> The story of Abraham is a way to break that spell
That's an extremely generous interpretation. You say the story is about breaking the cycle of pernicious child sacrifice. But there's nothing in the story that supports that view, you just said it because it's the most palatable interpretation of a straightforward story: Obey God, and he may give you mercy (not having to kill your kid). And you conveniently ignore Moses killing all the first-borns.
> Human sacrifice and ritual cannibalistic wars of genocide is the natural condition of humans as a species
There is no "ritual" wars without religion. Religion is what is natural to humanity, as it develops in every culture without fail. Whether you worship Jesus or the Sun, the belief in an afterlife if you follow the rules the last generation handled to you is what leads to terrible deeds, because you can justify anything.
> The story puts an effective limit on the level of worship
No, it doesn't. Many innocent people are sacrificed or ordered to be killed throughout the verses. Jephthah sacrifices his daughter. Saul is asked to kill women and children.
> Seeing as the Bible is a collection of stories that where told for thousands of years before being written down
If by told for a thousand years before being written down, you mean edited, distorted, and mistranslated to the convenience of whoever was in power at the time, yes.
> And you conveniently ignore Moses killing all the first-borns.
I don't think it's really Moses killing all the first-borns. It's God. While he's complicit to some extent, he doesn't really have a choice in the matter.
While he could theoretically ask for mercy, God isn't exactly known for his compassion at that point in the story. He only really mellows out a bit when he has his own child.
Not to mention that Moses's got pretty good motivation. How many people stuck in a concentration camp would happily murder all first-borns in Germany given the chance?
While I would understand the motivations for a concentration camp victim murdering all the firstborns, I still think it would be wrong. I would empathize, but fundamentally I don't believe in punishing children for the sins of their fathers.
Additionally, if it's God killing all the firstborns, then it's still a bit odd. He's omniscient, shouldn't he be above petty things like revenge?
> shouldn't he be above petty things like revenge?
Something about creating man in his image? I think I’ve had that discussion before. To make anything he does reasonable, his omnicience and omnipotence need to have limits.
We are on such a different level of understanding, that there isn't any point in us two talking to each other – about anything. Feel free to take that as a compliment.
It's been a long time since I read The Myth of the Framework, but I think the concept of "talking past each other" is wrong. On the other hand I often feel this kind of fatigue and don't want to get involved in debates. It probably isn't really about incompatible "level of understanding" (or "frameworks" as in the title), but something else.
> We are on such a different level of understanding, that there isn't any point in us two talking to each other
That would be a very convenient conclusion, but ultimately not true. Willfully misinterpreting a story so that it sounds morally palatable for a modern world is not a different level of understanding, it's propaganda, and it's extremely common.
And when I'm not doing my day job, I am reading, discussing, and interpreting stories. Drawing subtext involves evidence from the text itself. You are making up subtext. There's a difference, and it's transparent.
I only engaged because you give lots of grace to Christianity and disrespect to everything else, which is annoying to read, but also not even based in real digestion of the work.
> That would be a very convenient conclusion, but ultimately not true.
> Willfully misinterpreting
I don't think it works this way. If we've established that we're trying to interpret something, you cannot just claim that your interpretation is the right one, and someone else's is wrong.
I nominate you as the winner of this discussion, and any future discussions. Meaning you don't have to reply to any of my comments, since you already automatically won by walk-over.
That's an extremely generous interpretation. You say the story is about breaking the cycle of pernicious child sacrifice. But there's nothing in the story that supports that view, you just said it because it's the most palatable interpretation of a straightforward story: Obey God, and he may give you mercy (not having to kill your kid). And you conveniently ignore Moses killing all the first-borns.
> Human sacrifice and ritual cannibalistic wars of genocide is the natural condition of humans as a species
There is no "ritual" wars without religion. Religion is what is natural to humanity, as it develops in every culture without fail. Whether you worship Jesus or the Sun, the belief in an afterlife if you follow the rules the last generation handled to you is what leads to terrible deeds, because you can justify anything.
> The story puts an effective limit on the level of worship
No, it doesn't. Many innocent people are sacrificed or ordered to be killed throughout the verses. Jephthah sacrifices his daughter. Saul is asked to kill women and children.
> Seeing as the Bible is a collection of stories that where told for thousands of years before being written down
If by told for a thousand years before being written down, you mean edited, distorted, and mistranslated to the convenience of whoever was in power at the time, yes.