Abraham should have said, 'No.'

[A Vestigial Mote]

When a deity-claimant commands you to kill your son the correct response is, 'No.'

Change my mind.

I think I can change your mind... because the actual correct response is more along the lines of "screw off ya nutter."

 

[Galateasdream]

That's kind of the sticking point to me, intuitively. I see issue there and I'll come back it eventually with a thread of my own eventually

Sounds cool.
Reading it as an exemplar of faith is highly morally problematic, but still valid. Even villains can have virtues. Though I'd challenge the notion that this guys faith was actually virtuous.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Muslims take the story to mean God forbid all blood sacrifice forever.

I think an interesting concept is how the younger brother gets over on the first born so often.

I would figure that would be the muslim interpretation.

Yeah, the cases with Joseph, Jacob, David and some others shows that God doesn't necessarily favour the firstborn. Often he considers the younger the first born or having higher prominence. My friend and I were actually talking about that concept the other day.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hang on, you can't say the deity claim is fraudulent because you don't accept
what said deity did. Who are YOU to make such a call?

Said Deity declared the Jews would not accept their Messiah and be exiled
or sold into slavery. A thousand or more years later the Jews rejected their
Messiah and were exiled or sold into slavery. But as promised, they would
return one day. It's a fact - both the event and the prophecy.

You can say the Deity was "wrong" for allowing tens of millions of Jews to
suffer and die. But you can't say it didn't happen. And in that it happened,
it demands a more thoughtful response from us.

How is the history of Jews rejecting the Messiah in the same boat/historical fact a supernatural entity telling Abraham to sacrifice his child as evidence for his obedience to his god?

Wars happened, people were sacrificed, Jews still reject the messish.

But how is god involved in all this history?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Which provides many more interesting ways to interpret the story - like, 'See how God can use an utter dirt bag to accomplish His ends,' or 'Look how brutal life was then,' or ...

That does seem how the Bible is constructed. The stories can be interpreted in numerous ways and what interests me about it is that it lays out what is moral and what isn't yet it doesn't shy away from showing the main characters faults, and often extreme faults. One would think that they would glorify the patriarchs and the judges rather than showing them in such a negative light.

 

[leov]

Perhaps the reason it wasn't so shocking is because human sacrifice was common.

This episode shows two things, bicameral state of Abraham's mind that was in process of change and that human sacrifice was not acceptable to God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps the reason it wasn't so shocking is because human sacrifice was common.

The story hinges on Abraham's actions being uncommon, since the whole point of the story is to demonstrate Abraham's exceptional obedience to God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This episode shows two things, bicameral state of Abraham's mind that was in process of change and that human sacrifice was not acceptable to God.

Except it doesn't show that at all. Abraham's obedience means nothing unless he actually believed that God would require him to go through with the sacrifice.

The story holds up Abraham as a praiseworthy example, but if human sacrifice really was unacceptable to God, then Abraham's example is the opposite of what the reader should do: refuse to cooperate, saying "the good God I believe in would never require such a thing! Begone, deceiving demon! Never pretend to be God again!"

 

[leov]

Except it doesn't show that at all. Abraham's obedience means nothing unless he actually believed that God would require him to go through with the sacrifice.

The story holds up Abraham as a praiseworthy example, but if human sacrifice really was unacceptable to God, then Abraham's example is the opposite of what the reader should do: refuse to cooperate, saying "the good God I believe in would never require such a thing! Begone, deceiving demon! Never pretend to be God again!"

Story shows curing of bicameral state of mind. Chapter 18 clearly shows it when Abraham disputed God and God loved it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The voice part was an irrelevance. Whatever the mechanism of communication, it was the content of the message that required a 'No' response.

For example, whether the deity claimant wrote it out in the stars, or in a book, or through semaphore, makes no difference. Pick whatever method you desire - Abraham should have said 'No.'

Keep at it. You're getting there

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And in that it happened,
it demands a more thoughtful response from us.

After carefully crafting a thoughtful response, it is this: I don't believe that the response should ever even approach "worship."

 

[Galateasdream]

Keep at it. You're getting there

I'm confused. Where is it I'm getting to?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm confused. Where is it I'm getting to?

I would be confused too. People being vague and amorphous while expecting there to be some hidden pearl of wisdom to be uncovered if you "just think about it," drive me nuts. Especially considering that of all the times people have done this to me, the "pearl" most often ends up looking more like a common stone - sometimes even coated in what smells like vomit.

 

[Galateasdream]

I would be confused too. People being vague and amorphous while expecting there to be some hidden pearl of wisdom to be uncovered if you "just think about it," drive me nuts. Especially considering that of all the times people have done this to me, the "pearl" most often ends up looking more like a common stone - sometimes even coated in what smells like vomit.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're saying.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, I can see how these stories are related, as both stories deal with the fate of children who we modern people presume are innocent.

If you're offering to describe the story of abraham as a polemic against child sacrifice, that rationalizes the existence and purpose of the story does it not.. I am thinking about that however, and I'm still not so sure about the story myself. Though some things about it are defensible, I'm not sure if abraham's level of zeal or compliance was the best for anyone to aspire to, at any period of time. Why should god test someone by telling him t do something that is wrong... if abraham would have said no, would god still like him? Furthermore, to extend to the the story as a lesson human hierarchies, the story does not really map well. If your boss or king or whatever tells you to do something that you'd rather not do and you know it's wrong, well isn't it far more just to protest what greater powers tell you in those cases

So, you, along with a number of friends and relatives, are sitting by the well listening to the story teller repeat oft-heard founders tales about your patriarchs. He starts by noting that God calls on Abraham to sacrifice his favored son. Neither Abraham nor Isaac nor anyone else seems at all surprised. Similarly, the audience barely reacts to the story teller's tale. This was, after all, deemed more or less standard practice back in those days. Hopefully the story will become more memorable.

And it does -- and at the last possible moment when the Lord's messenger intervenes and a new paradigm is affirmed.

It is hard to know how many times, and in how many ways, the story was refined and modified over the course of it's oral history, but clearly its dramatic character did much to sustain it and its bottom line: our God is not like their Moloch and our worship is not like their propitiation.

 

[shmogie]

When a deity-claimant commands you to kill your son the correct response is, 'No.'

Change my mind.

Abraham knew his son wouldn't die. He told folk while on his way that he AND HIS SON would return. This was after he learned of the sacrifice.

Totally by faith, he believed either he would not have to make the sacrifice, or that his son would immediately be resurrected.

This faith was what God was looking for.

 

[Wandering Monk]

If you and your son are about to die a horrible painful death in the next ten seconds, and a deity claimant says "i am God. Kill your son" rather decapitate your son. Decaptitation is still better than dying a horribly painful death. Unless a person is still conscious after decapitation then... well. ... meh.

If your son is actually a serial killer and a deity says "I am God. Kill your son." Then kill your son. You would be doing the world a service.

Any reason the omnipotent deity couldn't take out the kid without human help instead of making the father a murderer?

 

[Galateasdream]

Abraham knew his son wouldn't die. He told folk while on his way that he AND HIS SON would return. This was after he learned of the sacrifice.

Totally by faith, he believed either he would not have to make the sacrifice, or that his son would immediately be resurrected.

This faith was what God was looking for.

How did he know?
If he knew, how was it by faith?
Either he knew, or he believed.

If it was knowledge, then it's not an example of faith.
If he merely believed, then it was immoral.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're saying.

I see. No worries then. Ignore me.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It is interesting how Abraham called God out when he was told that God intended to obliterate Sodom and Gomorah. 'Shall not the judge of the earth do right?'

But he didn't call God out when he was told to murder his son.

Christians give the bogus answer that this was because that in the future God intended to murder his own son.

Sorry, not interested in this kind of deity. Too bloody bloody.