• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Abraham should have said, 'No.'

Thief

Rogue Theologian
ah.....so the problem was more cerebral?
and Abraham is tested to his reason
more than his heart
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
No.
The correct answer should have been available to both his head and heart, so failing one there was the other. He failed on both counts.
then why does the old story bother you?

are you assuming Abraham is closer to God than you?
and then your desire is to knock him down a notch
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
OK. You seem to be grandstanding about, "No one can know it's God telling you to do it." I think I have a way to bring down that argument.

First of all, Abraham had seen a miracle when his wife was 90 years old and conceived the child in the first place.
He had seen many miracles which, given not only their supernatural nature but their meaning, he would have to be strongly motivated to obey.

He was promised his seed would be as the dirt on all the beaches or the stars in the sky and that all the world would be blessed through his seed... another thing to make him seriously consider it.

Lastly, it was symbolic of God sacrificing His Son Jesus Christ. If Abraham understood this, he very well could have known 100% what he was doing. That was a Universal sacrifice just like Abraham's promise was for Abraham's influence to be Universal.

I find this explanation rather morally dubious. If I understand your argument correctly, Abraham did well to sacrifice his son to God because he had witnessed miracles in his life from that same deity and was promised power and legacy beyond his wildest expectations. In other words, it's moral to kill your son in exchange of power and prestige. I find this objectionable.
 

Galateasdream

Active Member
then why does the old story bother you?

are you assuming Abraham is closer to God than you?
and then your desire is to knock him down a notch

The story doesn't bother me, though some of the uses its put to do.

I'm not assuming Abraham even existed let alone is closer to God to me, though if he did exist and even roughly matched his description then I would easily agree that he was much closer to God than I. Yet he should have said, 'No.'

I have no desire to knock anyone down a peg or two. Why would you even speculate such an odd motive?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
The story doesn't bother me, though some of the uses its put to do.

I'm not assuming Abraham even existed let alone is closer to God to me, though if he did exist and even roughly matched his description then I would easily agree that he was much closer to God than I. Yet he should have said, 'No.'

I have no desire to knock anyone down a peg or two. Why would you even speculate such an odd motive?
I might assume.....we meet the Prophets
any of them
all of them

face to face......would you still stand your ground?
to say to his face?......you failed
 

Galateasdream

Active Member
I might assume.....we meet the Prophets
any of them
all of them

face to face......would you still stand your ground?
to say to his face?......you failed

It would be a bit rude to just walk up to Abraham and say, 'Yo, Abes, you failed big time brah!' Especially given he'd already be well aware of his failure.

But if I was asked directly I would choose not to lie.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Abraham should have said No, because he is always going to have more immediate and sure warrant for believing that sacrificing your child is wrong than he is going to have warrant for believing the deity claimant commanding him to do such an abomination is an omni-attributed God with an unspecified morally sufficient reason who is also not just testing his response with the intention he says No.

Ie:
A)Likelihood that murdering your own child is wrong - very high
B) Likelihood the person telling you to kill your kid is God - not as high as A
C) Likelihood that if it is God then He testing your morality with the expectation you say No - higher than B
I understand how you are looking at the situation.
However, we need to first finalize one thing in order to get past what seems a roadblock.

According to the Bible, Abram was a descendant of Noah. Terah, his father, was a great, great grandson of Shem, so for Abraham not to know of the flood account, would be unthinkable.
God communicated wit Abraham (Genesis 12:1 ; 13:14-17 ; 17:1 ;18:1), protected him, on numerous occasions (Genesis 12:17), and took care of him (Genesis 13:2). God provided clear signs of proof (Genesis 15:17 ; 21:1, 2).

So it was the clear observable evidence Abraham had, that caused him to not only believe, what he had heard, but also seen, and to have faith in the God he could not see. (Genesis 14:22-24)

Therefore, Abraham had clear evidence he could trust God completely. True, he did not know the absolute, but since no human ever can know absolutely, it would be unreasonable to suggest that a person could not trust God.
We trust persons based on what has been demonstrated to us. What we cannot know, is not relevant to our trusting.

I think you may be looking at the situation only through your eyes. However, if that is, lacking faith, then it would be hard to see anything else.

Look at this scenario, for example.
Let's put you in Hollywood for a minute.
You are in a Superman movie.
You are the president.
You met Superman. He saved your life. Had he not used his power and stopped the train, you would have been history, but you are alive, thanks to him.
Now, you face a situation. You must do something very difficult for you to bear. Some terrorist has the lives of you and everyone in the city hostage. The terrorists hideout is unknown. For Superman to locate them, and stop the threat, he needs your help.
The terrorist have asked that you drop your son, from the Empire State building Only then will they communicate with you. That's all Superman needs to get their location. Otherwise people will start dying like flies from a deadly gas.
Superman tells you, "Do it. Trust me. (He plans to save the child).
Will you do it, or will you be reasoning... "How do I know this is not some nutcase in a costume?"
We know Lois Lane would do it. She trusts Superman. She knows his capabilities.

Do you see the connection?
Once it becomes clear to you, that it comes down to Abraham trusting God, because he knows the God who is with him, then you would see that Abraham would put God's judgment, and decisions above his own.

Consider too, Abraham knowing that God knows more than he does, would reason that God knows best, and base that on his own personal experiences, and observations.
He had no reason to doubt.

People doubt for various reasons Some, because of very little or understanding, or because they are overly skeptical, but it doesn't seem reasonable to compare people with Abraham, or put him in their boat.

May I ask... If God appointed you executioner of those judged as deserving of death, would you take that role?
 

Galateasdream

Active Member
Do you see the connection?

Unfortunately not because the analogy makes a false equivalence.

The moral dilemma facing Abraham was murdering his child as an act of worship without explanation. If superman asked me to sacrifice my child to him, I'd say no. I would always trust my moral instinct that ritually killing children is wrong over any request to 'just trust me.'

ask... If God appointed you executioner of those judged as deserving of death, would you take that role?

Depends upon the circumstances. Depends upon how sure I was it was God. Depends on who those judged were and whether or not the request seemed reasonable. Probably not just on a say-so, no. I'd certainly ask for the justification. If I thought the evidence too flimsy, the justifaction unreasonable, or the judged too innocent, I wouldn't do it, no.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Unfortunately not because the analogy makes a false equivalence.

The moral dilemma facing Abraham was murdering his child as an act of worship without explanation. If superman asked me to sacrifice my child to him, I'd say no. I would always trust my moral instinct that ritually killing children is wrong over any request to 'just trust me.'
I understand.
Since I mentioned, I am not here to change your mind, it seems my reasoning has ended.
Evidently, you believe your judgment is better than God's as presented in the Bible.
So, I suppose you either believe as some do, that this part of text has nothing to do with God, or it's an analogy, or something else.
I don't really know how you feel about the Bible.

For my part, if I lived back then, when God was governing his people, and communicating as he did, I would ask God for the strength to obey, because the way I reason on it, is, I may not know something which God knows about the situation, but having the knowledge that trusting him has never resulted in failure or disaster, I would continue to trust him.
At least that what I think I would do.

Depends upon the circumstances. Depends upon how sure I was it was God. Depends on who those judged were and whether or not the request seemed reasonable. Probably not just on a say-so, no. I'd certainly ask for the justification. If I thought the evidence too flimsy, the justifaction unreasonable, or the judged too innocent, I wouldn't do it, no.
So you would, if you were 100% sure it was God, you are sure the case has been judged in all fairness, and the evidence was conclusive that the one judged, was guilty, of heinous crimes?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I believe the opposite :)

You can believe whatever you wish....that is why we have free will.....but all our choices have consequences....Abraham's...yours...and mine. We know how Abraham's ended up.....yours and mine are a wait and see.
Christianity is not multiple choice......not the one Jesus taught anyway....
 

Galateasdream

Active Member
if you were 100% sure it was God, you are sure the case has been judged in all fairness, and the evidence was conclusive that the one judged, was guilty, of heinous crimes?

Well, the first issue is that it's impossible to be 100% sure that it's God, and the rest.

But let's assume a 99% on all factors - that it was God, and they were guilty. I'd probably still ask for the reasoning behind it, but assuming that was forthcoming and 99% convincing, I might well do so, yes.
 

Galateasdream

Active Member
You can believe whatever you wish....that is why we have free will.....but all our choices have consequences....Abraham's...yours...and mine. We know how Abraham's ended up.....yours and mine are a wait and see.
Christianity is not multiple choice......not the one Jesus taught anyway....

I don't think belief is obedient to our wills like that. Can I just choose to believe that 2+2=5? I don't think I can. Can you?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I don't think belief is obedient to our wills like that. Can I just choose to believe that 2+2=5? I don't think I can. Can you?

According to John 6:44 and 65....God is the one who chooses to reveal his truth to those in whom he sees a sincere and honest heart. Jesus said that the "good news of the Kingdom would be preached in all the inhabited earth as a witness to all the nations" before God brings an "end" to the whole show. (Matthew 24:24)

This is the only "witness" that people living in this "time of the end" will receive. Their response to this message will determine whether they are "sheep or goats" (Matthew 25:31-33).....since these are the only two kinds of people that God sees in the world right now.....all of us are either one or the other....on the road to life...or on the road to death. (Matthew 7:13-14) There is nothing in between.

There are many who identify as "Christians" but they do not live up to Jesus' teachings, but instead make excuses for why they don't....Jesus is not fooled. (Matthew 7:21-23)
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
A benevolent and just / moral god would not ask such a thing and be pleased if the subject obbeyed.
/QUOTE]

God did more than just ask Abraham to offer his son (a sacrifice which God did not accept BTW)
He also exiled, enslaved and killed millions of Jews.
We know this happened and we know the bible said it would happen - what then is your definition
of benevolence and justice?.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
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?

Wars happen, racism happens - but nothing like the history of the Jewish
people. The whole account of the Jews and their God is tied up in LAND.
And this land leads to history - Abraham's promise, the Promised Land,
Captivity to Babylon, the Ten Tribes exiled, the war with Rome, banishment
from Israel and slavery, and return again in out own day.

Why do people judge the story of God asking Abraham to offer his son
somehow impossible when we have this sad story of the entire Jewish
race?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member

Yes, the Jews borrowed when they shouldn't have.
I am not sure what the definition of Canaanite is - what racial group are they?
To Abraham and Sarah, the Canaanite were unwelcome strangers in their
lives. They did not want their sons marrying into them, but rather, to go back
to Haran in Turkey where there were Semites (migrants from Sumer) living.
 
Top