Abraham should have said, 'No.'

[Galateasdream]

As muslims we believe Jesus isn't the son of God, and we don't believe that he got killed. We believe that Jesus is a prophet like prophet Muhammed and all the other peace be upon them all.

Muhammed (p.b.u.h.) told the people that he is just a human like us but God gave him a message to spread that your God is one.

I don't think you read the title ...

 

[Terry Sampson]

Counter-factuals cannot be reckoned

Not all and not perfectly, to be sure. But occasionally one can actually be rationally, reasonably, and realistically estimated, and bear high probability.

But Abraham was wrong to say Yes, regardless.

And you can still color me grateful.

 

[Galateasdream]

And you can still color me grateful.

I totally get the sentiment, but it still seems odd to me.

After all, I probably wouldn't exist at all if history had been even slightly different, say if WW2 hadn't have happened and led to the events that got my grandparents and parents to the place where I came to be. But it would still seem wrong for me to be grateful that Hitler did something bad for me to exist.

 

[Seek truth]

I don't think you read the title ...

Im sorry. I thought you were talking about Jesus peace be upon him.

Im new in this system

 

[Galateasdream]

Im sorry. I thought you were talking about Jesus peace be upon him.

Im new in this system

No problem.
And welcome, by the way

 

[Windwalker]

Then we agree, of course the answer should be No.

Thanks for the clarification. So then the question leads to why someone who thinks it's wrong, would say it was okay when God told Abraham to sacrifice his child. It's obvious that it would have been considered morally correct by Abraham. Otherwise his response would have looked a lot more like ours. We would have been, first, stunned that God would suggest this to us, question what sort of a monster this deity was, and secondly, that God to be out of his mind to think we actually would! But Abraham's response was to start the whole process of child sacrifice to his God, which every indication was that that was not the problem in his mind. It sounded familiar to him.

What this exercise shows, is that our morality and subsequently how we see God, is different than Abraham's and the biblical authors. This is where relativism enters in to address the reasons why that is so.

The difference is that I would argue that the value system that thinks it's wrong to kill kids is objectively correct, so that even if you had a different value system you should still say no upon pain of immorality.

Where is this objectively seen? In nature? Clearly not. Where is it that one encounters moral absolutes in nature itself? Moral absolutism, is itself relative to the moralizer.

If you want to argue moral realism over moral relativism that goes a step back beyond the starting point of this thread and would require another thread of its own.

I would enjoy that thread with you. I think we would need to take a step back from that as well in order to understand the framework I would bring to that discussion, which is that all perceptions of truth itself, are mediated truths through our developmental lens, both individually and collectively. It would start with the myth of the pregiven world, and then from that point, absolutism fails as objectively anything at all.

While I do accept that truth, beauty, and goodness are absolutes, those are expressed in many diverse ways. And what some may see as goodness, others might see as sinister. Anyone who claims they speak for God to all of creation, is delusional.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No offence taken, but it's still impossible.

Even for a prophet. It's logically impossible for any non-omniscient being to know another being is omniscient. This has been addressed previously on this thread.

Only God can comprehend God.

So, by your logic, and mine, if I have the Holy Spirit dwelling in me, I can know God. Which is exactly the position taken by trinitarians.

 

[Deeje]

It's impossible Abraham was certain. See previous posts for details.

Why was Abraham so compliant when asked to sacrifice his son?
Hebrews 11:17-19 answers this question for me...

"17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac—the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son— 18 although it had been said to him: “What will be called your offspring will be through Isaac.” 19 But he reasoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, and he did receive him from there in an illustrative way."

1) It was a test....God was never going to let him carry it out.
Abraham's faith was tested to see how far his obedience would go....even in this most difficult of all requests, the only man in existence to be called "God's friend" did not let him down.

2) He had absolute faith in the resurrection because God had already told him that all of God's promises would be achieved through Isaac. He did not expect that Isaac's death would be permanent.

3) This scenario pictured the gut wrenching choice that God himself made to sacrifice a precious son when it was called for.

4) Abraham already demonstrated that he could speak up if he felt that something God had proposed to do was unjust in his eyes. He bargained with God over the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, but in the final analysis, God showed Abraham that nothing he does is unjustified or undeserved. (Genesis 18:23-33)

 

[Galateasdream]

So, by your logic, and mine, if I have the Holy Spirit dwelling in me, I can know God. Which is exactly the position taken by trinitarians.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, tbh. Nor exactly how it relates to my posts.

All I'm saying is that a human cannot ever be totally certain that a being claiming to be omniscient is actually omniscient. That's all.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Cool.
But the issue for this thread is that Abraham should have said No. Which is correct. IMHO. And has been argued for on this thread.

Abraham was right to follow the testing of God. To be fair, God did not tell him to kill his son, but to offer him for a burnt offering.

 

[Galateasdream]

Why was Abraham so compliant when asked to sacrifice his son?
Hebrews 11:17-19 answers this question for me...

"17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac—the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son— 18 although it had been said to him: “What will be called your offspring will be through Isaac.” 19 But he reasoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, and he did receive him from there in an illustrative way."

1) It was a test....God was never going to let him carry it out.
Abraham's faith was tested to see how far his obedience would go....even in this most difficult of all requests, the only man in existence to be called "God's friend" did not let him down.

2) He had absolute faith in the resurrection because God had already told him that all of God's promises would be achieved through Isaac. He did not expect that Isaac's death would be permanent.

3) This scenario pictured the gut wrenching choice that God himself made to sacrifice a precious son when it was called for.

4) Abraham already demonstrated that he could speak up if he felt that something God had proposed to do was unjust in his eyes. He bargained with God over the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, but in the final analysis, God showed Abraham that nothing he does is unjustified or undeserved. (Genesis 18:23-33)

All fine.
But as clearly argued throughout this thread, Abraham still should have said, 'No'.

 

[Galateasdream]

Abraham was right to follow the testing of God. To be fair, God did not tell him to kill his son, but to offer him for a burnt offering.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I think I've clearly demonstrated why Abraham should have said, 'No' to turning his son into a burnt offering on this thread.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I totally get the sentiment, but it still seems odd to me.

Understandably.
I'm an avid, non-professional, genealogy-addict. The paths of ancestors have always fascinated me.
My biological parents were married, but not to each other.
I was raised by my bio-father's wife until just before my 12th birthday. She was 61 when I showed up in her house at the age of 3 months.
Not long before my 12th birthday, I was given--voluntarily--to my mother's married preacher. He and his wife had five of their own kids.
I am a Sampson by adoption. Mayfield was my bio-mother's husband's surname.
Those who loved me most believed in and trusted Jesus. If they hadn't, I wouldn't be a Sampson, I'd be a Mayfield, ... and like my two older half-brothers, I'd have been miserable until I died and I'd probably be dead.
More'n you wanted to know, eh?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'm not sure what you're saying here, tbh. Nor exactly how it relates to my posts.

All I'm saying is that a human cannot ever be totally certain that a being claiming to be omniscient is actually omniscient. That's all.

Well, I dispute that claim, because when a man [or woman] has the Holy Spirit [God] dwelling within him, he knows that the Holy Spirit provides knowledge, and powers, that go beyond his own human capacity. [See 1 Corinthians 12]

In the case of Abraham, he had visits from the Angel of the Lord, and spoke personally to the Lord, in face to face dialogue.

 

[Deeje]

All fine.
But as clearly argued throughout this thread, Abraham still should have said, 'No'.

Then he would have failed the test.

 

[Seek truth]

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

Change my mind.

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

Change my mind.

This is what the Quran tells about the situation.

Surah Saffat: verse 102-113

And when he reached with him [the age of] exertion, he said, "O my son, indeed I have seen in a dream that I [must] sacrifice you, so see what you think." He said, "O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, if Allah wills, of the steadfast."

And when they had both submitted and he put him down upon his forehead,

We called to him, "O Abraham,

You have fulfilled the vision." Indeed, We thus reward the doers of good.

Indeed, this was the clear trial.

And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice,

And We left for him [favorable mention] among later generations:

"Peace upon Abraham."

Indeed, We thus reward the doers of good.

Indeed, he was of Our believing servants.

And We gave him good tidings of Isaac, a prophet from among the righteous.

And We blessed him and Isaac. But among their descendants is the doer of good and the clearly unjust to himself.

 

[Galateasdream]

Well, I dispute that claim, because when a man [or woman] has the Holy Spirit [God] dwelling within him, he knows that the Holy Spirit provides knowledge, and powers, that go beyond his own human capacity. [See 1 Corinthians 12]

In the case of Abraham, he had visits from the Angel of the Lord, and spoke personally to the Lord, in face to face dialogue.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Galateasdream]

Then he would have failed the test.

I believe the opposite

 

[74x12]

Even for a prophet. It's logically impossible for any non-omniscient being to know another being is omniscient. This has been addressed previously on this thread.

Only God can comprehend God.

What exactly does that have to do with it? All Abraham needs to know is who He is talking to: God and trust that God will keep His promises. Quite simple.

 

[Galateasdream]

What exactly does that have to do with it? All Abraham needs to know is who He is talking to: God and trust that God will keep His promises. Quite simple.

You can't know it's God 100%, that's the point.
And even if somehow you did, it is more likely He wants you to say 'No' to obvious evil than 'yes.'

Hence why Abraham should have said, 'No'

All this explained multiple times in more detail in previous posts on this very long thread, lol