Did Abraham do the right thing?

[alexey]

You aren't Abraham's judge.

I am judge enough to try and stop a guy from slaying his son if I see it happening, and so are you.

Here is a plausible interpretation that stays true to all biblical facts:

---------------------------------------------------------

(God sees people worshiping who knows what and making human sacrifices, wants to test Abraham)

God: Abraham, slay thy child!

Abraham: OK!

God: :doh: (sends angel to stop Abraham)

Angel: Great job attempting to slay a child to prove your faith, man! Your children are sure to live in peace and harmony </sarcasm>

---------------------------------------------------------

(a little while later, people still slaying each other)

God: Looks like they need me to spell this out. (sends 10 Commandments).

---------------------------------------------------------

(a little while later, people still slaying each other)

God: Looks like they need a demonstration (sends Jesus).

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I have dibs on Mary Magdolin.

That is a remarkable spelling.

[Koolblue13]

I'm basically where Jumbo is on the topic and have stopped responding for the most part. I differ on the importance of religion.

I'd say ASF and I are about as opposite as two can be on this topic and any time we've had our back and forths about it, it has always remained civil and enjoyable. Strangely, it's the only topic that happens with us.

You are good at your job.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I am judge enough to try and stop a guy from slaying his son if I see it happening, and so are you.

Do you sit up at night cursing the Carthagineans?

[pjfootballer]

That is a remarkable spelling.

Sorry, I didn't spellcheck her name and I don't read the bible, so I was winging it. Correction made in the original post after spellchecking her name. I was not aware there would be a spelling test on biblical people.

Is this how you spell Jeeh-zus?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Sorry, I didn't spellcheck her name and I don't read the bible, so I was winging it. Correction made in the original post after spellchecking her name. I was not aware there would be a spelling test on biblical people.

Wasn't really a spell check. If you had missed it by a letter, I wouldn't have said anything. Just commenting on how remarkable it was.

[PeterMP]

You know what strikes me about this conversation.

Nobody is quoting the new testament. To my knowledge, issues related to this story are not addressed at all in the New Testament.

Now, for Jesus and others that were speaking to Jews, that isn't necessarily surprising.

However, for early Christians that were evengalizing others, like Paul, you would have expected this to be an issue.

Somewhere along the link, you'd have expected Paul to have to write a letter to some Church that had heard the story and decided they didn't want to be associated with a faith and a god that would order somebody to kill their son.

Yet, to our knowledge it doesn't seem to exist.

It makes me wonder when and why in western culture did the idea of sacrificing a child become so disgusting that very idea is not only ungod like to many, but unhuman like.

[pjfootballer]

Wasn't really a spell check. If you had missed it by a letter' date=' I wouldn't have said anything. Just commenting on how remarkable it was.[/quote']

I grew up on "hooked on phonics" so I sounded it out as to how I thought it was spelled.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Lest we forget, it wasn't Issac, it was Ismail

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You know what strikes me about this conversation.

Nobody is quoting the new testament. To my knowledge, issues related to this story are not addressed at all in the New Testament.

It makes me wonder when and why in western culture did the idea of sacrificing a child become so disgusting that very idea is not only ungod like to many, but unhuman like.

Depends on what you mean by "Western." The Romans often started rumors about their enemies engaging in this practice. Sometimes, those rumor were true. I'm not quite sure where the Greeks stood but I have to assume it was in line with the Roman viewpoint. So, by and large, Western culture has opposed child sacrifice since the beginnings of what we now think of as "Western Culture."

Paul - by and large - was not dealing with "Western Culture." At least not until very late in his ministry.

More importantly, you are missing two key points:

1. God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. It was a test. Perhaps a cruel test, but a test. In the brutal world of the first century AD, I don't think people would blink an eye at a cruel test.

2. The faiths that others were coming from were not exactly lovey-dovey. You are putting 21st century mindsets on people in savage Roman backwaters.

---------- Post added July-11th-2012 at 09:10 AM ----------

Lest we forget, it wasn't Issac, it was Ismail

Maybe for your people.......

[alexey]

1. God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. It was a test. Perhaps a cruel test' date=' but a test. In the brutal world of the first century AD, I don't think people would blink an eye at a cruel test.

2. The faiths that others were coming from were not exactly lovey-dovey. You are putting 21st century mindsets on people in savage Roman backwaters.[/quote']

Can we be sure about what was being tested?

What would happen if, for example, Abraham refused and said that a God of mercy and compassion who gave him free will cannot desire a human sacrifice? Is it possible that God would praise Abraham if Abraham made a choice to reject the mindset of savage Roman backwaters?

[Mursilis]

Can we be sure about what was being tested?

What would happen if, for example, Abraham refused and said that a God of mercy and compassion who gave him free will cannot desire a human sacrifice? Is it possible that God would praise Abraham if Abraham made a choice to reject the mindset of savage Roman backwaters?

There's another perspective you're missing here. Note that Isaac was born of Sarah, who was considered too old to bear a child at that point, until the three strangers visited Abraham and told him he'd have a son in a year's time. Sarah even laughed at the idea, knowing she was considered barren, and had not given Abraham any children so far. Yet, as the story goes, Abraham did indeed have Isaac, born of Sarah, a year later, just as predicted. So, based on this, Abraham knew the impossible (as considered by humans) was possible to God. Is it hardly a stretch then that Abraham could have faith in God that Isaac would be somehow spared, or resurrected?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Can we be sure about what was being tested?

What would happen if, for example, Abraham refused and said that a God of mercy and compassion who gave him free will cannot desire a human sacrifice? Is it possible that God would praise Abraham if Abraham made a choice to reject the mindset of savage Roman backwaters?

No, because directly defying God never had a good outcome in The Old Testament.

I think of Job 38

Who is this that obscures my plans

with words without knowledge?

3 Brace yourself like a man;

I will question you,

and you shall answer me.

4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?

Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set,

or who laid its cornerstone —

7 while the morning stars sang together

and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors

when it burst forth from the womb,

9 when I made the clouds its garment

and wrapped it in thick darkness,

10 when I fixed limits for it

and set its doors and bars in place,

11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;

here is where your proud waves halt’?

12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,

or shown the dawn its place,

13 that it might take the earth by the edges

and shake the wicked out of it?

14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;

its features stand out like those of a garment.

15 The wicked are denied their light,

and their upraised arm is broken.

[alexey]

There's another perspective you're missing here. Note that Isaac was born of Sarah, who was considered too old to bear a child at that point, until the three strangers visited Abraham and told him he'd have a son in a year's time. Sarah even laughed at the idea, knowing she was considered barren, and had not given Abraham any children so far. Yet, as the story goes, Abraham did indeed have Isaac, born of Sarah, a year later, just as predicted. So, based on this, Abraham knew the impossible (as considered by humans) was possible to God. Is it hardly a stretch then that Abraham could have faith in God that Isaac would be somehow spared, or resurrected?

I think Abraham could have had faith that this was just a test, that Isaac would be spared or resurrected, etc. Does that faith make it right to proceed with the slaying?

[AsburySkinsFan]

I am judge enough to try and stop a guy from slaying his son if I see it happening, and so are you.

Here is a plausible interpretation that stays true to all biblical facts:

Well, you're a 21st century person who sees things entirely differently than the people of the acient near East, your error is that you are anachronizing your thinking onto people nearly 7,000 years ago, as if you had a time machine and knowing what you know now get to stand in judgment of them. If you were alive then you'd be helping Abraham stack the wood.

So, I'll take your implausible interpretation with the same grain of salt I give anyone else who has their "my thinking is superior to aal of Judeo-Christian history and theology" axe to grind.

[alexey]

No' date=' because directly defying God never had a good outcome in The Old Testament.[/quote']

Let's take a step back here. Should you decline to perform an immoral act if God commands you to do it?

[Mursilis]

I think Abraham could have had faith that this was just a test, that Isaac would be spared or resurrected, etc. Does that faith make it right to proceed with the slaying?

Define "right".

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Let's take a step back here. Should you decline to perform an immoral act if God commands you to do it?

Why do I feel like this is heading to a discussion as to whether Abraham was a paranoid schizophrenic suffering from hallucinations?

Look...if God was in my living room (and I knew it was God), I would most likely do what he said. Because he is - you know - God.

---------- Post added July-11th-2012 at 10:59 AM ----------

Let's take a step back here. Should you decline to perform an immoral act if God commands you to do it?

By the way, you are really terrible at this. I like the discussions your threads generate on occasion, but a 15-year-old who just discovered Richard Dawkins could come up with better questions.

This stuff is only about 1/4 as clever as you seem to think it is.

[Jumbo]

Oh, you have a majority in that category - they just aren't admitting it.

I used the word "participants." As in participating in the discussion, not just reading. There are very, very few who participate that don't make it clear what they believe and what they don't believe, or are simply unsure of---but as to the part of us having a "majority" of "them", I would like you to expand (genuinely curious how you see it).

When I wrote that, I was thinking primarily of more participation from practicing Muslims than the couple we do see post (and then only sometimes), and from adherents of Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism (generally not regared as a relgion by its adherents).

After those groups, I tend to think of hearing the views of smaller religious/spiritual belief systems like Shamanism, Shinto, Baha'i, Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Vodun etc. and also the "contested Christian faiths" of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

I have read on all of these (some extensively) and talked with followers of virtually every one I listed over the decades, and would LOVE to have their "voices" added to what is often a two-way dialogue on this site. Which brings me to your claim about a "majority" again (in perfectly friendly fashion btw).

How do you arrive at the claim that we have a majority of anyone here other than Christians (belief system-wise). That baffles me as this place is hardly some major deivation from any other community in this nation (and of course we have a few members from other nations, notably England, but mainly they post in the stadium on the Redskins), which means the majority will certainly be (by a large margin), Christian. That is unless you live in a specially filtered enclave of some sort. :pfft:

For real entertainment, I'd love a former well-versed Scientologist to join and participate. :evilg:

[alexey]

Well, you're a 21st century person who sees things entirely differently than the people of the acient near East, your error is that you are anachronizing your thinking onto people nearly 7,000 years ago, as if you had a time machine and knowing what you know now get to stand in judgment of them. If you were alive then youd be helping Abraham stack the wood.

So, I'll take your implausible interpretation with the same grain of salt I give anyone else who has their "my thinking is superior to aal of Judeo-Christian history and theology" axe to grind.

The word "judgement" has different meanings. I am not doing the kind of judgement that God does. I am doing the kind of judgement that people can do using their senses of right and wrong. People did horrible things to each other throughout history. Can you say anything about any of them?

Hold the salt. I am not grinding any axes. I am making open, honest, and straightforward points. I think that sacrificing children was never the right thing to do. If God asked Abraham to sacrifice a child as test, I think God may have been checking the state of Abraham's development as a moral agent.

---------- Post added July-11th-2012 at 12:22 PM ----------

Why do I feel like this is heading to a discussion as to whether Abraham was a paranoid schizophrenic suffering from hallucinations?

Look...if God was in my living room (and I knew it was God)' date=' I would most likely do what he said. Because he is - you know - God.

---------- Post added July-11th-2012 at 10:59 AM ----------

By the way, you are really terrible at this. I like the discussions your threads generate on occasion, but a 15-year-old who just discovered Richard Dawkins could come up with better questions.

This stuff is only about 1/4 as clever as you seem to think it is.

Give me a break man. People think I am here to convince, but I'm actually just learning and trying to understand how people think about these things. It is interesting to discuss things about which there is disagreement.

[Jumbo]

South Park did what I thought was a pretty brilliant episode where in the future everyone is an atheist. But, there are different atheist groups. All with different atheist beliefs. And, of course, the Allied Atheist Alliance were at war with the United Atheist Front and the Unified Atheist League due to the fact that each group was so certain their form of atheism was the purest.

I love it when those guys take on religious themes (like the Mormons <classic>, Scientology, etc---and they are sacrilegious ).

I saw that and loved it, and how all the Christian denominations killed each other off even as their differences became smaller and smaller.

OT, but another one of my faves in that "spirit" was what they did with Harley riders. Stunningly accurate. :evilg:

[alexey]

Define "right".

There are many possible definitions. This thread is kind of about that.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

When I wrote that, I was thinking primarily of more participation from practicing Muslims than the couple we do see post (and then only sometimes), and from adherents of Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism (generally not regared as a relgion by its adherents).

After those groups, I tend to think of hearing the views of smaller religious/spiritual belief systems like Shamanism, Shinto, Baha'i, Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Vodun etc. and also the "contested Christian faiths" of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

:evilg:

I've been on boards like that. It gets exhausting. Too often, the person who is a Shinto becomes "The Shinto" and ends up being some kind of living "yahoo answers" thing.

I know we have a few Muslim posters. I can see why they would want to avoid these subjects, lest they become the board's spokesman for all Muslims in the world who ever lived.

We already have "The Atheist." How's that working out for us?

---------- Post added July-11th-2012 at 11:38 AM ----------

Give me a break man. People think I am here to convince, but I'm actually just learning and trying to understand how people think about these things. It is interesting to discuss things about which there is disagreement.

I think you are trying to show you are "clever" with really silly little games.

Instead of asking "What does the story of God instructing Abraham to sacrifice Isaac teach us about God and our own morality," you ask a cutesy question.

[Mursilis]

Give me a break man. People think I am here to convince, but I'm actually just learning and trying to understand how people think about these things. It is interesting to discuss things about which there is disagreement.

If you're actually here to learn and understand, I suggest reading "Fear and Trembling" by Soren Kierkegaard. He addresses this very story, and the many dilemmas it presented.

[Jumbo]

I've been on boards like that. It gets exhausting. Too often' date=' the person who is a Shinto becomes "The Shinto" and ends up being some kind of living "yahoo answers" thing.

I know we have a few Muslim posters. I can see why they would want to avoid these subjects, lest they become the board's spokesman for all Muslims in the world who ever lived.

We already have "The Atheist." How's that working out for us?[/quote']

You preferred alternative is to have numeorus active Christians and either "plenty or zero" views from other belief systems?

I do know of the pitfall you speak, of course. But we do have more than "the atheist" and I'm surprised you'd overlook that fact. Bang, Thiebear, Die Hard, Corcaigh, just to quickly name four well-known posters, regularly comment from that perspective, though nothing like in the volume "the Christians" do on these matters.

It is true (and logical, which is part of why Mursilis' comments of a "hidden majority" were curious to me) that these threads often feature a "numbers game" of one---whether alexy or others in the past or present---vs. several. But that's fine and inevitable, and not restricted to just this matter. It's not ideal, but it is going to happen.

This has always made sense to me, even if it's not always "pleasing" to me as a social dynamic. Most atheists don't have much of a proselytizing bone, and being of an unpopular and super-minority position, many of them (already a small demographic in the U.S.) often choose to avoid getting knee-deep in the matter. "Militant atheism" as any sizable contingent is a more recent "movement" and even now is still tiny, really.

Whereas many organized-faith believers (and I'll specify Christians here) will often feel a strong duty (in some writings they are even "charged" <or it is so interpreted > to do so) to advance, defend, protect, justify, or educate on their belief system. It's a behavior many of non-Christian belief often find quite intrusive and annoying at times, of course, when unsolicited. And there are also very powerful psychological reasons why a person will be more active and invested in communicating why they believe something fundamental to their peace of mind and of deep meaning to their life, than the one who doesn't have that belief or doesn't carry such meaning as vital to them, or actually rejects those notions.

Such "pro-argument" in such matters (politics and religion come prominently to mind) as an exercise is a basic and powerfully effective means of self-reinforcement and supporting self-identity at some of its most significant levels.