Abraham should have said, 'No.'

[Shad]

He knew God, and he believed. Why is that immoral? His faith was based upon his knowledge of God.

Deitrich Bonhoffer knew if he returned to Germany he would be killed by the nazi's, yet because he knew God, and trusted Him, he returned prepared to die if need be.

Did he immorally commit suicide?

Except you forgot Abraham went through the motions until he was stopped.

 

[halbhh]

None of that would change that the being known face to face is a deity claimant.

Nor does it change that Abraham should have said, 'No.'

The full reasoning for this is contained within my previous posts on this thread

Sorry, but ya gotta do more homework on this one, and it's really an interesting story. It involves more than just 1 chapter tho.

Starts in chapter 12!

There is some really interesting context we could bring in also, but that can wait, cause first you need the full story, in order to get why the context is meaningful.

 

[Galateasdream]

Sorry, but ya gotta do more homework on this one, and it's really an interesting story. It involves more than just 1 chapter tho.

Starts in chapter 12!

No. You misunderstand.
Have you read through the thread?

 

[halbhh]

No. You misunderstand.
Have you read through the thread?

Why should I read through the thread? I can definitely read a post or 10 you ask me to tho.
Are you already aware that throughout much of the world people are sacrificing children in ancient history, around this time?

 

[Galateasdream]

Are you already aware that throughout much of the world people are sacrificing children in ancient history, around this time?

Yes. And it's been raised and discussed on this thread multiple times already.

You didn't read the thread, did you?

 

[halbhh]

Yes. And it's been raised and discussed on this thread multiple times already.

You didn't read the thread, did you?

Of course not. Neither would I review algebra, having already learned it quite well. But, if there is a post you want me to read in particular, I'm happy to read it.

Just tell me which post(s), but not hundreds please. I don't need another review for what I already reviewed.

 

[Galateasdream]

Of course not. Neither would I review algebra, having already learned it quite well. But, if there is a post you want me to read in particular, I'm happy to read it.

Lol.

 

[74x12]

If we become omniscient then we can know. If we don't become omniscient we can never know. Only an omniscient being can know if another being truly knows everything.

In heaven you'll have access to all knowledge. Whatever question you have can be instantly answered. So you won't know everything as God knows it; which is that He knows all; at all times and thinks of all things at all times with His infinite mind. But you will have access to that knowledge whenever you want it.

 

[halbhh]

Yes. And it's been raised and discussed on this thread multiple times already.

You didn't read the thread, did you?

Regarding the widespread practice God was going to change -- end -- that is only 1 thing, and not even the most interesting of all.

 

[halbhh]

Lol.

I can't mind read you. And won't read a dozen pages just to hope I find something. But you can certainly tell me any post you want me to see.

So, you already know there wasn't even one moment, ever, that there was any chance the child Isaac would die?

You got that part already also, yes?

 

[Galateasdream]

In heaven you'll have access to all knowledge. Whatever question you have can be instantly answered. So you won't know everything as God knows it; which is that He knows all; at all times and thinks of all things at all times with His infinite mind. But you will have access to that knowledge whenever you want it.

Then you won't know if God knows everything or just knows the answer to every question you ask. You won't know how more there is to be asked, and you therefore won't know if God knows everything. You will merely have ever increasing sufficient warrant for belief, but not 100% knowledge.

 

[Galateasdream]

I can't mind read you. And won't read a dozen pages just to hope I find something. But you can certainly tell me any post you want me to see.

So, you already know there wasn't even one moment, ever, that there was any chance the child Isaac would die?

You got that part already also, yes?

All discussed before many times, yes.

 

[halbhh]

All discussed before many times, yes.

Ok, so, the last one, which I consider the truly interesting part is probably what people could come to first, but it's deeper than a non believer can really get, about the not merely foreshadowing of Christ, and conquering death, conquering the body (the fears of the flesh).....but more... But perhaps that's really just reserved for believers, that part, and not really for a discussion, I guess. I'm glad you are asking these questions tho!

 

[74x12]

Then you won't know if God knows everything or just knows the answer to every question you ask. You won't know how more there is to be asked, and you therefore won't know if God knows everything. You will merely have ever increasing sufficient warrant for belief, but not 100% knowledge.

Alright, so if God can sufficiently answer all questions. Would that include the question "Does God have omniscience?"

Therefore, I suppose that if God can sufficiently answer all questions; then He can answer and convince you 100% of that one also.

 

[Galateasdream]

Ok, so, the last one, which I consider the truly interesting part is probably what people could come to first, but it's deeper than a non believer can really get, about the not merely foreshadowing of Christ, and conquering death, conquering the body (the fears of the flesh).....but more... But perhaps that's really just reserved for believers, that part, and not really for a discussion, I guess. I'm glad you are asking these questions tho!

Foreshadowing was raised also.

Sorry if I come across as grumpy, it's just half the past dozen pages have been people jumping in at the end without reading the prior posts, then bringing up something that has already been discussed and me having to repeat myself - multiple times over.

After a while I started telling newcomers to read the thread to get the answer to their point .. And they didn't

And the you condescendingly tell me I have to do more homework, obvious,y assuming that not only do I not know the narrative but that the points you raise haven't all been discussed ad nauseum in the preceding posts.

And worse, all that narrative contextual info isn't really relevant at all when you understand the philosophical point I'm making ... Made within the first couple of pages of the thread then endlessly repeated, lol.

No worries. I think I'm just expecting too much from people.

 

[Galateasdream]

Alright, so if God can sufficiently answer all questions. Would that include the question "Does God have omniscience?"

Therefore, I suppose that if God can sufficiently answer all questions; then He can answer and convince you 100% of that one also.

No, because how could you know He wasn't mistaken (He thought He knew everything but didn't) unless you yourself know that you know everything.

Are you understanding the problem? This is why only an omniscient being can know that another being is actually omniscient. I hope it makes sense a little better now.

 

[halbhh]

Foreshadowing was raised also.

Sorry if I come across as grumpy, it's just half the past dozen pages have been people jumping in at the end without reading the prior posts, then bringing up something that has already been discussed and me having to repeat myself - multiple times over.

After a while I started telling newcomers to read the thread to get the answer to their point .. And they didn't

And the you condescendingly tell me I have to do more homework, obvious,y assuming that not only do I not know the narrative but that the points you raise haven't all been discussed ad nauseum in the preceding posts.

And worse, all that narrative contextual info isn't really relevant at all when you understand the philosophical point I'm making ... Made within the first couple of pages of the thread then endlessly repeated, lol.

No worries. I think I'm just expecting too much from people.

Ok, but...while I'm a good reader, I'm not (or not anymore willing) to be a fast reader, and I'm not under 35 and willing, but more like....just a slower reader now, because I noticed I gained entirely new things when I slowed down, so I made that my new habit and got really picky therefore. I really am happy to read select posts if you will point to a section, or even page, but 200 posts is really pretty long, yes.
Is there a truly interesting philosophical question that is open, tho? Not merely already settled to you, but truly open?

 

[74x12]

No, because how could you know He wasn't mistaken (He thought He knew everything but didn't) unless you yourself know that you know everything.

Are you understanding the problem? This is why only an omniscient being can know that another being is actually omniscient. I hope it makes sense a little better now.

I admit it's a mind boggling concept. Something really hard to conceive of right now ... that you will have access to all knowledge. And you will know basically anything. Including the omniscience of God. Currently unfathomable knowledge.

 

[Galateasdream]

Ok, but...while I'm a good reader, I'm not (or not anymore willing) to be a fast reader, and I'm not under 35 and willing, but more like....just a slower reader now, because I noticed I gained entirely new things when I slowed down, so I made that my new habit and got really picky therefore. I really am happy to read select posts if you will point to a section, or even page, but 200 posts is really pretty long, yes.
Is there a truly interesting philosophical question that is open, tho? Not merely already settled to you, but truly open?

No, it's settled as far as I'm concerned. I offered the challenge to see if I was wrong .. And no defeator. As yet, any way.

Interesting possible options involving moral relativism, but if we go in assuming a broad agreement on moral realism and that child sacrifice is morally wrong, I can't see how my opening statement is false.

In short, the whole thing boils down to:
It's always more likely that the being telling you to do an obviously immoral act without justification is either: a) not God, or b) testing your response and desiring you refuse or ask for justification, than it is that an omnibenevolent God would command you to do an obviously immoral act without providing a justifying reason.

Thus Abraham should have said, 'No', as should we all if any deity claimant, no matter how well we know them or trust them, commands us to do something obviously grossly immoral, since, again, it is always more likely we are deceived in some way about this being than about the ethicality of ritually murdering our own children.

 

[Galateasdream]

I admit it's a mind boggling concept. Something really hard to conceive of right now ... that you will have access to all knowledge. And you will know basically anything. Including the omniscience of God. Currently unfathomable knowledge.

It doesn't matter if it is difficult to envisage, it is logically impossible for a non-omniscient being to know if another being knows everything or not.

It's like the old: can God make a stone so heavy even He can't pick it up?

It's not about being able to imagine such a thing or not, or conceive of what omnipotence is like, it's about logical possibilities.

In the same way we can deduce that omnipotence really means do everything that can logically be done, but not do everything (including the illogical), we can deduce that it is impossible for a limited being to know whether God is truly omniscient or not. It can only be taken on trust.

Which is why ... Going full circle ... Abraham should have said No, because Trust, no matter how warranted, can never overturn the direct knowledge of moral reality that the ritual sacrifice of children is wrong.

We can always have greater warrant in trusting that level of moral instinct (assuming moral realism), than have warrant in trusting that a being asking us to do an outrage, without justification, isn't a devil or testing us (to say no).