Abraham should have said, 'No.'

[Galateasdream]

Reason teaches you nothing about God, except that there is a possibility of His existence.

I disagree. The whole of natural theology argued against your point. What did psalmist say about the stars?

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

Exactly the same with reason.

 

[Galateasdream]

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.

None of that addresses the contention.

If a deity claimant commands you to ritually murder your child, then the correct answer is, No'.

Agreed?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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?

I'm not too sure why people judge the story. There are a lot of stories and other books etc that we judge more or less than the bible. Believe me, people judge the Jewish race. Genocide in itself is one. Anyone can talk against the bible. It's just a book. With people?

The idea is-analogy, mythology, story, or fact-why wouldn't a person say no if their god told them to sacrifice their child?

How many people would sacrifice their child today if "the actual god of abraham" told them to do so?

Why and what is the justification for putting god over their child?

 

[epronovost]

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.

That's a creative and mostly plausible retelling of the legend to make it more palatable to modern sensibilities, but I don't remember Isaac being willing to be sacrificed in the original legend. I also find it hardly plausible and a convenient excuse.

 

[shmogie]

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

Change my mind.

One final point.

Abraham had numerous interactions with God. God had performed miracles for Abraham.

When approaching the appointed place, Abraham told his servants to wait, and said that he AND ISAAC, would return.

When asked by Isaac where the sacrificial lamb was Abraham said " God will provide the lamb".

So to say that Abraham should tell God "no" totally ignores Abraham's experience with God, his total faith in God, and the fact that God had always acted for Abraham's well being.

Abraham had no concern about God failing he and his son at this point. He knew that God would always do what is right, God could not be a party to immorality.

 

[robocop (actually)]

The mechanism for the knowledge is irrelevant.

Unless the mechanism grants omniscience it cannot be known for sure that the being talking to you is omniscient (or any other omni-attribute).

Consider:
If I told you I was omniscient right now, how would you test that to see if it was true?

Let's say you ask me every question, and I provide a correct answer to every one. Have I proven I am omniscient or merely demonstrated that I can answer all the things you can think to ask?

Obviously only the latter. You don't know how many things can still be asked and can't know if I'd know the answer to those questions you don't know to ask because you're not omniscient.

Does that make sense?

Religiously, he had great knowledge and a great promise so he had to have a great trial.

Philosophically, knowing something doesn't make you right. Knowing just means that your brain is made up.

 

[epronovost]

One final point.

Abraham had numerous interactions with God. God had performed miracles for Abraham.

When approaching the appointed place, Abraham told his servants to wait, and said that he AND ISAAC, would return.

When asked by Isaac where the sacrificial lamb was Abraham said " God will provide the lamb".

So to say that Abraham should tell God "no" totally ignores Abraham's experience with God, his total faith in God, and the fact that God had always acted for Abraham's well being.

Abraham had no concern about God failing he and his son at this point. He knew that God would always do what is right, God could not be a party to immorality.

Doesn't this undermine the entire narrative of hte story if Abraham always knew or was completely convinced God wasn't going to force him to kill his son?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

Change my mind.

You are CORRECT. God likewise said, "No... I'll send you a LAMB instead," and a RAM appeared until a LAMB, who came millennia later!"

Good call!

 

[nPeace]

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

I'm not convinced of that, so here is your opportunity to convince me.

Did Moses not know with 1000% certainty when God gave him that proof... among others?
(Exodus 4:1-5) 1 However, Moses answered: “But suppose they do not believe me and do not listen to my voice, for they will say, ‘Jehovah did not appear to you.’” 2 Then Jehovah said to him: “What is that in your hand?” He answered: “A rod.” 3 He said: “Throw it on the ground.” So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it. 4 Jehovah now said to Moses: “Reach out your hand and seize it by the tail.” So he reached out and seized it, and it became a rod in his hand. 5 God then said: “This is so that they may believe that Jehovah the God of their forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.”

Put yourself in the scene.

Did Israel have any reason for doubt at all, when they "went through the midst of the sea on dry ground, while the waters formed a wall on their right hand and on their left. . ."? (Exodus 14:22)

Put yourself in the scene.

Did the disciples know with 100% certainty, after they left that mountain?
(2 Peter 1:16-21) 16 No, it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather, we were eyewitnesses of his magnificence. 17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory when words such as these were conveyed to him by the magnificent glory: “This is my Son, my beloved, whom I myself have approved.” 18 Yes, these words we heard coming from heaven while we were with him in the holy mountain. 19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, and you are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place (until day dawns and a daystar rises) in your hearts. 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.

Put yourself in the scene.

Did Stephen think for a fraction of a second that he was hallucinating?
(Acts 7:55, 56) 55 But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, 56 and he said: “Look! I see the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand.”

Place yourself in Stephen's position.

If you were in Moses' position, or you crossed the Red sea, walking on dry land, or were on the mountain witnessing the transfiguration... would you be 100% certain... or would you say, you can't be sure? What would you need to convince you? Why do you doubt?

This is what I was drawing to your attention, in Post #270, when I said to you...
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.
Nothing would convince you, or change your mind. It would be equivalent to convincing a man who had scales on his eyes, so thick as to make Saul's blindness obsolete, that it was daytime.

It would be unreasonable to put Abraham, or Moses, or any of the aforementioned characters in the same boat as yourself.
Because you doubt, does not mean others doubt.
Because you may be blind to what they see, does not mean they are blind too.
Abraham knew with 100% certainty. He knew God spoke to him, the only thing he needed to do, was have faith in God, and the promises he had not yet seen.

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.

Okay, so 99%... Convince me that Abraham did not have this. See Post #270, again.

 

[viole]

Because assuming that child sacrifice is wrong is often combined with religious people justifying Abrahams actions here, and this thread usefully (IMHO) exposes the internal contradiction there.

Most evangelical Christians will, for example, say that child sacrifice is wrong, yet also try and find a way to justify Abrahams actions in this narrative. My posts on this thread have demonstrated that cannot be done.

However, if I'm talking to someone who thinks child sacrifice is ok, then my arguments in this thread are moot, and if I was to convince him that Abraham should say 'No' then we'd have to go a whole step back, and start a whole new thread, convincing him of the immorality of child killing which may not even be possible. As Ruse said (I paraphrase), the man who argues that torturing infants for fun is acceptable is as crazy as the man who says 2+2=5.

Evangelical Christians (the command theory ones), use in general a tautologically definition of what is good. God is good because he is the standard of good. You can replace “good” with “cjdahe” and have the same meaning. That is why they should not be taken seriously when they talk morality. Contradictions are unavoidable.

but sacrificing a kid is different from torturing a kid for fun. The “for fun” is important to remove as much as possible from what we attribute to goodness (e.g. not causing pain for personal egotistical pleasure). And that is why, apart from some psychopaths, we all agree. But not because of mysterious concepts like good and evil, but because the command to preserve young gene carriers must be programmed into our intuitions for survival reasons. In the same way we agree that eating pizza is better for you than eating dog’s crap.

in the case of sacrificing a kid, we might have a not egotistical component. I could make a case that if I strongly believe that sacrificing my kid, as painful as it can be, will save the lives of 1000 other kids, by appeasing a God about to cause an earthquake, then I could conclude I am a moral person. Deluded, but moral.

ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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!

Seems to me that the interpretation I've read from several posters here (i.e. that Abraham somehow knew that God wouldn't actually let him go through with the sacrifice) is just as dependent on human reasoning.

Not only that, it's based on the hubris that they believe they know the mind of God.

 

[Galateasdream]

One final point.

Abraham had numerous interactions with God. God had performed miracles for Abraham.

When approaching the appointed place, Abraham told his servants to wait, and said that he AND ISAAC, would return.

When asked by Isaac where the sacrificial lamb was Abraham said " God will provide the lamb".

So to say that Abraham should tell God "no" totally ignores Abraham's experience with God, his total faith in God, and the fact that God had always acted for Abraham's well being.

Abraham had no concern about God failing he and his son at this point. He knew that God would always do what is right, God could not be a party to immorality.

All of that was taken into account (and discussed multiple times on this thread).

Abraham still should have said, 'No.'

It doesn't matter how long I've known someone, or how much kindness they've already shown me, the moment they command me to kill my child without any justifying reason, the answer is, 'No.'

 

[Galateasdream]

Philosophically, knowing something doesn't make you right. Knowing just means that your brain is made up.

Sorry, no.

Philosophically one can onlyknow something that is correct. If something you think you know turns out to be false you never actually knew it. That's the difference between being convinced and knowing. You can be convinced yet wrong, but true knowledge is always correct.

That is how I'm using the word knowledge in this discourse. To know is to be certain of a true proposition. Hence why I keep arguing that only an omniscient being can know if another being is omniscient or not.

 

[Galateasdream]

Did Moses not know with 1000% certainty

No. It is impossible for him to know with 100% certainty that the being he conversed with was omniscient.

Did Israel have any reason for doubt at all,

Yes, lots. It could easily have been an advanced race of ETs playing a trick on them. It doesn't have to be at al likely, merely possible for there to be some doubt.

Did the disciples know with 100% certainty, after they left that mountain?

No. They might have been brains in a jar undergoing a weird experiment.

Did Stephen think for a fraction of a second that he was hallucinating?

I have no idea what Stephen thought. But you seem to think that being convinced and having knowledge are the same thing - and they are not. All the religous people you've named might well have been utterly convinced, and with good reason, and have no personal doubt - but they wouldn't have 100% certain knowledge because it is logically impossible to know a being is omniscient unless you yourself are omniscient.

What would you need to convince you?

Convince? That's irrelevant. I'm talking about knowledge, which I cannot have.

Because you doubt, does not mean others doubt.

I'm not doubting anything. My argument is not based on doubt at all.

Okay, so 99%... Convince me that Abraham did not have this. See Post #270, again.

You misunderstand my argument if you think it is based on Abraham doubting. But Abrahama should have been more convinced that ritually murdering your child is wrong than be convinced that the being commanding you to do so is the omni-attributed God who is not just testing you to see, hopefully, that you say, 'No.' This has all been explained.

 

[sooda]

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

The Christian “Old Testament” is an adaptation and alteration of The Jewish Bible. Tanakh, is an acronym for the three sections of the Scriptures, the Torah (Pentateuch, first five books of Moses, Torah meaning teaching/law) the Neviim (Prophets) and Ketuviim (Writings or scriptures) and was completed around 423 BCE.

 

[Galateasdream]

I could make a case that if I strongly believe that sacrificing my kid, as painful as it can be, will save the lives of 1000 other kids, by appeasing a God about to cause an earthquake, then I could concl

Which is why I keep saying 'without justifying reason' in my posts.

When a deity claimant commands you to ritually murder a child without giving a justifying reason, you should say 'No.', and quite possibly ask for a reason. I think I've said this a few times in exchanges on this thread, but it might be I haven't said it directly to you. Hope that helps

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.

IMO, Abraham's will was in the right place. His will was centred on a God who have proved himself on every occasion in the past. In fact, the evidence was not always from an unseen God, but was manifest through the Angel of the Lord, whom he met personally. Why would Abraham turn from a sure faith to personal reason when the God of faith had always been proved reliable?

 

[nPeace]

No. It is impossible for him to know with 100% certainty that the being he conversed with was omniscient.



Yes, lots. It could easily have been an advanced race of ETs playing a trick on them. It doesn't have to be at al likely, merely possible for there to be some doubt.



No. They might have been brains in a jar undergoing a weird experiment.



I have no idea what Stephen thought. But you seem to think that being convinced and having knowledge are the same thing - and they are not. All the religous people you've named might well have been utterly convinced, and with good reason, and have no personal doubt - but they wouldn't have 100% certain knowledge because it is logically impossible to know a being is omniscient unless you yourself are omniscient.



Convince? That's irrelevant. I'm talking about knowledge, which I cannot have.



I'm not doubting anything. My argument is not based on doubt at all.



You misunderstand my argument if you think it is based on Abraham doubting. But Abrahama should have been more convinced that ritually murdering your child is wrong than be convinced that the being commanding you to do so is the omni-attributed God who is not just testing you to see, hopefully, that you say, 'No.' This has all been explained.

But... But, we have already been through this.
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.
So now I have a hard time understanding what the purpose of the thread is.
No human has, or ever will have absolute knowledge. So what's the point?

If you are arguing that Abraham was wrong because he should have considered that he is god (knowing what is right for himself), since he does not know that God is God, then I must say, that No, Abraham does not know that he is god, so he would be wrong to listen to himself. He could be dead wrong.
So where does that leave us?

 

[viole]

Which is why I keep saying 'without justifying reason' in my posts.

When a deity claimant commands you to ritually murder a child without giving a justifying reason, you should say 'No.', and quite possibly ask for a reason. I think I've said this a few times in exchanges on this thread, but it might be I haven't said it directly to you. Hope that helps

Very well.
Lets suppose Abraham asked God for some justifying reasons. And God answered to simply trust Him, since He is omni whatever.

what would have been the correct answer in that case?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Galateasdream]

But... But, we have already been through this.
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.
So now I have a hard time understanding what the purpose of the thread is.
No human has, or ever will have absolute knowledge. So what's the point?

If you are arguing that Abraham was wrong because he should have considered that he is god (knowing what is right for himself), since he does not know that God is God, then I must say, that No, Abraham does not know that he is god, so he would be wrong to listen to himself. He could be dead wrong.
So where does that leave us?

You seem to have misunderstood my argument.
Let me repeat from before:

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