Abraham should have said, 'No.'

[PruePhillip]

The Dead Sea Scrolls were only about 200 BC.

So was there significant difference to the Old Testament we have today?

 

[74x12]

Then as I said before, if He makes us omniscient then we can know God is omniscient. But you said almost omniscient, not actually omniscient, before. Hence the confusion here.

For all intents and purposes yes I do believe omniscient.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God did more than just ask Abraham to offer his son (a sacrifice which God did not accept BTW)

It doesn't matter if this "god" stopped him at the last second or not.
The moral of the story is that this "god" was pleased that abraham was willing to comply with that reprehensible demand.

I don't care one bit if he stopped it or not. What matters is the intent. And in the story, Abraham fully intended to kill his son. If this god character hadn't stopped him, he would have done it.

So this story promotes blind obedience and moral bankrupcy.

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?.

Not killing and enslaving people, would be a good start....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not sure what the definition of Canaanite is - what racial group are they?

You call them "jews" today.

 

[PruePhillip]

You call them "jews" today.

REALLY? I understood that Jews are a tight genetic group of Semites who migrated
to Canaan from Mesopotamia in the Bronze Age. Canaanites include the Hivites, Girga****es,
Jebusites, Amorites, Hittites, and Perizzites. Note - not Hebrews.

PS Seems there's an ethnic group I am not allowed to mention here....

 

[Galateasdream]

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)

So its Gods will that chooses our belief, not us. Fair enough. Then there is nothing I can do.

 

[Galateasdream]

For all intents and purposes yes I do believe omniscient.

See, that's not clear and what led to the issue. Either you have omniscience or not. You can't have to all intents and purposes omniscience. It's like the difference between a huge number and infinity.

If we are granted omniscience then we can know. If not, we cannot. There is no inbetween of knowing or nor knowing. You either know all truth, or you do not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

REALLY? I understood that Jews are a tight genetic group of Semites who migrated
to Canaan from Mesopotamia in the Bronze Age. Canaanites include the Hivites, Girga****es,
Jebusites, Amorites, Hittites, and Perizzites. Note - not Hebrews.

PS Seems there's an ethnic group I am not allowed to mention here....

Archeologically, the further back you go, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish an israelite from a canaanite. Genetics is also consistent with that.

Israelites are canaanites. Not all canaanites are israelites of course.
But hebrews/israelites almost certainly have their ancestry in canaanites.
Even the hebrew religion, Yawhe, can be traced back to the canaanite polythestic pantheon.
Yawhe is derived from one of their gods.

 

[PruePhillip]

Archeologically, the further back you go, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish an israelite from a canaanite. Genetics is also consistent with that.

Israelites are canaanites. Not all canaanites are israelites of course.
But hebrews/israelites almost certainly have their ancestry in canaanites.
Even the hebrew religion, Yawhe, can be traced back to the canaanite polythestic pantheon.
Yawhe is derived from one of their gods.

True, but as always, the devil is in the detail. The dreaded Philistines were Canaanites
too, so were the Cathagians defeated by Rome. The term is a catch-all to denote a
people LIVING IN A SPECIFIC AREA OF CANAAN.
Sure, Hebrews shared Canaanite culture, they also shared Egyptian culture.
South Koreans and Japanese share America culture.
Mexicans and Americans live in the same area.
But if you want to know if someone is a Jew you can do a DNA test. If you are lucky
you might find someone who is from the Levite tribe, going back to Moses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True, but as always, the devil is in the detail. The dreaded Philistines were Canaanites
too, so were the Cathagians defeated by Rome. The term is a catch-all to denote a
people LIVING IN A SPECIFIC AREA OF CANAAN.
Sure, Hebrews shared Canaanite culture, they also shared Egyptian culture.
South Koreans and Japanese share America culture.
Mexicans and Americans live in the same area.
But if you want to know if someone is a Jew you can do a DNA test. If you are lucky
you might find someone who is from the Levite tribe, going back to Moses.

I'm not talking about mere culture. I'm talking about genetics.
Israelite history as described in the hebrew bible is just false and doesn't match the evidence from genetics and archeology.

And Moses is a mythical figure.

 

[PruePhillip]

I'm not talking about mere culture. I'm talking about genetics.
Israelite history as described in the hebrew bible is just false and doesn't match the evidence from genetics and archeology.

And Moses is a mythical figure.

Where is your evidence that Moses is "mythical" ?
What archeology disputes the bible?
What archeology supports the bible?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Indeed.

This matches nicely the interpretation of the story that it is a polemic against child sacrifice. Certainly can be read that way, and assuming historicity it wouldn't suprise me that Abraham saw it that way upon reflection.

Of course, on that reflection he would also now realise what he was ignorant of before, that he should have said, 'No.'

The characters in the story seem to be already aware that child sacrifice is wrong, though.

Abraham tells his servants to stay behind; the story doesn't say whether this is because he doesn't want witnesses to the shameful act or because he thought they'd try to stop him, but either way, the story implies that human sacrifice was already a taboo.

Same goes for the deception Abraham has to employ while they're going to the place for the sacrifice ("oh... why don't we have an animal to sacrifice? Umm... God is going to give us one when we get there").

 

[epronovost]

Where is your evidence that Moses is "mythical" ?
What archeology disputes the bible?
What archeology supports the bible?

It's the consensus amongst modern scholar in history and archeology that Moses is a fictionnal character most likely inspired by a variety of actual historical characters. You need to be a special kind of crank to consider the character of Moses as historical. Even a reductionist hypothesis, like the one that widely support the existence of Jesus in history, is unsupported.

Moses - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where is your evidence that Moses is "mythical" ?
What archeology disputes the bible?

You ask the wrong questions.

The bible narrative isn't true "until proven otherwise".

And I already told you: archeologically and genetically, hebrews are canaanites and Yawhe is derrived from a god from the canaanite pantheon. This means the hebrew bible version of israelite history is wrong. By extension, that makes the Moses story false also.

Jews were never massively enslaved by Egypt and exodus never occured.

What archeology supports the bible?​

The bible is a big book with many stories. I'll go ahead and assume we're just talking about the part that's relevant here: hebrew history and moses.

And the answer is: none.​

 

[Redemptionsong]

What are you trying to tell me?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you have been arguing, I conclude that your morality is based not on faith but on reason.

If Abraham had based his moral decision on human reasoning, rather than faith in God's higher knowledge, he would not have taken his son to Mount Moriah. As I understand your argument, you believe that a decision not to go would have been the correct moral decision.

So long as we continue to follow our own human reasoning in opposition to the will of God, we commit sin. The wages of sin is death.

To follow the way of faith in God, even unto death, is the right moral choice. If Jesus Christ had not made similar, unpleasant, moral decisions, we would not have a saviour from sin and death.

Which leads us to the longer term righteousness, or end results, of faith in God's way. Through faith, Jesus Christ overcame death, and his righteousness can now be ours - if we will be His!

 

[Galateasdream]

The characters in the story seem to be already aware that child sacrifice is wrong, though

Yet not so wrong that they'd just say no or consider it unthinkable.

And of course the polemic was aimed at the hearers/readers, not Abraham.

It's an interesting problematisation of a conventional interpretation, though.

 

[Galateasdream]

I conclude that your morality is based not on faith but on reason.

Both. They are not in conflict. Or if they are, they shouldn't be. God is not unreasonable.

you believe that a decision not to go would have been the correct moral decision.

The correct moral choice would have been to say, 'No.'

So long as we continue to follow our own human reasoning in opposition to the will of God, we commit sin.

But right reason cannot be in opposition to God who is the very ground of all reason. That's like saying if we follow truth rather than God we sin.

If Jesus Christ had not made similar, unpleasant, moral decisions

Do you think Jesus would have been willing to murder a child? Interesting.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Both. They are not in conflict. Or if they are, they shouldn't be. God is not unreasonable.



The correct moral choice would have been to say, 'No.'



But right reason cannot be in opposition to God who is the very ground of all reason. That's like saying if we follow truth rather than God we sin.



Do you think Jesus would have been willing to murder a child? Interesting.

What your response shows is moral ambiguity. How would you know whether God was reasonable or not by reason alone? Reason teaches you nothing about God, except that there is a possibility of His existence. We learn about God from His revelation, His Word.

Any moral decision that does not look to Truth [God] as the arbiter, or perfect judge, is wrong.

If right reason is not in opposition to God, then faith is the better path, because faith always follows God's path.

Since God is truth, one cannot follow truth rather than God!

 

[amorphous_constellation]

So long as we continue to follow our own human reasoning in opposition to the will of God, we commit sin. The wages of sin is death.

If you set this argument in sympathy with the story's context, then 'the good' becomes pretty subjective, as it becomes whatever a god thinks is good. So, the story might may make me question god's morality more than abraham's in way, as genesis 22:16 basically states that god rewarded the man for technically being willing to do evil. If god would have merely corrected Abraham, telling him 'no I actually don't want your son, and furthermore you should think about why child sacrifice is stupid,' that would have made more sense. Instead, he is rewarded.

Furthermore, I cannot think of a human based situation where this approach is really appropriate, where would you employ it for practical wisdom? In the human world, we reward people in part for having their will in the right place.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

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

Change my mind.

Challenge accepted!

The fact of the matter was, at the time animal (in some cases, human) sacrifice was common. Further, I'm not convinced that the Bible has this event happen correctly. Here is how events would naturally sequence in the absence of a direct voice from the sky:

1. Abraham, having known of God's influence in his life from his wife of 80 bearing a child, goes to worship God.
2. The custom is to make a sacrifice. He goes with his son along to observe.
3. The mountain where they go, they find no wild animals that day.
4. The sun is about to set, and they do not want to wait another day.
5. Abraham tells Isaac his son that he must have a sacrifice. Isaac volunteers.
6. They find an animal instead at the last second. Abraham stays his hand.
7. The animal is sacrificed in Isaac's place.

This is likely how the event actually went down, but the Bible likes to tell this in flowery language to make it seem as though the early founders of Judaism had a direct line to God, and weren't just bumbling humans doing their best with their flawed choices like rest of us.
It's important to note that this was Abraham's decision, and God's mercy. This story whether told as the Bible writes it, or told how it probably happened, doesn't change this fact. This story is about God's mercy not whether or not God actually commanded murder of his firstborn child.

In fact, everywhere from the story of Moses to the many accounts of Gentile worship of Moloch and Baal mentions the evils of child sacrifice (abortion by any orher name), and how God does not delight in burnt offerings. Not even animals, particularly. The Jews ignored this, and continued up to the point of Jesus.