.
i am puzzled. it is an interesting interpretation of biblical events. not dissimilar to those alternate endings on dvds. yet what puzzles me is the usage of ancient biblical texts as a political peice. i may be reading this wrong, but it seems you are saying that the faiths derived from the bible, or religion in general, is a force simply and exclusively of violence. it has been hijacked that way by numerous oppertunists with bloody agendas, yet saying as such "religion is the root of all humanities problems" is a gross generality and prejudice and really all that you are accusing it of. but please, correct me. i hope i am wrong.
e.
e.
breathe deep and live
Re: Faith of Isaac
Hleonard,
Your Issac exemplifies that it is not only the "Sins of the fathers"
that load children down with baggage, but even, at times, blind
obedience to what the "fathers" (here Abraham) took to be a
noble pursuit. Isaac didn't ask to be this historical exemplar
of admonition against human sacrifice (among other things).
That he could have thought it "cruel" and was traumatized would
be understandable responses to his father's willingness to
carry out the command, particularly as the biblical account
provides no indication that Abraham asked or prayed for
negation of the command.
Your Issac exemplifies that it is not only the "Sins of the fathers"
that load children down with baggage, but even, at times, blind
obedience to what the "fathers" (here Abraham) took to be a
noble pursuit. Isaac didn't ask to be this historical exemplar
of admonition against human sacrifice (among other things).
That he could have thought it "cruel" and was traumatized would
be understandable responses to his father's willingness to
carry out the command, particularly as the biblical account
provides no indication that Abraham asked or prayed for
negation of the command.
Hi Steven ~
You've hit on the one thing that has always struck me in this way about the biblical account. I've never recalled it, either. It would be a natural thing to do, particularly with sons being valued above daughters.
~ Lizzy
You've hit on the one thing that has always struck me in this way about the biblical account. I've never recalled it, either. It would be a natural thing to do, particularly with sons being valued above daughters.
I've also always wondered just how betrayed and traumatized Isaac, as a child, had to have felt. Or, did he really have no idea at all what was really about to occur?as the biblical account
provides no indication that Abraham asked or prayed for
negation of the command.
~ Lizzy
This is interesting point, because Bible tells it as a story of Abraham and Isaac, but really, the story is a symbol of new conciseness, the Revelation, that God is not to be served with human sacrifices, that there was new relationship to be formed between God and people. The first ideas, before the Old testament, were rising in minds of tribal people-that relationship with God could be off a different kind-something like love, sorrow and pain of the Father-God, and complete trust of a child, that there is no need for killing, to please God, that perhaps there is something about love and mercy. The old Testament ends with the sacrifice anyway-that of the Isaac, as a climaxes, only this time-Abraham-God, lets his son to be sacrificed-Isaac-Christ.Isaac didn't ask to be this historical exemplar
of admonition against human sacrifice (among other things).
But to your question, Lizzy, I think Isaac had full trust in his father, there was no fear, as his father Abraham was more like a king-he has seen people obeying his fathers commands. Even if he knew, that he would be killed, he would thought, that that should be, because his father thought so. It was hard to imagine, that any son would question his fathers will-fathers will was the law. And if he would question, he would be punishable. Later on-Isaac's own son-Jacob did everything he could-just to have his fathers blessing-the most important thing.
Lizzy, thank you for your kind words in regard to my friend Izabella. Can't go into that thread anymore-too much stuff already is written there. Thank you, love
bee
Dear hleonard- there is a problem-to what I said, has nothing to do with ideology or biblical interpretations.don't understand this at all, beyond an understanding of religious indoctrination or ideological equivalent from which it stems. This is the kind of biblical interpretation against which Cohen's song warns.
In order to understand history of humanity-one cannot JUDGE the history by moral standards of today. It will never help in understanding. If you read into historical; aspects of Bible-perhaps you would notice, how these small jewish tribes were horrified of the practices in Egipte, where the monarchs of Egipt were married to their sibllings- brothers to sisters. For tribal jews- practices of incest were taboo, Egipt parctised it as a divine manifistetions.
I also think of a different meaning in LC song you quoted above.
Hleonard- do you really think that LC has answers to everything?- he has searched all his life-born in Jewish family, while young-flirting with Christianity and bohemian lifestyle, going back to Judaism, then finding Buddhism, now seams that again Judaism is closer to his heart, we still don't know where he'll end up. He is a poet, dear hleonard, don't quote him as if he were a prophet warning us etc.
bee
Hi SMC,
While we don't know how old he was, conjecture that he was older
than very young is largely based upon his ability to carry sufficient
firewood for him to be ritualistically sacrificed. Your point, though,
that an older age would make his "faith and obedience to his
father even more remarkable," is a good one. It's also cause
to consider how an older age might have affected the degree to
which a scenario of hurt and trauma may have occcurred, as
represented in hleonard's poem.
While we don't know how old he was, conjecture that he was older
than very young is largely based upon his ability to carry sufficient
firewood for him to be ritualistically sacrificed. Your point, though,
that an older age would make his "faith and obedience to his
father even more remarkable," is a good one. It's also cause
to consider how an older age might have affected the degree to
which a scenario of hurt and trauma may have occcurred, as
represented in hleonard's poem.
dear hleonard- no offense taken, if you feel passionate about the matter, that was how you expressed yourself. But see, the very sentence of yours contains the problem in the misunderstanding of yours. One does not need to be mad, out of his mind for understanding -- that human scarifies was not considered murder, so it was almost in every civilization. Remember the Greeks tying the virgin to the rock so that the sea monster can get her instead of the whole town? Or the native people of Americas? The list goes on and on. They did not consider themselves murderers, far from that. As much as the virgin would cry in sorrow, still she would be mighty proud for saving her people. As much as son would cry for his young life, he knew that his father did what he did for a higher reason and purpose, it was no murder. If you believe that your brother is son of Sun God, to be his wife would be and honor, because you would have the children of the God himself.Furthermore, how can anyone in his or her right mind interpret this biblical passage as a son (in a right state of mind) accepting his father's murderous will? Both cases would entail an acceptance of murder, an acceptance which always requires an immense deal of indoctrination, be it religious or secularly ideological.
You can accept it or not, it is not up to you, it has been done and it was a life, you can't undo history, no matter how ill you think of that. That is where you're coming from too, we all are.
bee