesn't show that there was.

If the Israelites were the Sea People, then why did they need to invent a story about Egypt? They have their own history. Why not just tell their own story of arriving by sea instead of passing down a complete fabrication? — BitconnectCarlos

They couldn't read or write, it was a chaotic time. One of the tidbits I mentioned was the appearance in Egypt of a word that looks like Israel. So maybe not slaves, but sea-faring invaders.

I mean, if you look at Americans who've been here for a couple of hundred years, they're apt to have no information about how they come to be here. It would have been the same for the early Israelites.

I would agree that there is no evidence of a large-scale Exodus, as described in the Hebrew Bible, where millions of people are said to have escaped Egypt. Numbers in ancient sources are notoriously unreliable. — BitconnectCarlos

There's just no record of a community of Israelites in Egypt.

So I reject this 'belief without evidence' dogma, as that is what it is. For those prepared to pursue these paths, there is plenty of evidence, albeit not of the kind that positivism will acknowledge. — Wayfarer

How could you know that if you haven’t successfully completed the journey yourself? Seems like it must be down to faith. If you want to claim that that faith is supported by evidence then tell us what the evidence consists in.