In Reply to: a non-christian perspective posted by porceleindoll on April 03, 2004 at 05:27:40:
there are many overlaps in the way various ancient cultures approach sacrificing to God. but the biblical understanding of this is that the phenomenon began w/ God slaying an animal and giving adam and eve the skin to cover their "nakedness" (their sense of self conscious sinfulness, that their own efforts - fig leaves- just couldn't swing.) apparently, this was left w/ them as a means of worship, (able and cain's deal and then affirmed again w/ instructions to noah.
if ancient cultures spring from the same root, it would hardly be surprising that they all seem to have similar elements in their worship, but that they take on different meanings over time, such as the more pagan concept of appeasing anthropomorphic deities, as opposed to repentance and atonement, concepts found in seed form in the garden, and finding ultimate fulfillment in Jesus, "the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world."
altho there is a gradual unfolding of that ultimate plan throughout scripture, as well as a developing, deeper and fuller revelation of God's nature throughout scripture, i don't think that this was a sudden change of plan in God's mind, but more a case of "the path of the just shining more and more unto that perfect day."
as far as abraham goes, and the question of human sacrifice, most scholars i've read, jewish as well as christian, see it somewhat differently. abe was living in a thoroughly pagan world, where human sacrifice was quite prevalent. in the story of isaac, God not only forshadows the ultimate plan of the messianic sacrifice, but also , by providing an alternative , the ram, (another shadow of the messiah), God also conveys a message that indicates He does not wish to be worshipped w/ human sacrifice, and it is abandoned by his tribe. in subsequent times, when the children of abe slip into the pagan practices of the cananites (including human sacrifice), God sends prophets to warn and condemn the practice. even the slide into a mentality of 'appeasment" rather than atonement, and repentance (so heavily instilled in the mosaic codes on sacrifice), he scolds them. to me, this is a much more developed understanding of God's nature, and holiness, rather than just a pissed off tyrant who is going to send plague and drought until he gets a couple of virgins and infants to snack on. it is rather all meant to speak into the question of holiness and justice, ultimately reconciled through the trinity's own giving of itself to pay the price, and "restore all things".