Sorry, no. It actually means you don't understand philosophical discourse and how to argue a counter-case against what I've said.
Let me rephrase your bullet points into an argument:
Abraham shouldn't have said No, and was therefore right to obey the being he thought was God, because a) Abraham believed the being had previously promised him his descendants would be a great nation, and b) God was able to raise the child to be sacrificed, Isaac from the dead.
Now, you'll hopefully note that both of these supposed counter-arguments have been dealt with before.
Abraham should have said no because without giving justifying reasons Abe 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
This deals with your counter-arguments a and b by noting that simply because someone is convinced that X will happen because a being says so, and just because they have good warrant for trusting that being based upon prior interaction, doesn't equate to them having knowledge that X will happen, and thus they will always have greater reason to believe they are being misled when commanded to do a moral atrocity without justification.
It doesn't matter if it was Abraham or anybody else; it doesn't matter what kind of prior relationship had been developed with the deity-claimant; it doesn't matter who the deity-claimant was; it doesn't matter what the surrounding historical and cultural context was; and so long as the command was to do something obviously grossly immoral (on a par or worse than ritual child murder) it doesn't matter what the specific command was.
The only key points that have to remain the same are: we are assuming from the start that some things are truly wrong; that the deity claimant commands an obviously grossly immoral act that we would all agree is normally wrong on the face of it; and that the deity claimant offers no justifying reason for the command.
I hope this clears up for you why your counter-arguments don't work, or even address the issue.
No sorry I am not here for philosophical discourse and I do not need you to tell me what I should say and what I should not say and no you have not correctly rephrased my points into an argument.
Your post here simply gives an inaccurate assessment to what I have been sharing with you. Your simply building a strawman counter argument that no one is talking about. If I understand you correctly, your argument is...
Faulty assumtions in your argument
1. Abraham should have said no; because without giving justifying reasons he should know that what he is doing is wrong and it is even an abomination based on moral grounds.
You go on to say that this deals with my counter-arguments noting that simply because someone is convinced that God is in control doesn't equate to them agreeing to being commanded to do a moral atrocity without justification. The rest of your post tries to argue that it does not matter what kind of relationship Abraham had with God and in relation to historical context as the command was to do something immoral therefore it doesn't matter what the specific command was.
It doesn't matter if it was Abraham or anybody else; it doesn't matter what kind of prior relationship had been developed with the deity-claimant; it doesn't matter who the deity-claimant was; it doesn't matter what the surrounding historical and cultural context was; and so long as the command was to do something obviously grossly immoral (on a par or worse than ritual child murder) it doesn't matter what the specific command was.
Fair enough that is your OP and is how I understand what you are trying to argue. Now this would be a good argument if the scriptures did not provide any more information in regards to this topic but the problem for you is that the scripturs do provide more information and also more background scriptural information in Genesis and in Hebrews which you are ignoring and have not considered in your argument.
These sciptures give the reasons why Abraham did not say NO to God and it is these very reasons that are provided in the scriptures that pull out the assumptions you have wrongly made about Abraham.
Your assumptions that you try to build your argument are simply false assumptions and as is evidenced in the scriptures you are ignoring from the key scriptures in HEBREWS 11:17-19 which reference
Abrahams reasons for doing what he did (correct assumptions). You have not factored these reasons from the scriptures into your argument which shows your assumption in relation to Abrahams reasoning are false and if your assumtions are false than so is the rest of your argument as to what Abraham should or should not have done.
Let's try one last time I will simply highlight the points made by scripture to counter and answer your argument as it is the scriptures alone here that prove you OP is in error because they provide the correct assumptions to motive and why Abraham did what he did. Not your claims to what he should have done which is simply based on your opinion (not scripture).
Correct assumptions from the scriptures
1. God promises to Abraham that He will establish his covenant through his son Isaac to make him and his seed a great nation. *
GENESIS 17:19
2. God tempts Abraham and asks him to sacrifice his Son *
GENESIS 22:1-2
3. The
reason why Abraham did not say no and followed what God says is given in
HEBREWS 11:17-
19;
HEBREWS 11:17-19 [17],
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises (God's covenant to Abraham through Isaac) offered up his only begotten son, [18], Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall your seed be called (ref GENESIS 22:1-2): [19], ACCOUNTING THAT GOD WAS ABLE TO RAISE HIM UP FROM THE DEAD; from where also he received him in a figure.
These are the scriptures above that give the reason why Abraham did not say No to God when God asked him to sacrifice his Son.
The reasons being we are told from the scriptures is that...
1. Abraham believed God when God told him that he will make his covenant with Isaac and make him a great nation *HEBREWS 11:18; GENESIS 17:19 and...
2. Abraham believed if God was going to make his covenant with Isaac that if he wanted him to sacrifice his son,
God would be able to raise him from the dead.
3. Abrahams experience was a demonstration of complete faith and trust in God that he would fulfill his promises in making Isaac a great nation no matter what *HEBREWS 11:17-19
4. The story was also a
symbolic parable and lesson to teach God's people a number of things...
1. God does not condone child sacrifices; God provided a his own sacrifice.
2. The story was to teach us that this story represents God's love for mankind by sending JESUS to be the sacrifice for our sins
This is the reason why Abraham did not say no
according to the scriptures above.
There is no vagueness in any of these scripture unless your simply choosing to make it so by closing your eyes to them. The above is the scriptures giving the reasons alone for Abrahams and God's actions. It is not based on anyone's opinion it is simply scripture which answers your OP questions.
Your OP is built on faulty assumtions which are simply your own and not backed by scripture. On the other hand the scripture provided to you are the reason for Abrahams actions. The difference between your argument and mine is that your assumtions in order to build your argument is based on your opinion on what you think Abraham should have done. Where as my argument is built on the assumptions that are built from the scriptures that show why Abraham believed and followed God's Word.
Your simply building your house on sifting sand (your opinion) when you should be building on the rock (the Word of God). The storm has come and your house has fallen over and great was the fall there of.
Will leave it to you for now
