The Binding of Isaac

If first-time Bible readers don't walk away from the Abrahamic religions in utter disgust after reading the outrageous tales of Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood, or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah along with the murder of Lot's wife, then the story of the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22, not the video game) should do the trick. What an evil story in every respect! 

I couldn't bear to rehearse the details, which everyone knows anyway. And I won't discuss the endless and pointless interpretations of medieval and modern rabbis and other so-called religious authorities. Calling the story an allegory gets you nowhere: what is its point? Nothing good, that's for sure. It's enough to know the broad plot. Abraham robotically agrees to carry out God's command to butcher and then burn his son Isaac (his wife Sarah's only child) as a sacrifice, and Isaac is robotically obeys his father command to prepare for the event. If I wanted to play at biblical interpretation, I'd say that this story conflicts with that of Adam and Eve, for if they had really eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (on which day they became human beings), their descendant Abraham, knowing good from evil, would have told the voice (whether he thought it was God's or not) to go to hell. (Well, maybe not in those exact words.) Unfortunately the lesson of the story is: don't think; suspend your judgment; obey authority. Dash that!

Whoever first decided to include this story in what is absurdly called the "holy bible" should have been ashamed of himself.

It's worth pointing out that the tablets later (allegedly) handed down at Sinai do not command: "Honor thy sons and daughters."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Impossibility of Illogical Thought

Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically. It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is that we could not say what an 'illogical' world would look like. It is as impossible to represent in language anything that 'contradicts logic' as it is in geometry to represent by its a coordinates a figure that contradicts the laws of space, or to give the coordinates of a point that does not exist.... In a certain sense, we cannot make mistakes in logic.... Self-evidence, which [Bertrand] Russell talked about so much, can be dispensable in logic, only because language itself prevents every logical mistake.--What makes logic a priori is the impossibility of illogical thought. --Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus   3.03, 3.031, 3.032, 5.473, 5.4731 (H/T: Roderick T. Long )      
Read more

Is He Having a Laugh?

According to the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, the government is God's appointed agent on earth, and each of us owes it allegiance and obedience. If that's so--and I for one don't believe either part of that statement--I'd like some believer to explain what God had in mind when he arranged things so that one of the two major-party clowns running for president will be elected in November. Is He having a laugh?
Read more

Freedom-Saturated Language

Determinists--deniers of free will, that is--apparently don't listen to themselves or read their own words. If they did they'd see that we human beings have no escape from freedom-saturated language. Think of words like should , deliberate , presume , intend , and so on ad infinitum. It is just impossible to speak or think as though determinism were true. And that says a lot. Our freedom is self-evident. You cannot demonstrate it because to demonstrate anything both  presupposes  and requires  freedom. You confirm freedom each time you set out to disconfirm it. "Today I plan to write out my proof that we have no freedom." Nonsense!  In contrast, we are perfectly capable of getting through a day without using God-saturated language.
Read more