Can a moral relativist come out with ANY definition of Good or Bad if not then they have no business waffling on about people's interpretation of the word love
So therefore we just have to accept that genocide, demanding filial sacrifice without question, killing innocent children, threatening eternal torments for simply not believing in a divine something-or-other, are all aspects of "love" embodied by the Abrahamic God, and accepted by you? And accepted completely uncritically as far as I can see. O waffler to beat all wafflers.
I note that the "Binding of Isaac" has caused endless perplexity among the religiously inclined, because they have a sense that such an episode cannot be squared with any idea of "good". From Maimonides to Kierkegaard, the hair-tearing has gone on down the ages. Some of the explanations are ludicrous in the extreme. Former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs has related a few, claiming that the episode shows an attempt by the Jews to distance themselves from the surrounding tribes, among whom child sacrifice was rife. That in itself tends to provoke dirision (for old Abe is about to do just that), but perhaps the most absurd of all is the idea that God tested Abraham to display that he
wasn't afraid to sacrifice his son, even though there was never the intention of continuing through to actual murder.
Of such knickers-in-a-twist episodes are the lives of believers made, but at least they attempt to arrive at a picture of moral consistency, rather than making sweeping statements without attempt to justify them.
