I'm pretty sure it started with some chick named Mary cheating on her spouse, and then "Uh, no, it's uh, it's... MAGIC! Yeah, I got pregnant from magic! But the magic was a person you see, named uhm, looks over at pet dog, named do- uh no, g-o-d, his name was God! God gave us a magic baby! Yay!"
don't forget the part where she got her fiance/husband totally snookered and/or dosed with magic mushrooms or something; and then appeared to him pretending to be an angel telling him to shut the fuck up and go with it.
(or maybe she got a friend to be the angel?)
Edit: also, can we talk about how if the story is real... there was no chance that Mary could give meaningful consent?
Well, the whole virgin Mary is later stuff. Joseph was the father probably. If there was any Jesus at all - the "objective" historical mentions we get are not really very first-hand, so it's all kind of clouded.
Mary was a teenage girl that was being married off to an older man who was already widowed with children (at least, I think that’s the Catholic claim. “Perpetual virginity” and all that means that Jesus shouldn’t have siblings..)
I think rationally she was a teenage girl that was raped by a Roman soldier, and considering that not being a virgin on your wedding night was the kind of thing that, at least on the books, could get you killed…
And they’ll keep on circumcising their sons while unironically screaming about anyone who respects trans rights being out to surgically mutilate all children. What a world.
From what I understand it's also still the standard in the US. Originally popularised because it would keep boys from fondling themselves which, of course, would make Sky Daddy angry.
But if that's not the case, I'd happily stand corrected by someone more knowledgeable on this topic.
As a Jewish person the vast majority of religious Jews are extremely transphobic and also incredibly homophobic. So no its acturally not inaccurate at all, most Rabbis will genuenly complain about Trans people mutalating and indoctrinating people while doing that themselves.
If someone finds comfort in talking to God, then they're comfortable. If it produces a desirable result, then it's desirable.
Calling others morons for disagreeing with their way of life, however, solves nothing. I was a Reddit atheist at one point, and I'm glad I'm no longer one.
Fun fact: Abraham goes up the mountain with his son but comes down alone, suggesting that in the original text he went through with the child sacrifice.
The Bible has tons of edits like this, it's fun to spot them—and even more so to guess the intent behind them. Often when a seemingly irrelevant detail (or an entire chapter) is inserted in the middle of a story, that's an edit (although there are also genuine errors). In general, the Bible is not as well put-together as people tend to think. In this case, whoever wrote this wanted to make clear that Judaism does not condone human sacrifice, in contrast to other contemporary religions.
Others (chiefly those who consider the text to be holy) interpret the pronoun change as indicative of an emotional separation between Abraham and his son, as if following these events they don't want to walk together any more.
whoever wrote this wanted to make clear that Judaism does not condone human sacrifice, in contrast to other contemporary religions.
I suspect that the addition of the lamb(goat?) Was a latter addition to distance Judaism from child sacrifice but that Judaism did evolve out of a religious tradition that practiced child sacrifice (and idolatry). But I'm also aware of how antisemites would love to slander modern Judaism with accusations in a similar vein, so it's a kinda difficult line to walk.
True, when enough people do something it gets normalised, no matter how crazy.
They had it with opium, and we have this thing with the hard drug alcohol.
Whats even funnier is that in the original (Jewish interoperation) god does this as a joke. Yes god literally makes a bet with angels over if he'll acturally go through with it. Then said angels go down to earth to attempt to sway him because they wanted to win the bet.
How exactly is the Jewish interpretation different from the Christian one? I thought the Christian Old Testament was identical to the Torah. I ask as someone who was raised Methodist.
The Torah is only the first five books of the Old Testament. Depending on what branch of Christianity you go by, the Old Testament contains 39-49 books. But that's only a small nit.
I've never heard of that particular interpretation of the Abraham story, being raised Catholic. I also can't find any sources that say that the Jews believe that the Abrahamic Covenant started as a joke between God and the angels, but then again my quick search might not have had the right keywords.
The difference is that the Jewish interpenetration developed both before and after Christianity started, so its not really possible for them to be the same.
I was never raised religiously.
My first exposure to the Bible was the lego comic the brick testament. It was batshit insane as a kid and it's batshit insane now
Not sacrificing his son is actually a late edit, this is known because through though they changed the text to an angel stopping him, it still preserved the original language that describes ''THEY went up the mountain'' and ''HE came down the mountain''
The most important question: which child did he try to kill? Was it Isaac, the son he fathered with his barren wife? Or was it Ishmael, the son he fathered with his wife's handmaiden?
Adam and Eve were the first humans.
They beget Cain and Abel.
Cain kills Abel.
Then he wanders around, meets his wife and builds a city ???
Most of the bible makes no sense, except in a symbolic way.
In Islam, iirc, it’s Ishmael. Islam traces a lot back to Hagar and Ishmael - one of the stops on the Hajj is the spring that God made to keep Hagar alive when Sarah drove her out.