Morality -- in spite of the bible?

the bible is a very schizophrenic set of texts. much of the patriarchy examples are actually something like counterexamples, meant to demonstrate the imperfection of humanity and what not to do. this is not to deny the commands to rape and genocide.mr. harris also makes a few claims that sort of miss the point. most egregious among these is that god (paraphrasing here) "will kill you for sodomy, but enjoys the occasional human sacrifice" and that this makes his priorities out of line.the problem is that "sodomy" has come to mean gay sex, between two consenting adults. a trick of words, or an error on his part, that totally misrepresents that portion of the bible. the story of sodom (and gibeah) is one of inhospitality and attempted brutal gang rape. the inhabitants of sodom are not gay, they're rapists. that point of emphasis is entirely important to the discussion. god punishes a town not because they dared to put penis to anus, but because of their treatment of others. (yes, god does command death for gays, but evidently approves of david's homosexual relationship enough to make him king of israel. like i said, schizophrenic)second is that the god of old testament does not enjoy human sacrifice, and specifically commands against it. the "long gloomy walk" with abraham and isaac is actually among them -- god stops abraham from killing his son. the christian tradition of sacrifice does not fit with the old testament.another point of interest is that christianity today is markedly different than the teachings of christ. jesus is often seen as teaching morality for morality's sake, not god's. his ministry specifically removes concerns about the law, while backing up the notion that we shouldn't do things to others that we wouldn't like done to us (judge not, etc). he argues against the religious legalists, the pharisees, and this is no coincidence. a prophet, he seems to be talking about the internalization of morality. it is then highly ironic that a religion in his name should so explicitly externalize morality with threats of hell and rewards of heaven. i think that says something counter to his point -- we do need externalization, as evidenced by the fact that it just keeps coming back. we shouldn't, but we do.the qualitative assessment that the OT is all barbaric and bad is also a bit out of line. it's something somewhat handed down for christian tradition, and does not honestly belong in an atheistic reading of the bible. the old testament is a human text -- it presents both the best and the worst we have to offer as a species. yes, a lot of bad.

---

yes, thus the emphasis on "entirely" in "not entirely correct." a lot of it is, but some points are not.

---

one traditional reading is that abraham, who is known for arguing with god, was supposed to argue here. and that abraham actually failed this test. this has a lot to do with the fact that sarah became pregnant with isaac shortly after abimelech slept with her. abraham probably didn't think isaac was is child.

---

well, christianity, maybe. but i first heard about that particular reading from jewish midrashim, so. sort of. the test was to see if abraham had faith that god had fulfilled his promise to give him an heir. look at how willing abram is to argue with god in genesis 18. god says he'll destroy sodom, and abram says "wait a minute, lot lives there," and argues god down for the sake of his nephew. why not for his own son? i fail to see the difference, actually. either way, he's pretty heartless. the idea really comes about in thinking that god doesn't want blind obedience, something that seems to be evidenced with all the patriarchs and early prophets, at least one of whom literally wrestles with god. but all talk, and dispute, and quibble, and argue with god, for the sake of their people.it's like god is the judge -- satan is the prosecution. the prophet or patriarch is supposed to be the defense. abraham fails in that regard.it's a little bit of a strange way to look at the bible when all you've been taught is blind obedience. but i think it's probably more accurate to the times and more faithfully represents the attitude of the text. this is just another in a long line of "evil god" paradoxes, such as the one i pointed out in genesis 2 and 3.

---