[QUOTE=kanicbird]
…
As if modern day abortion is or is not a continuation of this is a interesting side issue to me.
[/QUOTE]
I have been following the abortion issue since before Roe vs. Wade. I have never encountered any reference of abortion as a sacrifice to a deity.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
That’s a very good interpretation, but I’m not at all certain if that was what was originally intended.
Thus, the commandment against holding other gods as more important - which essentially meant, I believe, that one was to respect the tribal diety of the Israelites above gods of other peoples and places.
[/QUOTE]
I think you are right. It was to promote loyalty and cooperation among a certain people or tribe. I’d go further to say that as man progresses he begins to see that what constitutes his tribe begins to change and expand. Jesus and others expanded on the tribal notion to state that it was the condition of the heart that determined who was your “neighbor”.
The commandment takes on a different meaning as people’s perception changes.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
But He is the God of blood sacrifice, He offered His own Son Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice and His blood was what redeems us. Drinking of that blood is a sacrament that we have to this day.
[/QUOTE]
But for the most part weren’t most, if not all pre-CE and early CE gods the god of blood sacrifice? Were there any that were the god of orange juice sacrifice or salt water sacrifice? Didn’t the nature of the sacrifice depend on the desired effect?
[QUOTE=Malthus]
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
So I think it’s fair to define Baal by the type of sacrifices he requests. I have heard Baal described by 3 traits - child sacrifice, sexual promiscuity and war. In scripture Baal seems to be represented as a single entity as opposed as a common word for local ‘god’ as you seem to be taking it.
[/QUOTE]
Well, these are both perfect examples of a later interpretation being put on someone else’s notions of a deity.
[/QUOTE]
Couldn’t this also apply to different interpretations of the Abrahamic Deity between Islam, Judaism and Christianity? Also between interpretations within each tradition as well?
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I think you are right. It was to promote loyalty and cooperation among a certain people or tribe. I’d go further to say that as man progresses he begins to see that what constitutes his tribe begins to change and expand. Jesus and others expanded on the tribal notion to state that it was the condition of the heart that determined who was your “neighbor”.
The commandment takes on a different meaning as people’s perception changes.
[/QUOTE]
Yup, and the personal, tribal diety of the Israelite tribe (which was only one of many it would seem) later became the omnipotent diety of the whole world and all people therein - in later formulation.
In Judaism this has an interesting effect. Unlike other religions, such as Christianity and Islam, Judaism is a more or less exclusive religion with an originally tribal diety - which has now become the universal diety, not only of Judaism, but of Christianity and Islam. Yet Jewish holy texts deal almost exclusively with the duties incumbent on Jews.
Some Talmudic scholars actually went through the exercise of thinking “well, if God is the god of everyone, what duties do non-Jews have?”. They combed through the OT and found their answer in the myth of Noah - who is, after all, the notional father of all of humanity, and was not a Jew. If Noah can be “righteous”, then any non-Jew can, if he or she follows the so-called “Noahide laws” - the first ever example of a universal human code of morality.
[QUOTE=nd_n8]
Couldn’t this also apply to different interpretations of the Abrahamic Deity between Islam, Judaism and Christianity? Also between interpretations within each tradition as well?
[/QUOTE]
Certainly. One of the facinations of Biblical research is tracing the evolving nature of the diety over time (a bit difficult as the texts were obviously redacted at a very early date). There are lots of odd artifacts of a very ancient nature imbedded in the OT, that indicate that the original tribal diety of the Israelites was very different from the modern more phlosophical abstration of omnipotent good worshipped by modern day Jews.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
Certainly. One of the facinations of Biblical research is tracing the evolving nature of the diety over time (a bit difficult as the texts were obviously redacted at a very early date). There are lots of odd artifacts of a very ancient nature imbedded in the OT, that indicate that the original tribal diety of the Israelites was very different from the modern more phlosophical abstration of omnipotent good worshipped by modern day Jews.
[/QUOTE]
I just figured God was like everybody else. All big and bad in the OT but He mellowed out quite a bit when he had a kid. 
Malthus: For the love of $DEITY, please learn the exceptions to the “i before e” rule. (A clue: Latin noun deus, dei, which I will cheerfully decline on request.)
/nails-on-blackboard hijack
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Malthus: For the love of $DEITY, please learn the exceptions to the “i before e” rule. (A clue: Latin noun deus, dei, which I will cheerfully decline on request.)
/nails-on-blackboard hijack
[/QUOTE]
Jawohl, mien Grammargruppenführer.
troutslap