They should not be subjected to the frightfulness of a lot of things. I don't think Christianity urges fathers to put their sons to death, or upholds it as a good thing. There are many kinds of behaviour that Christianity presents as reprehensible.
There have been multitudes of men and women that have given their lives that others may live and, correctly, been admired for it. Those on the receiving end of such undeserved kindness sometimes feel anguish that someone would do such a thing for them given they did nothing to warrant it. Why is it that the ultimate version of this self sacrifice attracts such scorn?
The Father and Son are one in a way that you are your dad are not. This is a theological issue that flies in the face of how we see things but it makes the argument of someone planning to kill someone else a false lead.
The human instance of Abraham being prepared to kill his son (probably in the expectation he would be restored afterwards) and being called off once his reliability was apparent shows that there is a difference.
"The Father and Son are one in a way that you are your dad are not." Which makes the myth even more absurd, not less: A father plotting to put himself to death ...
@3:16: I can accept the argument that the biblical stories are intended as allegories rather than something to be taken literally - and the essential meaning is that sacrificing something really important to you for the benefit of others is a virtue (not the literal killing of your son). But why was this particularly allegory chosen? I'd say it's because to most fathers the life of your own son represents one of the most important things in the world to you. That's the whole point of this story - that you should sacrifice what's most important to you, *even* your son if necessary.
If the meaning was that it's only ok to sacrifice your son only if you have the ability to bring him back from the dead (as you seem to be suggesting), what would be the point of the story?
The bible is a mix of many styles but I see much historical fact within it. A cultural understanding often helps make sense of it - especially the OT where the writings are much older.
The sacrifice thing was culturally widespread in OT times so I guess that is why the concept flows into the Jews and later initiates Christianity. The Jewish sacrificial system related to atonement for sin and respect for an intimate God outside the physical world rather than seeking favour from gods like the sun and stars so was a big shift from the other cultures of the day. Even Peter's beloved Greeks had a tin god for every occasion. From very early on in Judaism there is an indication in their writings of something still to come that will restore the relationship between man and God permanently and end the old legalistic system. The Jews were looking for a king in the political style and most missed the arrival.
In my view the arrival of Jesus of Nazareth is the tipping point where something happened that has changed the world. He ended the old sacrificial system. Jesus claimed that his death was a complete atonement for sin and that he would conquer death so without the resurrection his claim would be false and nothing special would have happened. If a perfect sacrifice is required to restore the relationship no man was suitable because we are all flawed. I guess this requires acceptance of divinity and that is a block for many. This act did end the sacrificial system and although it may make tourists feel nice to wander about in a cathedral Christianity has no need of shrines.
We all have idols and Peter has Rand. While I like her politics she's not the Messiah and won't change the world.
That is true, but my point was the dishonesty of the critique. And I guess I am just tired of the abundance of attacks on Christianity while Islam is getting such a free pass. It's like hounding and harassing someone who has run an unwanted hand up a girls leg while letting a vicious rapist be.
10 comments:
They should not be subjected to the frightfulness of a lot of things. I don't think Christianity urges fathers to put their sons to death, or upholds it as a good thing. There are many kinds of behaviour that Christianity presents as reprehensible.
There have been multitudes of men and women that have given their lives that others may live and, correctly, been admired for it. Those on the receiving end of such undeserved kindness sometimes feel anguish that someone would do such a thing for them given they did nothing to warrant it. Why is it that the ultimate version of this self sacrifice attracts such scorn?
3:16
You missed the bit about the father plotting to put his own son to death?
And many kinds of reprehensible behaviour its book upholds as good.
The Father and Son are one in a way that you are your dad are not. This is a theological issue that flies in the face of how we see things but it makes the argument of someone planning to kill someone else a false lead.
The human instance of Abraham being prepared to kill his son (probably in the expectation he would be restored afterwards) and being called off once his reliability was apparent shows that there is a difference.
3:16
"The Father and Son are one in a way that you are your dad are not." Which makes the myth even more absurd, not less: A father plotting to put himself to death ...
Yep. What ever you say. See you on the other side.
3:16
@3:16: I can accept the argument that the biblical stories are intended as allegories rather than something to be taken literally - and the essential meaning is that sacrificing something really important to you for the benefit of others is a virtue (not the literal killing of your son). But why was this particularly allegory chosen? I'd say it's because to most fathers the life of your own son represents one of the most important things in the world to you. That's the whole point of this story - that you should sacrifice what's most important to you, *even* your son if necessary.
If the meaning was that it's only ok to sacrifice your son only if you have the ability to bring him back from the dead (as you seem to be suggesting), what would be the point of the story?
The bible is a mix of many styles but I see much historical fact within it. A cultural understanding often helps make sense of it - especially the OT where the writings are much older.
The sacrifice thing was culturally widespread in OT times so I guess that is why the concept flows into the Jews and later initiates Christianity. The Jewish sacrificial system related to atonement for sin and respect for an intimate God outside the physical world rather than seeking favour from gods like the sun and stars so was a big shift from the other cultures of the day. Even Peter's beloved Greeks had a tin god for every occasion. From very early on in Judaism there is an indication in their writings of something still to come that will restore the relationship between man and God permanently and end the old legalistic system. The Jews were looking for a king in the political style and most missed the arrival.
In my view the arrival of Jesus of Nazareth is the tipping point where something happened that has changed the world. He ended the old sacrificial system. Jesus claimed that his death was a complete atonement for sin and that he would conquer death so without the resurrection his claim would be false and nothing special would have happened. If a perfect sacrifice is required to restore the relationship no man was suitable because we are all flawed. I guess this requires acceptance of divinity and that is a block for many. This act did end the sacrificial system and although it may make tourists feel nice to wander about in a cathedral Christianity has no need of shrines.
We all have idols and Peter has Rand. While I like her politics she's not the Messiah and won't change the world.
3:16
That is true, but my point was the dishonesty of the critique. And I guess I am just tired of the abundance of attacks on Christianity while Islam is getting such a free pass. It's like hounding and harassing someone who has run an unwanted hand up a girls leg while letting a vicious rapist be.
Post a Comment