Abraham should have said, 'No.'

[Windwalker]

This is a wrong way to think about morality, I don't have the time to go through the philosophical proofs to show this is wrong today, but will do it the weekend coming up.

I think it is the realistic way to look and view systems of moral values. This matches what we observe in reality. The rest of absolutism, does not.

 

[Terry Sampson]

So yes, in such an encounter IF the commanding being is omniscient, AND open theism is wrong, then the omniscient being learns nothing new.

What, if anything, does the Nescient learn?

 

[Windwalker]

Well, as a moral realist, I'm going to say 'should' according to moral truth.

As I mentioned in a previous post, if someone is a moral nihilist, moral relativist, or doesn't think child sacrifice is wrong, all I can do is shrug.

While I accept relativism to be a factual understanding of how moral systems are in fact relative to their cultures, which all the data supports, that does not translate into nonsense claims of not thinking child sacrifice is wrong. I said very clearly I viewed it as wrong. But I qualified that as me speaking from the values sphere of modernity, and postmodernity, where such a thing is considered wrong.

Again, if you had been raised in a tribe where that was viewed as good, I wouldn't hesitate to wager you would agree with it. You would view it as a moral good, right along with everyone else sharing that same system of morality you grew up with. To recognize that as how moral systems work, relative to the culture in which they operate upon all of its participants, does not mean I abandon my values system, which I consider to be superior, relatively speaking.

What I do not accept, is any group claiming absolutes beginning with themselves, and superimposing those upon all the rest of creation, judging from that seat of one's rightness or wrongness. That's entirely relative to the group doing the judging. It's like viewing the planet earth as the center of the universe, with the human man sitting on the top, in the image of his God, judging everything from himself. That's mythological.

 

[Galateasdream]

What, if anything, does the Nescient learn?

I'm not sure I have any way of knowing that.

 

[Galateasdream]

While I accept relativism to be a factual understanding of how moral systems are in fact relative to their cultures, which all the data supports, that does not translate into nonsense claims of not thinking child sacrifice is wrong. I said very clearly I viewed it as wrong. But I qualified that as me speaking from the values sphere of modernity, and postmodernity, where such a thing is considered wrong.

Again, if you had been raised in a tribe where that was viewed as good, I wouldn't hesitate to wager you would agree with it. You would view it as a moral good, right along with everyone else sharing that same system of morality you grew up with. To recognize that as how moral systems work, relative to the culture in which they operate upon all of its participants, does not mean I abandon my values system, which I consider to be superior, relatively speaking.

What I do not accept, is any group claiming absolutes beginning with themselves, and superimposing upon all the rest of creation. That's mythological in nature.

I never accused you of not thinking child sacrifice wasn't ŵrong???

 

[robocop (actually)]

I disagree. Have a look at my posts so far in this thread to see why.

I will when I get a chance to.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I'm not sure I have any way of knowing that.

Maybe not, but we're playing in a sandbox here. Occasional creativity is allowed.
Me?

• If I was the Nescient, I think I'd have learned that the Omniscient that I encountered, in a society where child sacrifice is common, is substantially different than other deity-claimants alleged to exist in the same society. The other deity-claimants, or their priests and prophets, would not only have not stopped me but would, instead, have helped me stack wood on the fire and asked if I had any other kids.
• I'd have learned that an Omniscient who stops me is preferable to other deity-claimants that don't.
• I'd be open to the distinct possibility that the Omniscient is not really into child sacrifice, but definitely is not screwing around when He asks me to trust Him completely.
• How's that for starters?

 

[74x12]

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

Change my mind.

The correct response to the true God is yes; just like Abraham did. Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead. So Abraham did this as an act of faith because he knew the promises of God about Isaac. Many people get this story wrong thinking it was a test of mere obedience when in fact it was a test of faith. If God's promises were true then God would have raised Isaac from the dead to fulfill them. But, we see how God provided the ram and that was made unnecessary.

Hebrews 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Yup.

When you read those texts as being just the ramblings of people that lived during that time and who didn't know better, then it is perfectly within expectations that it includes such reprehensible stuff (to our modern minds).

This, for me, is the ultimate proof that these texts are indeed just the ramblings of people that lived during that time. They didn't know any better.

This is why the bible, for example, also doesn't mention kangaroos or koala's. Because those that made it up didn't know about them.

 

[Galateasdream]

Maybe not, but we're playing in a sandbox here. Occasional creativity is allowed.
Me?

• If I was the Nescient, I think I'd have learned that the Omniscient that I encountered, in a society where child sacrifice is common, is substantially different than other deity-claimants alleged to exist in the same society. The other deity-claimants, or their priests and prophets, would not only have not stopped me but would, instead, have helped me stack wood on the fire and asked if I had any other kids.
• I'd have learned that an Omniscient who stops me is preferable to other deity-claimants that don't.
• I'd be open to the distinct possibility that the Omniscient is not really into child sacrifice, but definitely is not screwing around when He asks me to trust Him completely.
• How's that for starters?

Indeed.

This matches nicely the interpretation of the story that it is a polemic against child sacrifice. Certainly can be read that way, and assuming historicity it wouldn't suprise me that Abraham saw it that way upon reflection.

Of course, on that reflection he would also now realise what he was ignorant of before, that he should have said, 'No.'

 

[Galateasdream]

The correct response to the true God is yes; just like Abraham did. Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead. So Abraham did this as an act of faith because he knew the promises of God about Isaac. Many people get this story wrong thinking it was a test of mere obedience when in fact it was a test of faith. If God's promises were true then God would have raised Isaac from the dead to fulfill them. But, we see how God provided the ram and that was made unnecessary.

Hebrews 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

I disagree it is the correct response for two reasons (more detailed in previous posts):

A) you can never be as sure it's the true God as you can be sure that killing your child is wrong

B) you can never be as sure that its the true God asking you to do something immoral as than it's not the true God testing you and hoping for a refuse

 

[viole]

No, because even if he held to a strong divine command ethic he would have to know the being commanding him was God, which is impossible for him to know. Unless his meta-ethic was, 'all morality is grounded in this being talking to me now whoever he is', in which case he's just stupid.

If he was a moral nihilist then the question becomes meaningless, agreed. As does all morality talk.

It's true that I'm operating here on a roughly shared consensus that child sacrifice is wrong. If someone think that it isn't, or that morality doesn't exist, or is a moral relativist, then all I can do is shrug.

If he held to a strong divine command ethic, why would “no” have been a better answer?

ciao

- viole

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

A rational thinker.
A benevolent and just / moral god would not ask such a thing and be pleased if the subject obbeyed.

I could get on board with the idea of it being a test. But passing the test would be refusing to kill the son.
Rationality and reason should be promoted. Instead, what is being promoted in the story is blindly following authority, no matter what is being asked.

That's moral bankrupcy.

So, we can conclude this is fraudulent / not true, because it is simply inherently contradicting.
It is behaviour that is not consistent with a benevolent and just being.

It is rather behaviour that is consistent with power-hungry psychopathic dictators a la Kim Jung Un and Adolf Hitler.

 

[Galateasdream]

If he held to a strong divine command ethic, why would “no” have been a better answer?

ciao

- viole

The answer is literally in my post you quoted
And elsewhere argued in this thread.

 

[viole]

The answer is literally in my post you quoted
And elsewhere argued in this thread.

Is it?
And what if I believed in a Divine command theory of a God that thinks that killing kids every now and then, is a good thing to do?

ciao

- viole

 

[Kenny]

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

Change my mind.

He saw Jesus. And then God said "no". God won't give that command again.

 

[Galateasdream]

Is it?
And what if I believed in a Divine command theory of a God that thinks that killing kids every now and then, is a good thing to do?

ciao

- viole

Is it?
And what if I believed in a Divine command theory of a God that thinks that killing kids every now and then, is a good thing to do?

ciao

- viole

Well, the you'd either be right or wrong.
And I'd argue wrong.
But as I said in a previous post, if one believes that child sacrifice isn't wrong then all I can do is shrug.

 

[Galateasdream]

He saw Jesus. And then God said "no". God won't give that command again.

Ok.
But Abraham still should have said, 'No.'

 

[viole]

Well, the you'd either be right or wrong.
And I'd argue wrong.
But as I said in a previous post, if one believes that child sacrifice isn't wrong then all I can do is shrug.

Ok, but in my experience, shrugging is a pretty useless defeater in any rational discussion.

ciao
- viole

 

[Terry Sampson]

Of course, on that reflection he would also now realise what he was ignorant of before, that he should have said, 'No.'

"Should have"??? A list of my own "should haves" would reach to the sun and isn't complete yet. Now there's a humbling thought.
So, whaddya think? If Abraham had said "No", would there be any Abrahamic faith communities today? If not, who would atheists have to annoy them and to grouse about?