Whether you agree with it or not you're still assigning a literal meaning to a bible story. I think the lesson taught by Issac is about obedience and sacrifice. You'll note that God didn't actually make Abraham kill his son.

I made no such claim. You seem to demand either perfection or total rejection of the entire text. I would not be so dismissive.

But he made damn well sure Abraham was willing didn't he?
Got to be honest when I was read that story by a teacher my blood ran cold.

[edit] also I have to add, obedience to a murderous command? the sacrifice of your child? for what reason? because god is so insecure he needs to play a power trip on a little man to obey his command to murder his child for no other reason than god said so?

Or was it the absolute subjugation of the innate human knowledge that murdering your child is terribly wrong, and yet if you have faith that god knows best you still would? To me this is a poisonous lesson whichever way you look at it.

You see the trouble with subjective interpretation? we can experience the same story and yet take practically opposite meanings away from it. [/edit]

I make no such demands.

If it is to be held up as stories with morals, then call it how it is, fantastical stories with some good and some bad morals, often in the exact same story. The good morals can all be more directly taught without involving metaphysics anyway. Aesops fables or the I-Ching springs to mind, and both are self admittedly absolute allegory.

I would be satisfied with a conscientious edit, actually. That is if believers expect me to simply concede that their judgement of good or bad morals is correct. I have one huge problem with the arguments against literal meanings or subjective interpretation. If the story involving Abraham or indeed any biblical story is allegory, then why are some parts of the bible considered literal truth, like the existence of the christian 'God' at all? It is one thing to accuse me of assigning literal meanings to a fantasy story, but everyone who believes in the christian god assigns a literal meaning to all parts of the bible that suggest the existence of god.

Where is the differentiation between what is considered literal truth and allegory? who decides? each to their own? Who is right?

Every man must look for the answers to those questions in the chambers of their own heart. I'm not religious but I think that is the whole point.

long story short...
This can viewed that god made a point that he wasn't really into human sacrifices.
What the bible says black on white is "hey don't do this stuff i was kidding" in a somewhat crude but strong way.
If anyone ask a question if god would like sacrifices as prove of faith(some reformist lol)he can look into this story.:haha:
Very cool for that period of time....don't be into Inca stuff folks

I know :salute:

Just men? ...joking, joking.

I on the other hand tend to think of the whole point as a clever propaganda written and re-written by power hungry Jewish priests in a dark age of little enlightenment.

Maybe everyone should write their own bible, and not worry about anyone else version of it, nor show their own to others.

Yeah, that is cool for the age they were in. That Jesus feller was apparently even on about not beating your slaves so hard they died immediately, and that women although servants of men should have some rights.

Certainly progressive thinking for the time.

Can't see the relevance today though.

Nevermind :salute:

Sounds to me like you harbor a lot of hatred for a mere book.

Go ahead and write your own version. Surely you can do as good a job as a bunch of power hungry Jewish priests.

Not hatred. Exasperation and criticism. I speak my mind, as you spoke yours. That old testament god is the one who harbors hatred amongst other decidedly human failings like pride, envy, vindication etc.

And no I'm not nearly skilled enough in dark fantasy as they were. I could never write a story that made me feel sick. If the bible was written today would anyone believe in it? No. But again, I can hear the special pleading. The fact that it was written, mistranslated, re written by various people over hundreds of years, none of whom lived within 200 years of the events that are described as 'truth' or gods 'word' in the book itself, and was finalised sometime before the turn of the 2nd millenium should imply that it should be treated with even more scepticism than were it writ today, but it is not. In fact when people like me decide to point certain things out about it, I am called an 'ignorant atheist' and/or otherwise actively discouraged from speaking my mind. It's OK to ridicule politicians or celebrities, it's OK to berate people behaving badly, but religious texts are off limits for simple criticism?

No. No more special treatment. This world does not owe that book or any other immunity.

Neither do I need a bible to teach me or anyone else about my morals.

So I'll pass, thanks.

Well if one is just using parts of these books as they interpret them to apply to their lives, then one is creating yet another new version anyway.
Yes it's just a mere book but one that can be seen to have caused some of the ugliest chapters in human endeavor, or some of the brightest. That said what happened to the creation arguments?

:yep:

Ironically August said it himself: the bible is best taken not literally, but as a collection of stories to transport a moral. I called that speaking in metaphors and parables earlier in the thread.

Because what is this religion any different than this:

"The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. "

How can one take that literally, and not just as story of fiction? :woot: What does this deserve special status and privileged respect for? Better read Tolkien's Silmarillion, there you get a very poetic creation story in much better prose.

Yes I am not disagreeing with August, as I mentioned earlier in the thread in my opinion some of those morals are inferior and/or dangerous, and as such the whole work should be treated with great care especially with children whose minds are so impressionable.

Good question. I would say it doesn't, but it certainly gets it, just not from me.

Maybe there is a believer who can answer that.

People are taking piss on religious people through this whole thread.
Does being called ignorant atheist on that specific issue(im one of them too actually)hurts your feelings?
Do you really think that you have the tools to judge this whole subject by quoting some lines but being ignorant about the theological debates behind them?

MH, I was not offended, seriously. I am used to it, it is a standard ad hominem that often indicates that the opposing view has no case, especially when it is coming from a religious person. Similar to 'you're just like the creationists' from August - I don't take offense there either but it does seem to me that you're conceding the argument with no case of your own.

And yes I believe a mind well versed in critical thinking (not implying I am or anything - I live and learn) has all the tools it will ever need to make the most accurate judgements about anything as far as we currently know. I have not 'taken a piss on religion' just called it how I see it.

If you want to debate what I have stated so far, go ahead.

Blaming the bible is like blaming the gun. In both cases it take a human to actually commit the ugliness.

As far as I'm concerned the religious have been pissing on everybody from day one, including themselves. It's what happens when you think your world view is the only righteous one and is backed by holy words that must not be called into question. Where questioning those words is made a high crime with high punishment. In other words be a sheep in the flock and hope your not getting herded into the abbattoir.