Abraham should have said, 'No.'

PruePhillip said:

By the standards of his day, Abraham thought he was doing the right thing in offering up his son.
But God was showing that the standards of Abraham's day is not the standard of God's kingdom.
And the point wasn't made with yet-another-rule but by a deep, multi-layered and nuanced
illustration that everyone remembers.

Same with the sword. Jesus had gone to great pain to show that the kingdom of heaven is not
about swords - it's about turning the other cheek, taking the wrong, loving your enemy etc..
So the disciples were asked to do something wrong in Jesus' eye. And they went and did it.
But having done it and used that sword Jesus admonished them with not-another-rule but a
living illustration that we can all remember, the healing of the man who lost his ear - plus that
famous quote about "living by the sword" that has 17,000,000 references on Google.

Click to expand...

Right.
This has all been discussed multiple times.
It is irrelevent to my case, and can be assumed without difficulty.

However, I note that you are now basically agreeing with me by saying that God's standards (ritual child killing is wrong) were not Abrahams standard. In other words, Abraham 'should' have agreed with God' standards, and therefore 'should' have said no.

Galateasdream said:

Right.
This has all been discussed multiple times.
It is irrelevent to my case, and can be assumed without difficulty.

However, I note that you are now basically agreeing with me by saying that God's standards (ritual child killing is wrong) were not Abrahams standard. In other words, Abraham 'should' have agreed with God' standards, and therefore 'should' have said no.

Click to expand...

From the text we have it's clear that God didn't say "It's wrong to sacrifice your child"
In fact, coming from a pagan background and there being no bible back then, he had
to learn direct from God. And this is how God taught him. Plus every other generation.
But God didn't want to merely teach Abraham this lesson - there was a multiplicity of
learning experiences in that trip to Mount Moriah.
Isaiah 55, "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways."

PruePhillip said:

From the text we have it's clear that God didn't say "It's wrong to sacrifice your child"
In fact, coming from a pagan background and there being no bible back then, he had
to learn direct from God. And this is how God taught him. Plus every other generation.
But God didn't want to merely teach Abraham this lesson - there was a multiplicity of
learning experiences in that trip to Mount Moriah.
Isaiah 55, "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways."

Click to expand...

Again, you post lots of irrelevant stuff.
But more interestingly you now seem to be implying that God doesn't think child sacrifice is wrong.

That aside, perhaps a better way for you to understand your inconsistency here is to imagine that Abraham did in fact say, 'No. Child sacrifice is wrong.' to God. Would God have been displeased that Abraham already knew that child sacrifice was wrong? Would God have corrected him and told him that child sacrifice was now ok?

Galateasdream said:

Again, you post lots of irrelevant stuff.
But more interestingly you now seem to be implying that God doesn't think child sacrifice is wrong.

That aside, perhaps a better way for you to understand your inconsistency here is to imagine that Abraham did in fact say, 'No. Child sacrifice is wrong.' to God. Would God have been displeased that Abraham already knew that child sacrifice was wrong? Would God have corrected him and told him that child sacrifice was now ok?

Click to expand...

Why did Abraham think child sacrifice was wrong?
It was carried out long before he was born.
He knew only the very devout could accomplish it.
There was no Hebrew bible stating otherwise.
Abraham came from a pagan background in Sumer and modern day Turkey.
Abraham was a righteous man who could be taught.

Fact - in Abraham's day child sacrifice was considered right.
So Abraham was never going to say "No, child sacrifice is wrong."

How was Abraham to know it was wrong?
God would not have been displeased that Abraham "knew" the practice was wrong.
Perhaps Abraham felt personally it was "wrong" but he respected what was considered to be "right."
God would never have "corrected" him that such sacrifice was now right.

as an aside - God's sacrifice was the ram in the thicket.
Animal sacrifice became the Hebrew practice.
Is that "wrong" today? Sure is.
One day the idea of a "beast of burden" will be considered 'wrong' and you won't be allowed to
ride a horse, maybe. But good people will respect the standards of their day, unless told otherwise
by God.

PruePhillip said:

Why did Abraham think child sacrifice was wrong?

Click to expand...

He obviously didn't. Or was so scared of God that he went against his own conscience like a coward.

PruePhillip said:

How was Abraham to know it was wrong?

Click to expand...

That is irrelevant. The fact is that it was wrong, regardless of his knowledge. I trust you're not saying that child sacrifice is acceptable to the ignorant?

Note that by saying that God would not be displeased if Abraham had said, 'No', you are now basically agreeing with my proposition: Abraham should have said, 'No.' Thank you.

Edit:
I just noticed you saying that good people should accept the standards of their day. That's pretty close to moral relativism. Are you a moral relativist? Is an act wrong or not depending upon what people in that culture believe?

shmogie said:

At the time and place, child sacrifice was not established as morally wrong. It was the practice of many cultures in the area. It was considered moral. God had not yet encoded the law that was given at Sinai.

You probably are not familiar with some facts that give a better perspective on the issue.

Abraham told his retainers that he AND HIS SON, would return. So, he knew that whatever happened, his son would be preserved.

"Blind faith" does not apply to Abraham. His faith wasn't "blind". He knew God, had interacted with Him a number of times. He had seen miracles performed by God.

His faith was based on knowledge and facts. He knew God's character and Gods love for he and his son.

When asked by his son " where is the lamb for the sacrifice", Abraham declared, "God will provide a lamb". Abraham didn't say I will provide a lamb. Therefore once again he is totally confident that God will ensure that his son will be preserved.

Abraham had total free will, he could simply have said " no" to God, as the OP stated was his only moral choice.

That conclusion is deeply flawed.

It is based upon some erroneous assumptions.

1) 21st century morals applied to people in the middle east 4,000 years ago.

2) Abraham had no real knowledge of God, had no idea of Gods character, and Gods request of him to sacrifice his son was responded to with "blind faith".

No, he obeyed, yet knew, not believed, but knew in the end he and his son would come down the hill together.

Knowing God, he could come to no other conclusion.

Click to expand...

If he went through a charade without intending to actually kill his son, then Abraham wasn't obeying God's command to kill his son.

Galateasdream said:

He obviously didn't. Or was so scared of God that he went against his own conscience like a coward.



That is irrelevant. The fact is that it was wrong, regardless of his knowledge. I trust you're not saying that child sacrifice is acceptable to the ignorant?

Note that by saying that God would not be displeased if Abraham had said, 'No', you are now basically agreeing with my proposition: Abraham should have said, 'No.' Thank you.

Edit:
I just noticed you saying that good people should accept the standards of their day. That's pretty close to moral relativism. Are you a moral relativist? Is an act wrong or not depending upon what people in that culture believe?

Click to expand...

"wrong... scared... coward..."
None of those describe Abraham. He was a brave and righteous man if you read
the story of his life. Read how he took his men and attacked a whole contingent
of Amalekites to save his nephew Lot, or how he bowed down to the ground in
reverence of the people who thought he was a prince.
Something can't be 'wrong' regardless of your knowledge. Your sense of right and
wrong comes via your culture, Thus we judge a culture for sacrificing innocent
animals and don't stop to think that society might judge us for our sexualized, drug
addled and broken society.

Galateasdream said:

You are now simply repeating posts.

Click to expand...

Indeed because they show why from the scriptures your OP is in error. Your response was simply not respond and ignore the scriptures that disagree with your claims here. Ignoring God's Word does not make them disappear.

Galateasdream said:

I said we could agree to disagree - you're not satisfied. I politely asked you to stop derailing threads by focussing on me rather than on the issue - you continued across mutliple threads.

Click to expand...

Sure we can. However you were the one making claims that what I have posted here is a misrepresentation of the scriptures without proving your claims or addressing my posts and scriptures provided to you that show why you are in error and your claims in this thread are not true.

Galateasdream said:

I pointed out you are just repeating whole posts - you continue to post the same posts again and again.

Click to expand...

Adressed above your just repeating yourself here. My posts to you were reposted as you are yet to address the content of them that show why you are in error. You also made claims that these posts are a misrepresentation of the scriptures. I challenged you to prove your claims but you continue to decline despite making claims I have misrepresented the scriptures.

Galateasdream said:

I said that I would deal with the off-topic issues on another thread - you didn't start another thread.

Click to expand...

I have not made off topic posts. Post # 362 linked deals directly with the OP and provides scripture support showing why your OP is in error and based on a faulty premise. Your response was to simply ignore it. While the scriptures provided in post # 522 linked show that salvation is through faith in the scriptures (believing and following God's Word) and that by our fruit (what we do) determines if we are following or not following God and simply asks the question what is your fruit?

Galateasdream said:

I said I had a interview me style thread available inthe relevant section - you did not post there, but continued here.

Click to expand...

I posted earlier if you wanted me to PM you but you declined in another thread and asked that everything be made public. You did not point me to an interview you thread.

Galateasdream said:

I humorously started copying your style and phrasing back to you to help you see how ridiculous you sound - it went over your head.

Click to expand...

I have only posted you the truth from the scriptures. You deny them because you do not believe Gods Word. The scriptures are not rediculous it is God's Word and these very words we talk about now will be our judge come judgement day. Ignoring God's Word does not make it disappear.

Galateasdream said:

I offered you a deal, make a thread defending inerrency and I would in return spend my time dealing with you scripture list - you ignored my offer.

Click to expand...

No need you made the claims here that I was misrepresenting scripture. I am happy for you to prove your claims here. If not why pretend that I have misrepresented the scriptures when you know I have not and you cannot defend your claims that you have made in this thread.

Galateasdream said:

You continue to spam my threads with uncivil, de-railing and repetitive posts.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. I tell you the truth you simply do not like it. Neither do you like to be challenged in what you believe. The is only repetitive posts because they have not been addressed. Goodness if you do not want to address the scriptures in these posts or cannot just be honest and say so.

Galateasdream said:

You are behaving very badly and portraying yourself and your theology and your god in a very bad light.

Click to expand...

Depends if you believe and follow the scriptures or not. According to the scriptures I am only being honest with you and telling you the truth. Seems you do not want to hear it.

Galateasdream said:

I trust you will not post yet more repetitive badgering here, but will start the relevant threads.

Click to expand...

I do not need to. Your fruits are showing. Your simply denying God's Word and seeking to lead others to do the same. I will not bother you now as I know you have some things to think about. I can see your not willing to discuss the scriptures with me. So I will simply leave them with you to ponder. Thanks for the discussion.

Galateasdream said:

A rubbish book.



Not really.



I agree. I'm not a big fan of red letter bibles.

Click to expand...

They are misleading.. So often there was no one around to record what Jesus said.

PruePhillip said:

Something can't be 'wrong' regardless of your knowledge. Your sense of right and
wrong comes via your culture

Click to expand...

Ah, right, so you're a moral relativist, in which case this argument is not for you, since it presumes from the outset both moral realism and that you think child sacrifice is wrong.

If you think that it is culture that determines the morality of an act then sure, anything becomes permissible. If Hitler had won and the world was majority Nazi, the holocaust would have been seen as a good and under your moral relativism the guards following orders would have done the right thing.

If you genuinely think that child sacrifice can be morally acceptable I have no argument and simply shrug.

Galateasdream said:

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

Change my mind.

Click to expand...

The correct response is to check myself into a psych ward immediately

PruePhillip said:

"wrong... scared... coward..."
None of those describe Abraham. He was a brave and righteous man if you read
the story of his life. Read how he took his men and attacked a whole contingent
of Amalekites to save his nephew Lot, or how he bowed down to the ground in
reverence of the people who thought he was a prince.
Something can't be 'wrong' regardless of your knowledge. Your sense of right and
wrong comes via your culture, Thus we judge a culture for sacrificing innocent
animals and don't stop to think that society might judge us for our sexualized, drug
addled and broken society.

Click to expand...

Ai (Canaan) - Wikipedia

excerpt:

Up through the 1920s a "positivist" reading of the archeology to date was prevalent — a belief that archeology would prove, and was proving, the historicity of the Exodus and Conquest narratives that dated the Exodus in 1440 BC and Joshua's conquest of Canaan around 1400 BC.[3]:117 And accordingly, on the basis of excavations in the 1920s the American scholar William Foxwell Albright believed that Et-Tell was Ai.[3]:86

However, excavations at Et-Tell in the 1930s found that there was a fortified city there during the Early Bronze Age, between 3100 and 2400 BCE, after which it was destroyed and abandoned;[5] the excavations found no evidence of settlement in the Middle or Late Bronze Ages.[3]:117 These findings, along with excavations at Bethel, posed problems for the dating that Albright and others had proposed, and some scholars including Martin Noth began proposing that the Conquest had never happened but instead was an etiological myth; the name meant "the ruin" and the Conquest story simply explained the already-ancient destruction of the Early Bronze city.[3]:117[6][7] Archeologists also found that the later Iron Age I village appeared with no evidence of initial conquest, and the Iron I settlers seem to have peacefully built their village on the forsaken mound, without meeting resistance.[8]:331–32

There are five main hypotheses about how to explain the biblical story surrounding Ai in light of archaeological evidence. The first is that the story was created later on; Israelites related it to Joshua because of the fame of his great conquest. The second is that there were people of Bethel inhabiting Ai during the time of the biblical story and they were the ones who were invaded. In a third, Albright combined these two theories to present a hypothesis that the story of the Conquest of Bethel, which was only a mile and a half away from Ai, was later transferred to Ai in order to explain the city and why it was in ruins. Support for this can be found in the Bible, the assumption being that the Bible does not mention the actual capture of Bethel, but might speak of it in memory in Judges 1:22–26.[9]:80-82 Fourth, Callaway has proposed that the city somehow angered the Egyptians (perhaps by rebelling, and attempting to gain independence), and so they destroyed it as punishment.[10] The fifth is that Joshua's Ai is not to be found at et-Tell, but a different location entirely.

Most archaeologists support the identification of Ai with et-Tell. Koert van Bekkum writes that "Et-Tell, identified by most scholars with the city of Ai, was not settled between the Early Bronze and Iron Age

3rdAngel said:

So I will simply leave them with you to ponder. Thanks for the discussion.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised you're not willing to defend the inerrency of scripture, and that you don't actually wish to discuss the passages you keep asking me to discuss (because for some reason you're not willing to do it as a separate public thread?).

But no matter.

Bye

Galateasdream said:

But can I pin you down now by asking for a direct yes or no response?

In the biblical account of Abraham, Abraham behaved immorally. He should have said, 'No' to God's request. Yes or no?

Click to expand...

When I wrote to you that you might be able to see how you're (accidentally) using 2 conflicting things, here they are precisely: that Abraham was only asked to merely murder vs the text version where instead Abraham believes that they will both come down the hill alive, and isn't at all expecting to murder, not at all. It's one or other other of course. Not both, when the 2 clearly contradict each other. So, I simply think Abraham was telling the truth, when he spoke the words in chapter 22 -- being honest. See? I expect he never though Isaac was going to come out of it dead.

If you change that and merely ask only: is murder wrong. Then of course the answer is so simple: always. Always wrong, always "No" to it. But that's a different scenario than the one actually written in words in the text.

-------
This might help -- When Abraham journeyed with Isaac to the hill, he expected God would intervene. When they stopped at the hill to dismount and leave the servant, he still expected God would intervene. When he and Isaac were going up the hill and Isaac asks the question, he still believes God will intervene, and says how he guesses God will intervene. When he arranges the wood, he believes God will intervene. When he binds Issac according to the requirements of the ritual he believes God will intervene.

Based on experience.

When he ceremoniously raises the dagger my guess is he believes God will intervene.

God intervenes, as we see in the story, at this moment.

Personally, I think the test is how far along Abraham can go with still believing.... --> that is the test of faith: how far, how long, faith still continuing.

God intervenes at an appropriate time, when the faith is still there, before it falters in a big way.

Probably he could not have actually plunged the dagger (the body might rebel and the muscles actually fail to act), but that is pure speculation. He didn't even have to really get to that moment of crisis, which may have been just too much.

While in retrospect we can believe that the dagger would be turned, or disappear or such, from faith, it's another thing to be there in the moment, not yet knowing how or when God would intervene!

halbhh said:

When I wrote to you that you might be able to see how you're (accidentally) using 2 conflicting things, here they are precisely: that Abraham was only asked to merely murder vs the text version where instead Abraham believes that they will both come down the hill alive, and isn't at all expecting to murder, not at all. It's one or other other of course. Not both, when the 2 clearly contradict each other. So, I simply think Abraham was telling the truth, when he spoke the words in chapter 22 -- being honest. See? I expect he never though Isaac was going to come out of it dead.

If you change that and merely ask only: is murder wrong. Then of course the answer is so simple: always. Always wrong, always "No" to it. But that's a different scenario than the one actually written in words in the text.

-------
This might help -- When Abraham journeyed with Isaac to the hill, he expected God would intervene. When they stopped at the hill to dismount and leave the servant, he still expected God would intervene. When he and Isaac were going up the hill and Isaac asks the question, he still believes God will intervene, and says how he guesses God will intervene. When he arranges the wood, he believes God will intervene. When he binds Issac according to the requirements of the ritual he believes God will intervene.

Based on experience.

When he ceremoniously raises the dagger my guess is he believes God will intervene.

God intervenes, as we see in the story, at this moment.

Personally, I think the test is how far along Abraham can go with still believing.... --> that is the test of faith: how far, how long, faith still continuing.

God intervenes at an appropriate time, when the faith is still there, before it falters in a big way.

Probably he could not have actually plunged the dagger (the body might rebel and the muscles actually fail to act), but that is pure speculation. He didn't even have to really get to that moment of crisis, which may have been just too much.

While in retrospect we can believe that the dagger would be turned, or disappear or such, from faith, it's another thing to be there in the moment, not yet knowing how or when God would intervene!

Click to expand...

That not a yes or no answer.
Shall I assume you answer: No. Abraham did right.

Last try.

shmogie said:

At the time and place, child sacrifice was not established as morally wrong.

It was the practice of many cultures in the area. It was considered moral. God had not yet encoded the law that was given at Sinai.

Click to expand...

Typical theists. God never told me X was immoral. I couldn't figure it out for myself. You just agreed that Abraham wasn't a moral person just a person that followed orders. You have conceded the point.

Abraham told his retainers that he AND HIS SON, would return. So, he knew that whatever happened, his son would be preserved.

Click to expand...

Except he still was going to do the sacrifice until he was stopped. You are assuming knowledge too. Try again.

"Blind faith" does not apply to Abraham. His faith wasn't "blind". He knew God, had interacted with Him a number of times. He had seen miracles performed by God.

Click to expand...

Wrong as he was only stopped at the last second. Read your scripture and try again.

His faith was based on knowledge and facts. He knew God's character and Gods love for he and his son.

Click to expand...

Assertion.

When asked by his son " where is the lamb for the sacrifice", Abraham declared, "God will provide a lamb". Abraham didn't say I will provide a lamb. Therefore once again he is totally confident that God will ensure that his son will be preserved.

Click to expand...

Yet, again, he was stopped from at the last minute.

Abraham had total free will, he could simply have said " no" to God, as the OP stated was his only moral choice.

Click to expand...

Which he failed to do ergo was not moral only following orders.

That conclusion is deeply flawed.

Click to expand...

Wrong/

It is based upon some erroneous assumptions.

1) 21st century morals applied to people in the middle east 4,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

Wrong. It is using so-called Christian and Judaism morality. All you have done is shown said code is merely made up as it goes along and you hit on the problem of divine command theory.

2) Abraham had no real knowledge of God, had no idea of Gods character, and Gods request of him to sacrifice his son was responded to with "blind faith".

Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself

"He knew God, had interacted with Him a number of times. He had seen miracles performed by God"

Attempting to kill your son only being stopped by another entity at the last second shows blind faith.

No, he obeyed, yet knew, not believed, but knew in the end he and his son would come down the hill together.

Click to expand...

Wrong as per Gen 22:12. Try again. Read your scripture....

Knowing God, he could come to no other conclusion.

Click to expand...

Assertion and refuted above.

Galateasdream said:

That not a yes or no answer.
Shall I assume you answer: No. Abraham did right.

Last try.

Click to expand...

I have answered that question (and some more) clearly and directly, fully. But I don't need you to agree or see things just as I do. In the long run, we all gain more over time, and each person will that continues.

halbhh said:

I have answered very clearly and directly, but I don't need you to agree. In the long run, we all gain more over time, and each person will that continues.

Click to expand...

But you didn't answer either 'yes' or 'no' as requested, rather you gave a long discourse apparently justifying an implied 'no.'

Which, after all the posts made on this thread, does come across as somewhat odd. Why the reticence to just let your yes be yes, and speak plainly? It come across as politician talk.

We clearly don't agree, I just want you to answer directly with a clear, single, one word, answer - an answer with conviction and backbone, not one of equivocation or side-mouthing.

Let me try for a fourth or fifth time. Just answer yes or no, you can justify your response afterwards.

Should Abraham have said, 'No'?

Galateasdream said:

But you didn't answer either 'yes' or 'no' as requested, rather you gave a long discourse apparently justifying an implied 'no.'

Which, after all the posts made on this thread, does come across as somewhat odd. Why the reticence to just let your yes be yes, and speak plainly? It come across as politician talk.

We clearly don't agree, I just want you to answer directly with a clear, single, one word, answer - an answer with conviction and backbone, not one of equivocation or side-mouthing.

Let me try for a fourth or fifth time. Just answer yes or no, you can justify your response afterwards.

Should Abraham have said, 'No'?

Click to expand...

Ah, but several times -- "No." It's direct, clear. Murder is always wrong. I said more also, because no matter how much going around, Abraham's situation just isn't the same as the OP scenario, and I've explained why.

I only fear I got too verbose, and it was not read carefully. If so, sorry I couldn't write more briefly.
I know in a lengthy thread when I have 4 or 8 people writing posts to me, after a few days I would tend to skim some of the longer answers.

halbhh said:

Ah, but several times -- "No." It's direct, clear. Murder is always wrong. I said more also, because no matter how much going around, Abraham's situation just isn't the same as the OP scenario, and I've explained why.

I only fear I got too verbose, and it was not read carefully. If so, sorry I couldn't write more briefly.
I know in a lengthy thread when I have 4 or 8 people writing posts to me, after a few days I would tend to skim some of the longer answers.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

You think Abraham was not wrong, and that he shouldn't have said 'No.'

I think Abraham was obviously wrong, and should have said, 'No.'

Clearly we disagree, and I don't think your explanation provide any justification for what seems morally plain to me - Abraham, faced with a being commanding him to ritually murder his child and offering no reason - was gravely morally wrong to acquiesce to that demand.

It is interesting to me the efforts people will go to so as to exonerate Abraham whilst still also trying to hold onto the inconsistent notion that child murder is always wrong, and how they seem to be unaware of the level of dissonance in their viewpoint.

We must simply agree to disagree, I think.