IMHO there is no more problem with one religion more than another…. They are all capable of the worst traits imaginable.

Really the religion question is a misdirection. It is really ideology that is the cause of world problems - if you had to pick one thing (and obviously it is more complex than that), that is what I’d pick: ideology.

As a lover of history - really it tells us about ourselves by example - it is clear that whenever ideology is followed instead of practicality, and I consider religion to be an ideology…. The world is always the worse for it.

Mao tse dong and the cultural revolution. Millions starve when farmers were supposed to do their own industry, and city workers grow their own crops.

Stalinist Russia and the 5 year plans and mass starvation.

Communist attempts at governance.

Unbridled capitalism.

If religion were to stick to what it does best - provide support for spiritual needs (aka to me that means existential / epistemological support) it is beneficial to humanity. When it tries to assert power and becomes an ideology is when the shit always hits the fan. And it always seems to become an ideology. I mean even the Dhali Lama is getting involved somewhat in politics.

So…. I lump religion as another player in the power game. Another player. Let them compete I guess as we get the lowest common denominator anyways no matter what we do. Let 100 flowers blossom.

So what is this debate about? That was the question at hand.. Is this about obedience? — schopenhauer1

Banno began the debate and set the tone, making claims such as, "Faith [...] is obedience even to committing abominations" (). His thesis goes far beyond the simple idea that the text lauds Abraham's obedience.

Speaking for myself, the problem with @Banno's interpretation is the claim that the text is referencing what Abraham would view as an unequivocal abomination. Banno is saying something like, "This teaches us that we should obey even to the point of violating our conscience and engaging in things we hold to be pure evil." In light of the historical period this interpretation fails, for in Abraham's age and setting child sacrifice was not uncommon. Child sacrifice does figure in the text and its reception, but the more prominent aspect of this sacrifice is God's promise to Abraham and Isaac's status given Sarah's advanced age. Obedience is a central part of the text, but not in the way Banno claims.

https://xkcd.com/900/

Quite right. The religious need scholarship in order to make their scriptures palatable, even unto themselves. — Banno

But this is so painfully irrelevant to the question of what the passages mean to those reading it. It is a side conversation ignoring the fact that meaning is use.

That is, even assuming you are correct in what I posted of you above, you now must embark upon how they've interpreted the text to know what they mean when they use the words they do.

That is, let us assume the Abrahamic religionists have foolishly accepted a literally evil text to support their morality but they themselves are folks like all others in search for the truth and the good. And so they did as you say and have turned the text upside down to have it mean something you don't see anywhere in the text, that etymology impacts the meaning in no way.

This history lesson of how their world was formed even if true doesn't matter to what the binding of Isaac means. That you can read "break a leg" to mean break a leg doesn't mean you want an actor to fracture a leg.

You've not described the decision process of either atheists or theists. — Hanover

The problem is your failure to understand what I said. If you want to maintain a discussion with me, do not begin your sentences with "You'. I am not the subject of this thread.

That is, let us assume the Abrahamic religionists have foolishly accepted a literally evil text to support their morality but they themselves are folks like all others in search for the truth and the good. And so they did as you say and have turned the text upside down to have it mean something you don't see anywhere in the text, that etymology impacts the meaning in no way.

This history lesson of how their world was formed even if true doesn't matter to what the binding of Isaac means. That you can read "break a leg" to mean break a leg doesn't mean you want an actor to fracture a leg. — Hanover

@Banno
@Leontiskos

But even the Pharisees and their intellectual descendants, the Rabbis of the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods would have more-or-less accepted the plain meaning of this text, even if they "flavored" it with various other interpretations, as is the custom with Judaic hermeneutics of the Second Temple period into the Middle Ages and beyond.

That is to say, there is no way you can read that text and not come away with the impetus of it, which is that faithfulness in God is what is necessary. There are of course many ambiguities in the story, such as that of Abraham's psychological state, God's motivation, Isaac's psychological state, and so on. As happens with stories that lack such nuance, folktales (a sort of early form of fan-fiction) could have formed around the stories to fill it in an teach even more lessons from it. It could have been done deliberately even, to make a greater point, but considered "inspired".

Either way, this text is teaching that Abraham had great faith in God and therefore was rewarded.. as the text says:

Some time afterward, God put Abraham to the test, saying to him, “Abraham.” He answered, “Here I am.”
....
“Do not raise your hand against the boy, or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from Me.”
When Abraham looked up, his eye fell upon a ram, caught in the thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son.
...
I will bestow My blessing upon you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sands on the seashore; and your descendants shall seize the gates of their foes.

All the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your descendants, because you have obeyed My command.” — Genesis- Tanakh online

There is no way to reinterpret that otherwise. You can add to it, provide more context or whatever, but that is the main impetus of the story.

And again, this works generally how the God of the Israelites in the Tanakh operates- good is rewarded, evil is punished, and sometimes good people are punished for unclear, but heavenly reasons (Job).

This goes along with the uniquely Israelite spin on a god who protects his people if they maintain their faith in him. The Book of Job is unique in that it had a more ambiguous spin on the relationship, trying to convey that it wasn't as transactional as simply "reward and punishment". However, I would say this is more an aside (a more interesting nuanced one, and one more in line with a more complex Pessimism in my opinion), but the gist of most of the other books and stories, is to convey that if Israel and its gentile allies follow God, he will show his favors, sometimes individually, sometimes geopolitically (ancient Israel /Judah being favored or castigated based on the misgivings of the people).

We also must look at the actual archeological and historical records of the period the Tanakh was being written. Scholars generally attribute the oldest texts some time around the 7th century BCE, with various prophets. These were innovators in that they had the notion that El would be the sole god for worship, and identified with him as the patron god of the Israelite tribes and kingdom. They would implore the kings to banish the other traditional Canaanite gods (Baal and Asherah especially), for the sole worship of this god. The unique laws of kashrut and shabbat and such may have been practiced by the intellectual elites only centered around Jerusalem in the First Temple Period (c.1000 BCE-586 BCE), but probably wasn't adopted fully until the time of the Hasmoneans (c.140 BCE). As scholar Yonatan Adler points out in this article:

Now, in a study published today in the journal Tel Aviv, the pair reveals that ancient Judeans, in a period that spans throughout much of the first millennium B.C., enjoyed a diet that didn’t fully adhere to Jewish kosher laws. According to the study, archaeologists have found the remains of three non-kosher species in the two ancients Judean settlements—the Kingdom of Israel in the region’s north and the Kingdom of Judah in the south. Judah residents in particular ate a lot of catfish. These findings help scientists and historians build a more complete picture of how the ancient Judean cultures developed and adopted these rules.

According to rabbinic tradition, Moses, the most important prophet in Judaism, received the commandments that outlined how to live life as a Jew sometime around the 13th century B.C. Scholars don’t know exactly when these rules and practices were written down into the Torah, but in his upcoming book, Adler argues that evidence for its observance does not appear until the Hasmonean period that lasted from 140 B.C. to 37 B.C. And the point in history at which Judean citizens adopted the dietary rules prescribed in Torah into their lifestyles, essentially becoming kosher, is also not certain.

Adler has been working on the Origins of Judaism Archaeological Project, which aims to find out when ancient Judeans began to observe the laws of Torah, including dietary rules. He was hoping that the centuries-old fish scraps tossed away after dinner might help shed some light on that. “I can find out a lot about people by going through their garbage,” he says. “So we can learn a tremendous amount of what people were actually doing through the material remains they left behind—and this is particularly true for food.”

When both kingdoms rose to prominence, an average Judean denizen lived under the rule of a king, and was a farmer who plowed fields and harvested crops. With the exception of the societal elite, most individuals were illiterate. So while the educated intellectuals of the time had penned down laws, scribbling them on animal skins or papyrus, the vast majority of Judeans didn't necessarily know about them and couldn’t read them either. Even if the societal intellectuals may have started adopting kashrut, the masses likely hadn’t yet gotten the memo. — What Archaeology Tells Us About the Ancient History of Eating Kosher - Smithsonian Magazine

Whatever the case may be, the people who wrote the Prophetic books were mainly condemnatory towards the kings for not following their unique cult. The "people" barely had much interactions with the elites. Once the neo-Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar conquered the rebellious Jerusalem stronghold c.586 BCE, the "elites" (including the royalty, priests, and scribes), were taken to Babylonia. Here the "El only" faction cobbled together an Israelite mythological-history, retrojecting their viewpoint into the history (that El was always the main god, and the Israelites simply went astray rather than it being an innovation later on). Their goal was tribal historical narrative weaving stories of El throughout, and probably also to give context to rituals they were following to give those rituals greater significance for why they were practiced. They were not, however, doing deep ethical commentary- though ethical commandments and themes are definitely a part of it. Their goal and style was that of certainty and not of debate and contextual relevance. They needed a national, historical narrative to fit the reformed nation, especially when it was reestablishing the Second Temple.

However, again, this reestablishment itself was not fully integrated into the wider Judaic population until the nationalistic campaign against he Greek Seleucid dynasty c.160s-140s CE, when these elite-formulated texts became taken as a sort of constitution for the independent Jewish Hasmonean Dynasty. This is when the Pharisees with their oral story contextual analysis came into play, Sadducees simply adopting the written text as is, which suited their interests as keepers of the sacred rites, and the Essenes, who envisioned a more pure and apocalyptic version, repudiating the other two.

Mao tse dong and the cultural revolution. Millions starve when farmers were supposed to do their own industry, and city workers grow their own crops. — Metaphyzik

It is my understanding Mao thought if seeds were planted deeper the plants would be better. Farmers knew better but the authority of Mao was unquestioned and strongly enforced. Only farmers far away from Mao's ability to control were able to plant crops properly, and this made matters worse. Farmers wanting to please Mao got plants from the far away farmers who had plants and they faked having a good crop. It makes me think of Trump and his denial of the science needed to limit the impact of a pandemic. Denial of science can cause a very serious problem and this why I write.

I wrote of the Protestant opposition to the authority of the Pope, and I intend to wake Protestants up to the danger of giving authority and power to the wrong person. Democracy and our freedoms depend on science and ancient cultures, not a religion or leaders who deny science and attempt to have the power of Mao to rule over us.

I like your opening statement

IMHO there is no more problem with one religion more than another…. They are all capable of the worst traits imaginable. — Metaphyzik

From there you speak of ideology. There are different ways to understand that word. The changed meaning is alarming.

i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌidēˈäləjē,ˌīdēˈäləjē/
noun
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
Similar:
beliefs
ideas
ideals
principles
doctrine
creed
credo
teaching
dogma
theory
thesis
tenets
canon(s)
conviction(s)
persuasion
opinions
position
ethics
morals
2.
ARCHAIC
the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature. — Oxford Languages

the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature. Is the most important definition because that is what separates an opinion from reason. This is a serious cultural matter. This is directly related to the change in education, our culture wars and the popularity of Trump or the power of the Pope. We are basing our notion of false or true on our feelings, not empirical thinking that demands a study of the subject.

Please notice my irritating post when someone is finding fault with me. I may seem pity but it is about how we think and what this has to do with democracy. Putting me on the defensive and side-railing the thread instead of advancing arguments about the subject of disagreement has a cultural impact. (like mass murders) Democracy is rule by reason, not rule by passion. It evolves out of a notion of logus- reason, the controlling force of the universe. The Pope and Trump are not logos but they have a strong emotional impact on people. Democracy needs to be rule by reason to advance the human potential and that is what made America great, but education for that was ended and that brings the US to the cultures we have today. Winning an argument by finding fault in the poster does not advance knowledge.

That is to say, there is no way you can read that text and not come away with the impetus of it, which is that faithfulness in God is what is necessary. — schopenhauer1

You put so much work into your post and I want to honor that. My questions are sincere wonderment, trying to figure out a puzzle about how we judge truth.

Those men could not have experienced a god in an empirical way because that god is not made manifest on earth. So in want did they have faith? It seems to me they had a very high opinion of themselves, to think they could know god. What evidence of god were they using?

This goes along with the uniquely Israelite spin on a god who protects his people if they maintain their faith in him. — schopenhauer1

:chin: Just about everyone had a patron god or goddess and around the world people have done all in their power to please the gods and goddesses. There is nothing unigue about believing the Nile or an irrigation ditch will flood or there will be a good harvest if a god/goddess is pleased and bad things happen when they are displeased. People turned on their leaders when it seemed obvious the gods no longer favored them. I don't understand what you said if you said others didn't have a god's protection.

Yes that is an ominous change in the lexicon.

Ideology enforcement is what I was ranting about. Having an ideology isn’t in itself bad. It is good actually. Encourages people to think if all goes well. At worst it is imposed on others or forced in society. Theron lies the problem

You put so much work into your post and I want to honor that. My questions are sincere wonderment, trying to figure out a puzzle about how we judge truth. — Athena

Thank you for the nice words. :smile:.

Those men could not have experienced a god in an empirical way because that god is not made manifest on earth. So in want did they have faith? It seems to me they had a very high opinion of themselves, to think they could know god. What evidence of god were they using? — Athena

When you say, "Those men", you mean the men in the story or the men who wrote it? If it was the men who wrote it, I always find that question to be the most mysterious. What is the mindset of people writing a tribal historical narrative replete with historical-sounding fables, and commandments? I don't know. But if we are to exclude the idea that these things were exactly as they wrote them, or even divinely inspired (the naturalistic approach), we can only accept that cobbling together of stories and reinterpreting them for a nationalistic mythos and ethical system was something they thought important.

:chin: Just about everyone had a patron god or goddess and around the world people have done all in their power to please the gods and goddesses. There is nothing unigue about believing the Nile or an irrigation ditch will flood or there will be a good harvest if a god/goddess is pleased and bad things happen when they are displeased. People turned on their leaders when it seemed obvious the gods no longer favored them. I don't understand what you said if you said others didn't have a god's protection. — Athena

Correct, and I guess what I wrote can be interpreted one of two ways...

The Tanakh/Bible is ancient Israel's unique spin on a common one in the ancient world of people appeasing a deity OR
The Tanakh/Bible is unique in itself in that it centered-around only one patron god who could only be appeased, or the only one that matters or counts.
But again, even this idea developed slowly in Judaic thought. And if Adler's theory is right, it didn't really become THE view of the main populous until around the Hasmoneans, much later than even other scholars (who usually want to say at least the Babylonian Exile or a bit before).

Good post. I have a few, minor comments.

Scholars generally attribute the oldest texts some time around the 7th century BCE — schopenhauer1

There are poems and fragments of older texts dating back centuries earlier perhaps as early as the 11th century BC for some of the poems which conceptualize God in highly anthropomorphic, warrior-like ways like song of the sea. Perhaps the texts were completed around the 7th century BC?

I also agreed that Abraham is rewarded for his faith and I think this is made pretty clear in the story. From memory, Abraham's faith "was credited to his merit" and this idea was picked up by St. Paul. I don't really see the issue. God can also be bargained with in other stories.

According to Shaye Cohen scribes appear in the second temple period. By scribes he means laymen knowledgeable of the Tanakh.

Yes the general theme of the Tanakh is obey God, follow his directive, and good will come. And of course the inverse is true too. But this isn't universal as seen in Job and Ecclesiastes.

Thank you and I especially like "Correct, and I guess what I wrote can be interpreted one of two ways."

I am struggling not with religion as much as with how we think. Empirical thinking is not natural. It is a learned system of reasoning. Gods do not manifest themselves on earth so we can not properly study them. I feel very nostalgic about worshipping a pharaoh and being a part of building his pyramid.
I wish life were so simple, but my education made that impossible.

It may not matter what individuals believe until we are no longer speaking of individuals. The authority and power of national leaders today have far greater ramifications than in the past.

There never was a large population educated to think scientifically until the 21 century. This might matter more than knowing when all Jews were aware of Kosher foods, but that search for answers inspired my thinking. It might not matter when the Jews shared a concern about kosher food, but understanding how the idea spread does matter.

Today, our culture war is a clash between different ways of determining the truth. Should we look for truth in the Bible or turn to science? The pandemic and how Trump managed it versus how Biden managed it makes the question of how we know truth a serious question. The decisions have global consequences. Where should the authority rest today, with the people?, with the pope?, with a president? What does education have to do with this?

I think our Declaration of Independence is a declaration of individual responsibility. In a democracy, the people hold the responsibility of their government. Handling that responsibility without training for empirical thinking could be a problem. I don't think we can manipulate a god with our prayers and sacrifices unless that means giving up our dependence on fossil fuels. We will surely die if we do not get things right.

There are poems and fragments of older texts dating back centuries earlier perhaps as early as the 11th century BC for some of the poems which conceptualize God in highly anthropomorphic, warrior-like ways like song of the sea. Perhaps the texts were completed around the 7th century BC? — BitconnectCarlos

This. I am not saying the myths themselves, and variations of them in previous forms didn't exist, but ones with a cohesive narrative and historical bent, one's conforming with the El only prophets perhaps, centered around Jerusalem, and became the core views/writings that were compiled later in the Babylonian/Persian period in the 400-500s BCE. I am not saying my synthesis here of events is EXACTLY how it went, or the only theory, but I think it is reasonable.

Certainly various priestly prayers, poetic writings, and at least allusions to earlier historical/political goings on and writings in Chronicles, Samuel and Kings (from 800s-900s BCE perhaps?) can be seen,.

According to Shaye Cohen scribes appear in the second temple period. By scribes he means laymen knowledgeable of the Tanakh. — BitconnectCarlos

I mean it in the broader sense. That is, people who could write. So this would be presumably many of the later Prophets, the people who wrote down what a prophet supposedly said, and the people who revised and compiled the Torah, Prophetic books, and Writings (TaNaKh).

Yes the general theme of the Tanakh is obey God, follow his directive, and good will come. And of course the inverse is true too. But this isn't universal as seen in Job and Ecclesiastes.
an hour ago — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, which is basically what I stated previously as here:

And again, this works generally how the God of the Israelites in the Tanakh operates- good is rewarded, evil is punished, and sometimes good people are punished for unclear, but heavenly reasons (Job). — schopenhauer1

Yes that is an ominous change in the lexicon.

Ideology enforcement is what I was ranting about. Having an ideology isn’t in itself bad. It is good actually. Encourages people to think if all goes well. At worst it is imposed on others or forced in society. Theron lies the problem — Metaphyzik

Today this forum is really challenging my poor little brain and I have come so close to saying something I would regret. I am by nature a conservative, and I was going to object to the long list of words related to ideology. My conservative self was jumping and screaming too many choices, too many choices. On an emotional level, I can 100% appreciate clear thinking that imposes "the right thought" on all of us.

Your notion that that imposition might not be a good thing, wakes up my intellect. You used very strong stories to make the point of what is wrong with the leadership of tyrants.

I know several people who didn't have a good start in life when they left home. Their home life may have been good or bad. Either way, they entered adulthood on a spectrum of fear to self-confidence. Christianity helped them deal with their fears, and socially, churches can be very supportive. That is a wonderful thing until we get to the downside of believing false things. For a while, Satanism was popular and filled the news with shocking stories. I don't think the belief in evil is a healthy belief. Taking the nation to war to destroy "evil" on the other side of the world, was not a good thing.

Being an independent thinker and accepting the responsibility of citizenship can mean enduring uncomfortable feelings. Can anything be done about this?

good is rewarded, evil is punished, — schopenhauer1

Yes, that is the understanding of logos that seems to be universal. The problem is knowing right from wrong. From one point of view cutting down the forest is a wonderful idea and from another point of view, it is a terrible idea. Then the ones who want to cut down the forest may come to an agreement with those who want to protect the forest and both sides get part of what they want. This thinking does not require religion, and denying non-religious people also weigh the good and the bad, is just wrong. I say so because I have dealt with Christians who think they have morals and people without God, do not have morals. While coming from a science point of view, science deniers lack morality and are the problem.

How do we know truth?

I am not a fan of extremism, left or right. Notice I included unbridled capitalism as a form of ideology that is in the same list as the others, and should have added socialism and its modern forms.

Can anything be done about accepting the blowing of the winds? No. However as long as they are free to blow and there is no pressure exerted to control the direction, we will get a normal pendulum swing on political leanings.

And pressure exerted just means a longer and wider pendulum swing… but swing eventually it will.

, asked if there were a problem with the "God of Abraham religions that we might resolve with reason. suggested that it's "not possible to reason with those who believe they already know what there is to know because their God has told them so". I am just pointing to a common root, the place from whence the idea that faith trumps rationality might issue.

It makes you uncomfortable. It ought.

Sure. So the obvious conclusion is that there is no consistent account of the nature of god as posited.

Now from this we might conclude either that he doesn't exist or that he does and we just have to accept that he is inscrutable.

You get to choose. — Banno

The Bible is not an ideological monolith. Different works present different takes on the subject. Why would we expect ideological uniformity from over 1000 years of texts? Read it and make your own judgments.

God is inscrutable in his entirety. Yet he does reveal certain things within the pages of the Bible. And certain things are consistent throughout.

I am just pointing to a common root, the place from whence the idea that faith trumps rationality might issue.

It makes you uncomfortable. It ought. — Banno

It doesn't. But it's not because I so firmly hold to my beliefs I can't be shaken or some such other nonsense. It's because you make no meaningful points, largely because you refuse to actually reference any academic study on the issue or delve into how the Bible has actually been used by those who use it. In short, your criticisms aren't valid.

The Torah isn't just a scroll of stories, but it's a document that was actually used for an entire society to function, but it was not the single source of authority. That is to say, from these many religiuosly based sources, answers to the most minute details were answered.

That this other system differs from the Anglo legal tradition you're accustomed is obvious, but to the extent you can imagine other methods for the formation of rules, you then can engage in a comparative analysis. And that's all this is to me, as I certainly don't turn to the Talmud for my direction. I just recognize the system of mindless obedience didn't exist as suggest. I'm just saying you truly have not presented any interesting criticism.

The Torah can be thought of as a constitutional document, with debates centering upon how it is to be construed, which offers a fairly good explanation for the origins of some foundational elements of the Anglo tradition your accustomed to. That is, the holiness of the Constitution is a thing, defining "holy" as that which is set apart as specially significant.

Instead, you'll just keep telling me how religion is mindless drivel, as if that's provocative.

I'm just saying you truly have not presented any interesting criticism. — Hanover

You've gone to a lot of trouble in response to a uninteresting criticism.

A naive reader might well see the Binding as I have, yet a more sophistic reader, one who is a member of this or that School of Thought, will have arguments aplenty to show the poverty of such naivety. Thus they mark the difference between Us and Them.

One lesson from the Binding is that faith is strongest when the faithful believe despite the facts, and act without question.

I think that approach morally dubious.

Why would we expect ideological uniformity from over 1000 years of texts? — BitconnectCarlos

I don't.

Read it and make your own judgments. — BitconnectCarlos

I have.

(God) does reveal certain things within the pages of the Bible. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think so. It reads like a patchwork authored by men, not the word of a omniscient being.

God is inscrutable in his entirety. — BitconnectCarlos

Yep. And whereof one cannot speak...

Well it was authored by men. Did you at least find wisdom in any of the dialogues?

Not to the extent that other folk claim. Tolkien is better.

(God) does reveal certain things within the pages of the Bible.
— BitconnectCarlos
I don't think so. It reads like a patchwork authored by men, not the word of an omniscient being. — Banno

I see that because the story of the God of the Bible has to emerge from a patchwork, and a patchwork that is as much fact and history as it is fantastical and contradictory, no human author or group of people would have ever thought to put it all together in one story.

The fact that the Bible is one story, to me, seems impossible. But the Bible is nonetheless. And it makes sense to me. So it makes sense to me it has to be divinely inspired.

I know this wouldn’t have to mean as much to anyone else, but that’s what I see.

That just seems credulous. But whatever gets you through the night.

But even the Pharisees and their intellectual descendants, the Rabbis of the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods would have more-or-less accepted the plain meaning of this text, even if they "flavored" it with various other interpretations, as is the custom with Judaic hermeneutics of the Second Temple period into the Middle Ages and beyond. — schopenhauer1

I take the rabbinic period to have begun after the fall of the second temple, which I also take to be the beginning of the Talmudic period, which is what I also take to be the beginning of Judasim as we currently know it. Prior to that, I would consider it a religion centered around the Temple and sacrifice, and, if we go back far enough, we have questions about origins generally in terms of when monotheism emerged.

My point being that we're now to decipher what the beliefs of a people were dating back from the Bronze Age and then we get into questions of when the various parts of the Torah were written, compiled, and edited into a single version as we know it today. Laying claims to how these stories were interpreted and what significance they had is entirely speculative. For example, we have today a creation story that could just be a fable to try to explain our origins that the ancients might have taken literally, but very well might not have. In fact, Genesis has two entirely different origin stories. That story has morphed into an account of original sin and the need for God to give his only child to save us from that sin. It is also argued that Jesus is the slaughtered lamb in the Isaac story.

The Talmud was written in the late 1st century AD, which is the best we can say regarding how the Torah has been interpreted since then. Per Jewish tradition, however, it is believed that the Talmud encompasses the oral tradition passed down by the Pharisees, and it is this oral tradition that holds as much weight as the written tradition of the Torah. That is, it is tenant of Orthodox Judaism that the oral tradition was received alongside the written word at Mt. Sinai. The point being that tradition argues that the written law was never interpreted without the oral tradition alongside it.

So where this leaves us is in a highly contextualized spot, where we can't just say the Binding means we should blindly follow God's will without question. It certainly does present an argument that we should listen to and trust God, but it would also suggest that God wouldn't steer us wrong, and it is presented as a story that attempts to end the idea of human sacrifice, which I suspect was an issue among other religions at the time.

But, what does the story mean to those who read it? https://www.sefaria.org/topics/binding-of-isaac?sort=Relevance&tab=sources All sorts of things.

But you can't make an argument that the Torah stands for the proposition generally you shouldn't argue with God and question him. There are plenty of examples of that from Moses, Abraham, and Job (and more) directly questioning God. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/5298/Arguing-with-God.pdf

It's a hard argument to make that the Torah stands for the notion one should not wrestle with God, considering the strange story of Jacob wrestling with God and having his name changed to "Israel." (“Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” Genesis 32:28)

And we've not mentioned Kierkegaard's take on all this, which is to assert that the Binding was a test of faith and that there was no faith as great as Abraham's because he never questioned God (although he did try to persuade God not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah later). My problem with K's analysis is that Abraham didn't show any great act of faith in God because the God Abraham was dealing with was the early God who directly interacted with humans and performed miracles. Faith didn't mean then what it means now. If we're accepting the Bible literally, when Abraham was told by God to sacrifice Abraham, he literally said it to him (although, again, not all traditions accept that God literally talked ever). That is, if there is some guy walking around being all powerful and I hear it and see it daily, it's hardly an act of faith to agree to do what he tells me. It's a fair stretch to then say the Bible must be followed blindly because it's God "telling" me what to do in the same sense Abraham was "told" what to do. Reading a several thousand year document contextualized with all other documents is a very different sort of "telling" than what Abraham meant by "telling." Abraham meant he was told it, not that he read a old document about it.

Anyway, I've gone on long enough, but interested in your thoughts on all this.

Before the Isaac episode, God tells Abram that his offspring will be as numerous as the stars above and that "he trusted in the Lord, and [God] reckoned it to [Abram's] merit" (Gen 15:6). Abram's trust in God - his faith - is viewed as a positive aspect of Abram. But as you have mentioned Abraham does bargain with God elsewhere so questioning is acceptable too sometimes.

And we've not mentioned Kierkegaard's take on all this, which is to assert that the Binding was a test of faith and that there was no faith as great as Abraham's because he never questioned God — Hanover

In Fear and Trembling Kierkegaard is offering Abraham as an image of a human who has melded with God. He has the "power which is impotence", which means his will and God's will are indistinguishable. Apparently this power is available to those who can accept the universe as it is. Very few can do that, but Kierkegaard was dwelling on the topic just as Nietzsche was (amor fati).

You could probably get something equally profound by reading the label on your korn flakes. The profundity is coming from you, not the flakes, right?

Religious debate doesn't lead to absolute rules. Much is debated and remains debated. Rules are also subject to change.

But you know this, so I don't know why you say otherwise. — Hanover

What about the rule you shall have no other god before God, or, for that matter, the other rules described, significantly, as "The Ten Commandments"? Are all of those subject to change? There may be varying interpretations of some of them (that "graven images" bit may have made some uncomfortable, and be considered to apply only to certain images, for example). Some may be ignored to suit our purposes, as in the case of the ones that say we shall not kill, or commit adultery. But the rules remain, don't they? It's one of the "rules" of the Abrahamic religions, I think, that the rules they impose may merely be given lip service when they become inconvenient, but they don't change.