Assume you are in the position of Abraham, and are told by God to sacrifice your only son. Would you do it?
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Bowles already pulled this one a while back.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Nope.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Care to link for me so I can look at it? I never saw that thread.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Nope.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
never.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
If I'm in the exact position of Abraham -- a prophet of God who I believe had a close personal relationship with him -- and had a pretty good working knowledge of his wisdom, mercy and justice, then, yes, I would.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
The old thread was deleted long ago.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
How is Abraham different than that woman in Texas who killed her children?
[ April 14, 2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Well, then, trogdor, I don't appreciate being told "its been done before" if it was deleted long ago, hundreds of new members haven't seen it.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Hey Paul, relax. I've had a shitty day, too.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Hell , no.
Which is at least one reason that he didn't ask Sarah to do it, IMO. I think nearly any mother would tell God to go stuff himself, under those circumstances.
I mean, if I truly believed God had spoken to me... If he said, "Hey Olivetta! I want you to wear orange." I'd probably swallow my pride and do it. I think I have, in the past, felt something promting me to do something for someone, etc.
But once that "little voice" says "Kill ____" I would be all over the place, screaming MEDICATE ME! MEDICATE ME NOW! Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
quote:I mean, if I truly believed God had spoken to me... If he said, "Hey Olivetta! I want you to wear orange." I'd probably swallow my pride and do it. I think I have, in the past, felt something promting me to do something for someone, etc.
But once that "little voice" says "Kill ____" I would be all over the place, screaming MEDICATE ME! MEDICATE ME NOW!
Why would you be insane for believing the voice in your head is God when it tells you to kill people, and religious when it tells you to wear orange?
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I honestly don't know. I would have to be sure it was God who was telling me to do it before I'd even consider it.
[ April 14, 2004, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I dunno Eddie. I no longer consider myself religious, but I don't see it as inconsistent to say that you trust, up to a certain point where what you're being asked to accept is a little more than your personal threshold.
So I can imagine saying, if God tells me to wear orange, I am willing, based on the other factors that have led me to believe that He exists and that He loves me and so forth, to take it on faith that there is a good reason why I should wear orange today. On the other hand, for many if not most of us, if God tells us to kill our child, this is too inconsistent with the idea of a benevolent and loving God for us to take this on faith, and so our faith breaks down.
Might not be a perfectly pious answer, in one sense, but it makes sense to me.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That story always bothers me. If God is omnipotent, wouldn't he know what sort of person Abraham is? Wouldn't he already understand his devotion and not have to put him through that? Wrong is wrong, the way I see it and that part of the bible is just... Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Pat, can you elaborate on your answer? Like what you would have to know specifically? I know it's an awfully abstract question, but I'm just trying to wrap my brain around it.
I mean, most Christians know, in an academic sense, of God's wisdom, mercy, and justice. So I'm guessing you mean a more concrete knowledge. So do you mean if you knew what His specific plans/need for your child were? Then again, I'm not sure if Abraham had such specific knowledge . . . he had this relationship with God, let's say, but I don't think he knew why God was asking this of him . . . I'm not arguing, mind you, just freewriting here. Do you mean simply if . . . hmm . . . rather than me put words in your mouth, can you tell me what kind of knowledge you mean?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:But once that "little voice" says "Kill ____" I would be all over the place, screaming MEDICATE ME! MEDICATE ME NOW!
That's a little premature. Most instances of religiously-interpreted voices are not indications of psychosis.
For me, the issue isn't so much whether I'm sure the message to kill my son came from God or not, but rather whether I would want to have that sort of God.
I'm walking along some day, tending my sheep, and God tells me to kill my son, no reasons given. Of course we find out later that God didn't actually want this to happen, but I have no idea that this is just a test. I would like to believe that even if I 100% believed that it was God talking to me, that I would refuse to worship or serve such a God.
I've sometimes considered that maybe this Abraham/Issac thing was a completely different sort of test, and that Abraham failed. The choice wasn't about the killing, but rather Abraham's blind acceptance. The result of Abraham's choice was that his God took on the aspect of one that demands blind obedience and relies not on justice or higher values, but sheer force in reward/punishment form as his mode of dealing with people. Had Abraham chosen differently, perhaps God would have accomodated that choice and taken on an aspect dedicated to truth and justice who valued man's ability to reason and thus appealed to this reason and to man's sense of the higher values.
Of course, it's important to keep in mind that I regard the God of the Christian Old Testament to be evil and that, I'd like to think that if, after I died, I wsa given the choice between serving this God and going to Hell, I'd choose to go to Hell. And who knows, if I'm right about this Abraham thing, maybe that choice would affect God much more than it would affect me.
---
I'm not really serious here, but I sort of am anyway.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't all of the major Western religious preach that God is omnipotent and the source of all morality?
In other words, if God declared: "kill all the people who wear orange," then you would have no choice but to maul down every raver in sight.
How do religious people reconcile that? Is God bound by any ethical standard but his own?
[ April 14, 2004, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote: I've sometimes considered that maybe this Abraham/Issac thing was a completely different sort of test, and that Abraham failed. The choice wasn't about the killing, but rather Abraham's blind acceptance. The result of Abraham's choice was that his God took on the aspect of one that demands blind obedience and relies not on justice or higher values, but sheer force in reward/punishment form as his mode of dealing with people. Had Abraham chosen differently, perhaps God would have accomodated that choice . . . .
What a neat idea.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm with Pat here. The key is, Abraham was a Prophet of God, very different than your typical follower. In other words, if I thought the Holy Spirit gave me the impression to kill my son I would high-tail it away from wherever I was when I got that impression and probably try to cleanse my soul for about a millenium and a holf. However, should I have seen God in the flesh and heard him tell me specifically...well I guess I can't garuntee what I'd do but as far as I could, I would.
VWiggen, that's true, if God commanded it, it would be done, but you have to realize that God doesn't often give commandments like that, and whenver He does anything even similar you can see the results after enough time as being good.
If you set up a scenerio in which God causes you to comitt an action in which the final consequence (the sum of all consequences of the action) is negative and then ask if we'd do it, you miss the point, most of us don't believe in a God that would do such a thing. We trust Him to do what is right, and coming up with a stituation in which He doesn't is rather meaningless to our faith.
Hobbes Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I'm not as flippant about it as vwiggin . . . this isn't my "problem" with religion . . . but Hobbes, I don't agree that the question is pointless. A prophet found himself in just this situation. Virtually all of us are speculative fiction readers, this seems like fair game for speculation. What if your God asked you to do something that you saw as clearly immoral? Saying, "Oh, He wouldn't," is a cop out. What if he did? Okay, your faith that this scenario is impossible makes your answer safe. I don't think it would be a sin to say, if this impossible situation occurred, I would reject my God. Or, alternatively, you could say, my faith in His ultimate rightness is such that I would obey my God and reject my personal moral reasoning.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
But killing all the people wear orange would mean killing NATHAN! Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK Icarus, I understand what you're saying.
If God asks us to do something we see as immoral: we should do it. Obviously, if we thought it was really a horid thing to do we better make darn sure it was God asking us to do it before we do it (in the case of murder, I would require full prophetic vision for instance). That's the answer to your question as I understand it. If God asked me to do something and I knew it was God then I would also know that althought the act by itself may be immoral, the overal effect would end up negating the immorality (killing one to save thousands as an example).
What I was adressing was the common question: what if God asked you to do something that would end up, after all it's effects are taken into account, to be immoral. And my response would be that although there'd be little way for us mortals to determine it, the question is irrevlant for most Christians since we don't believe in a God that would require such a thing.
Hobbes Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Which still seems like an evasion, but I guess that's all I'm going to get.
[ April 14, 2004, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Really? Well I'm confused then, can you show me where it was an envasion? I'd like to understand my own response better too.
Hobbes Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*is reminded of the old Testiment* The part where God says to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan. Does it make it right, even though God said so? It touches on something I'd like to write about.... If I can find a way to explain it...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Syn, I can't speak for everybody, but for me, no God requiring it is not what makes it morally acceptable, what makes it morally acceptable is that the overall effect of murdering all people in Canaan is positive. The only person who knows what would've happened had this not occured is God and He required that the work be done. It's my assumption then that should it not have been done, far worse things would've befallen the world because of it.
Hobbes Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I don't mean it in a rude way, though it might be coming off that way.
I mean the point where you say it's irrelevant because it can't happen:
quote: And my response would be that although there'd be little way for us mortals to determine it, the question is irrevlant for most Christians since we don't believe in a God that would require such a thing.
And thinking about it some more, I guess it isn't really such an evasion, because there are two questions here . . . am I understanding you to be saying that if God gave you such a vision, you would take for granted that the ultimate end would be good, and worth the price, because this is your faith?
What does this vision need to contain (a similar question to my question of Pat, I see)? Does God need to justify to you why this immoral act will ultimately be for the good? Or just prove to you that it's really Him? (Though, how could He prove it was really Him and not some god-like evil being?)
The point where it seems to me you might be evading is this: is there any (theoretical) point at which an action and its consequences as you see them become so horrible that you reject your concept of God? A point where you say, "You may be all-powerful, but You're not good. No good God would ask that"?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
To me, a God who asked it of me, wouldn't be a God worthy of my worship.
The series Hyperion expands on this question a ton.
To me, if a being who looked, sounded, and seemed like God in every way asked it of me, would more likely be Satan in disguise.
(not that I believe in Satan, but I would sooner believe in him than I God who would ask me to kill my son)
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:what makes it morally acceptable is that the overall effect of murdering all people in Canaan is positive.
And that is the religious fanaticism that leads to wanton killing.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
And a related question . . . is it a sin to admit that there is a point where your faith breaks down? To contemplate rebellion against God under even imposible circumstances? By asking these questions, am I potentially leading people into sin?
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
And another question: why do all the interesting conversations come up when I should be going to bed? What kind of God does not want me to get enough sleep?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
This may only make sense if you are Mormon, but here goes: I don't know if I could have. But I think everyone who wants to be like God will someday have to.
That's why a lot of days I'm not sure if I want to become like God.
But as is always said, when God sent Jesus to die for us, it was on the order of sending a kid off to college for us. Because he knew it would work out for the betterment of all.
Maybe Abraham had this kind of faith. I mean, how many of us have wished the body didn't matter so much? The people could see what was really essential about a person?
That said, Mr. Squicky also has a very interesting idea.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
It reminds me of Pastwatch, only in a more cosmic way, neh? Alternate revelation instead of alternate history! Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Starters, Icky, I don't think you're being rude at all.
quote:And thinking about it some more, I guess it isn't really such an evasion, because there are two questions here . . . am I understanding you to be saying that if God gave you such a vision, you would take for granted that the ultimate end would be good, and worth the price, because this is your faith?
Correct.
quote:What does this vision need to contain (a similar question to my question of Pat, I see)? Does God need to justify to you why this immoral act will ultimately be for the good? Or just prove to you that it's really Him? (Though, how could He prove it was really Him and not some god-like evil being?)
The point where it seems to me you might be evading is this: is there any (theoretical) point at which an action and its consequences as you see them become so horrible that you reject your concept of God? A point where you say, "You may be all-powerful, but You're not good. No good God would ask that"?
No, I guess there isn't, because if it was case ! (it wasn't God, but something pretending to be God well... that'll take a little more time to explain so let's go to case B first. No, I guess I would never say that God is too awful to humans to worship. Why? Because it would mean that the universe was created by someone whose entire purpose was to cause pain and suffering to His creations, and if this were the case, it wouldn't matter much what I would do, no one's going to end up happy.
What I'm saying is that, I could be wrong right now, in fact God could've given me my testimony of Him as a joke, that He is a kind, loving God, and shows this to me in this life enough that I believe Him (as I do). Then, once I die, He could say "Fool, I tricked you with my infinte power, I'm actually evil and I'm going to send you, and everyone else to a place than the worst Hell you can imagine for all eternity because that's who I am." This is techincally possible, but what a stupid thing to consider. Nothing can be done if that were the case, we're all screwed anyways so why bother even considering it? It gets you nothing and nowhere.
For case A, I would make sure it was God as I said. How can I be sure it's not the devil? Well I would purify myself as best I could, seek the council of those who are called to lead me (like my Bishop for example) and after thought and consideration, come to the concluesion about who it was that asked it, and once I make that choice, I will act on it. If it is God that is asking then I will do His will.
Hobbes Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If you're going to bring up pastwatch, how do we know the angel that stopped the sacrifice wasn't an "Angel of Light" (read: Satan)
Not that I believe this. It just could be argued equally well.
P.S. A thought from my days of Kierkegaard fandom was that Abraham had given up Ishmael for the sake of Sarah. That may have been the act that caused God to require this of Abraham. To see if Abraham loved God more than Sarah. It's not important to God to be loved more than Sarah. It's important to Abraham. Since Sarah had already shown that she didn't know how to run Abraham's life very effectively.
[ April 15, 2004, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Case B sounds a bit like Pascal's Wager, only phrased negatively . . .
-o-
Okay, well, you answered my question. I can't empathize with having faith that strong, though.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm not sure about Pascal's wager, though I guess I can see the similarity. My question to you would be, if God were evil and nasty and had it in for us, do you honestly think you could do anything about it, or is it best to assume that since that scenario leads to no actuall solutions and only pain and suffering, you may as well act as if it isn't true?
Hobbes Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yeah, let's ignore my post.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess I would disbelieve in that God and enjoy what life I could. Which in my case would involve a lot of church worship.
Mack: Which one? I've been pretty much ignored also.
My understanding is that cultures that were ordered wiped out in the Bible were practicing human sacrifice or something.
I guess there is the problem of Sodom and Gomorrah, but I always figure homosexuality was just the tip of the iceberg.
[ April 15, 2004, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Short answer: if I were in Abraham's position, perhaps (50/50 chance, since I've always had faith problems). In today's world, no. The difference is that today's world is nothing like the world of Abraham, and so much has changed since that equating the question to the modern day is ludicrous.
Long answer tomorrow, if I get time to write it up. It includes social, personal, and religious historical perspective. This is the biggest problem with those trying to come to terms with the Old Testament, which reads more like a love-story-slash-oral-history than it does the fire-and-brimestone rap that it's earned.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Sorry Mack, as I was trying to explain, something as drastic as killing a person would require of me a heck of a lot more evidence that would say... swatting a fly. Things like the crusades resulted, in my opinion, from people not adequatly making sure that it was God ordering them to do these things. I'm not going to try to lay blaim at people feet, all I'm going to say is that if you instantly transported me as I am now (beliefs in tact thank-you ) I would not participate in the Crusades since I'm confident that God did not desire those things to happen, and I would find that out before I went.
I know what you're saying doesn't just apply to the crusades, but then, niether does what I just said.
Hobbes Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hobbes, I thought one of the parts of LDS is that they don't believe that God is the creator of the universe but rather an object of creation that once was similar to our current state. Did I get that wrong? You seem to be referring to God as the creator.
---
Icarus, If you look at it from a mythological archetype standpoint (that's not really what I mean, but I can't think of a better way to explain it), you could argue that my idea about this really sort of did work itself out that way on a societal scale. That is, people accepted the lessons of the story the way it was written and this acceptance became a pervaise foundation for the rest of their thinking. Their (and our) society took on a strong submission to authority aspect because they believed in the lessons of this story.
Had they accepted the alternate version to this story, where Abraham either tells God to go shove it or at least asks for a reason why he should do this, I think that they would have developed a lot differently and likewise would have conceived of their relationship to God (and other authorities) in a much different matter.
Of course, I'm coming at this from a quasi-Jungian guiding myth perspective, where the myths that people use to explain the world and their role in it have a strong effect on who they are and how they believe and act.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
::waits patiently for John's elaboration::
-o-
Hobbes, if I figured I was screwed no matter what, I would take satisfaction from at least being contrary.
-o-
Squick . . . makes sense, from that perspective.
-o-
I wonder what mack would make of all this . . .
[ April 15, 2004, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I was under the impression the basic point of that scenario was to illustrate the antitypical love God showed by sacrificing his own son, which he ultimately did not require even Abraham to do.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Thank you Hobbes, I think I am closer to understanding your views.
Even I, a crusty atheist, believe our free will was given to us as act of kindness. I guess "believe" is too strong a word. Hope is the better word I think.
quote:If God were evil and nasty and had it in for us, do you honestly think you could do anything about it?
*cues Mack's finger of god graphic*
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Squick, we don't really expound on that a lot, but I guess it was in a different universe, or at least before the creation of our galaxy. But that relates to my post, about the idea of any of us becoming like God.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Hobbes, I thought one of the parts of LDS is that they don't believe that God is the creator of the universe but rather an object of creation that once was similar to our current state. Did I get that wrong? You seem to be referring to God as the creator.
No, you're right, but I was already assuming God was lieing to us in that post so I figured may as well do it right.
vwiggen, I guess that's why I post here.
Hobbes Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Same here.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
that's still on my server.
Icky, as for Squick's analysis, I've studied the same types, too. And I agree. Myths are used to explain cultural beliefs/values/morality.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Even I, a crusty atheist, believe our free will was given to us as act of kindness.
I don't understand how we could not have free will. But that's probably a can of worms.
Though it is another explanation of this conundrum. Maybe the sacrifice of Isaac is an expression of free will. Or is that what you were saying? I think you were replying to the idea of God being no good.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ralphie, That's assuming that Abraham's sacrafice of Issac would have served some purpose other than satisfying God's command that he do. Even though, as you know, I don't necessarily agree that Jesus' death was a cleansing sacrafice, I'm pretty sure that you hold this view. From that perspective, I not sure how you could equate Jesus' meaningful sacrafice with killing someone because God said so.
I think that if you ignore that Abraham's story was largely about man's proper role in relation to God, you're not being true to the story or the way that it has consistently been interpreted.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Nevermind.
[ April 15, 2004, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Oh well . . . mack must not be up . . .
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I was under the impression the basic point of that scenario was to illustrate the antitypical love God showed by sacrificing his own son, which he ultimately did not require even Abraham to do.
The problem I have here Toni is just how insignifigant that really was in my opinion.
Basically he only let Jesus get a lot of pain before coming back to heaven. In fact, most Christains believe that Jesus is in fact God (or part of God, which also boggles my mind) and so that would be even less of an issue. I mean, not only was he going back to heaven (paradise) but he created the people who crucified him, created human sin, created the concept of pain, knew all along that he would be crucified...
It goes on and on. The whole idea of Christainity confuses me.
Whats even more odd to me is the concept of Satan. I mean come on. A spiritual war between God and Satan? Thats crazy. God CREATED Satan. He could UNcreate him in a thought. How on earth (or in heaven) is this a level battle ground? Doesn't the fact that Satan is permitted to exist and have that influence mean that he is performing a service God thinks necessary? Therefor this means that Satan and God are both one entity performing different functions?
Someday we need to have a religion thread where you guys explain this stuff to me.
Not on this thread, but some other thread. Maybe an all purpose religon question thread?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Pooka: I've made my desicion about who (or both) gets it, but that get's put off until I finish my lab, which is unintentionally getting put off by responding to Hatrack.
Hobbes Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Xavier, those are the same sort of problems I have with Christianity. The confusion of it.. I try to make sense of it and it never works.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: I think that if you ignore that Abraham's story was largely about man's proper role in relation to God, you're not being true to the story or the way that it has consistently been interpreted.
Because the way it's been consistently interpreted MUST be correct.
I see the scenario as having two purposes. First, as I mentioned, it was a humanized dramatic prophesy. It was not unusual for Jehovah to have his prophets act out one of his prophesies, as seen in the case of Ezekiel who was commanded to cut off the hair of his head and of his beard, divide it into thirds, and dispose of it in ways that would prophetically describe the distressing things that would happen to the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the execution of God’s judgments the city. (Ezekial 5:1-13)
Abraham's dramatic prophesy was one of the most meaningful ever given, as people could relate to Abraham and the love he had for his son. It made it that much easier to grasp the love that Jehovah had for his own son, and the kind of real sacrifice it would be to give him up in death.
Second, it was a very rare kind of test for God to give to Abraham, as the covenant Jehovah was about to conclude with Abraham was very rare. He was about to make an arrangement that essentially told Abraham that his nation would be God's people and the messiah would come down through this line. It was the first of the Very Important Covenants and the first of the specific promises regarding the messiah.
You can make a directly parallel, also, between Jesus and Isaac as Abraham "reckoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead," and, according to the theology we are discussing, Jehovah DID ressurect Jesus, not requiring him to stay dead after his sacrifice. (Hebrews 11:17-19)
I have no clue why I just explained that. I've never even gotten a "I can see that" from you, you big egomaniac.
(Love you, baby.)
[ April 15, 2004, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
To be honest, I would be happy to do so, but I could only give you the LDS answers and only vouch for them, after all, if I thought others were right... I'd joing their Church.
Like I said, happy to do it, but A) yes another thread would be good and B) You'd have to be careful to keep it from disengrating into an argument between Christians instead of an explenation from them. Not that it can't be done, Hatrack is inherintly civil in my opinion, just you'd have to be careful.
Hobbes Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
I can see that.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I think the Satan is one of God's greatest gifts to mankind.
*dodges lightning bolt!*
There is no love without sacrifice, no sacrifice without choice, and no choice without options. (I just finished reading the Worthying Saga again ok ) I don't know if Satan is a real dude with horns or just a symbol of man's worst instincts, but I do know this: I rather live in a world where my actions and choices mattered than a Matrix world where they did not.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
I heard that Lalo worships Satan.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I heard it was the other way around. Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
I can see that.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Pfft.
Eddie is a pansy.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I can see that.
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
A religion thread that made me ! Thanks, Pat, Hobbes, I needed that!
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I would have my toes in warm sand, a cold drink in my hand, a warm woman casting shadows over me, and a delightful haunt for the eve. (mix and match intellectual puzzles about the scenery)
fallow
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I'd say it depends on how smart the kid's mouth is, and whether or not he can drive.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
And I guess you didn't understand my previous statement, that if one is spiritually minded, any death is just like trip away from home. There are different levels of belief about how much stress Jesus' mission caused God (assuming as I do that they are different people.) There is a point in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus asks that the cup (of suffering) be removed, if it was the Father's will. Perhaps at this moment he was thinking of the intercession in the sacrifice of Isaac.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Daed, I never said it was religious, either way. I just said that if I feel an urging to do something nice, beneficial or, at least, harmless, I'd do it. I never said it came from a god or anything. I believe in a force that guides creation, etc. but whether it is merely natural law or an organized entity... well, I don't really care.
Thinking God told me to wear orange is fairly harmless (except to good taste). Thinking God told me to shed innocent blood is NOT.
Mr. Berg, would you prefer that people who believed God told them to kill people ACT on that belief, or try medication first? I figgure if it was really God, then medical treatment shouldn't change that. I'm just saying, wouldn't it be better to ELIMINATE psychosis as a cause before breaking out the knives? At least a course of anti-hallucinogens?
[ April 15, 2004, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Olivetta ]
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
*applauds Ralphie* I think that was very well put.
One thing that I think often gets lost in discussions about Abraham and the command to kill Isaac is Isaac. Abraham was a very old man before Isaac was even born. Isaac was not a child at the time Abraham was issued the command. I suspect he was a full grown man. Isaac knew what was going on. He knew they were going to offer a sacrifice and he also knew that they had no animal with them to sacrifice. I think it would have been impossible for Abraham to construct the alter and tie Isaac without Isaac's willing participation. I think that this event was as much a test of Isaac and his faith than it was of Abraham. I'm still not exactly sure *why* the test needed to be this way, but I do agree that it illustrated in a very real way to these two men the sacrifice God would make in giving up His obedient Son.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Well, in the Xena episode loosely based on this story, it turns out not to be God after all, but the boy's brother, using a megaphone. He wants to off his brother so he can inherit. Luckily, Xena stays his hand at the last minute.
In case that helps.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
If god told me to kill my kid, I'd sign myself into an insane asylum.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
*snort*
Gotta love that Icarus!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
OK, my $.02:
I think there are two elements to the question: 1) Would you do something that seems wrong just because God told you to? 2) Would you sacrifice the most important thing in the world for God? In other words, do you love God more than anything else?
Most people have been focusing on #1. My answer to #1 is "I hope so". Is there something so repugnant that I couldn't bring myself to do it even though God told me to? Possibly. I don't know. It's hard to know that sort of thing beforehand.
Of course, as Hobbes has elaborated on, to do something like this, it is *very* important to *know* that it is God telling you to do it. I don't think that I am close enough to God to receive the sort of clear message that I would need to be able to do that.
I think question #2 is the less interesting, but much more important question. All of Abrahams hopes and dreams, all of the blessings the Lord had promised him, were all tied up in his son. I think *this* is the reason that LDS believe that we must all be tested even as Abraham -- we have to be willing to give everything up in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
It's like C. S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. If you love something more than God, or more than Goodness, you keep yourself out of heaven. I love that book!
Here are some responses of mine to questions asked. Some have been answered by others, some not.
quote: How do religious people reconcile that? Is God bound by any ethical standard but his own?
Well, the way I think most LDS view this is that things aren't right because God says so, but God says so because they are right. God is bound by a lot of things. In the Book of Mormon, it says many times that if God lies, is changable, etc., then he would cease to be God.
So if God said to kill all people that wear orange, it wouldn't *become* good, it would have to allready be good for God to command that. Or at least, it would have to be good for us to *try* to kill all of them (to make it more like the Abraham example)
quote: is there any (theoretical) point at which an action and its consequences as you see them become so horrible that you reject your concept of God? A point where you say, "You may be all-powerful, but You're not good. No good God would ask that"?
Maybe. I hope not. I hope that I would have enough faith in Him and His wisdom and His goodness. Something might seem horrible or wrong, like the killing of all the people in Canaan, but I have to remember that my vision is very small compared to His.
quote: is it a sin to admit that there is a point where your faith breaks down? To contemplate rebellion against God under even imposible circumstances? By asking these questions, am I potentially leading people into sin?
Yes, I think so, but I'm not sure.
quote:I thought one of the parts of LDS is that they don't believe that God is the creator of the universe but rather an object of creation that once was similar to our current state. Did I get that wrong? You seem to be referring to God as the creator.
We do worship God as the creator of the heavens and the earth. Is there something out there that He didn't create? Possibly. Does it matter? Not that much.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: That story always bothers me. If God is omnipotent, wouldn't he know what sort of person Abraham is? Wouldn't he already understand his devotion and not have to put him through that?
Syth: I believe that God knows what we will do in every situation. That does not mean there is no value in us experiencing "the test". That is where the value is, in the experience, not in knowing the outcome ahead of time. I believe the purpose of this life depends on us actually going through it, through the pains, the uncertainties, the sorrow, so that we can better understand everything.
I think this experience probably tested Abraham and Isaac both. I think it also stands as an example to teach the rest of us. The example wouldn't be nearly so powerful if it didn't happen and were only hypothetical.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Nope, wouldn't do it. Even if it meant my faith was weak. I would spend eternity in Hell before I harmed my own child, although I could not beleive God would eternally punish a parent for not killing their child.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Okay...
As far as the oral histories of that time, which eventually found their way to writing, the story of Abraham and Isaac is one of the more misrepresented—as well as misunderstood—stories of the Old Testament. As far as common modern "understanding" of the events, most of the context and the actual events (and words) of the story itself have been horribly mistranslated from the original texts and Hebrew accounts, for which there are historically (somewhat) different accounts of events, and it's still highly debateable within Jewish Scholar circles, as well as Christian ones, even if the modern connotations put to it are different.
First, let's set the stage.
During the time of Abraham, sacrifices were abundant, and not just for Hebrews. They were made to show faith, for giving thanks, and for some faiths, to gain favor during trying times (for rains, during low harvests, before battle, etc.). These different peoples were as influential to Hebrew observances as Hebrew observances were to them. And yes, human sacrifice was not unheard of in other beliefs, especially for displays of faith.
Now, to set some context.
Abraham was, at least as far as he knew (through divine revelation or ambition), a leader of his people, both the spiritual and political leader of his time (most leaders were both, almost all in that region). As with all leaders of his time, children were more than an emotionally meaningful being, they were a valuable resource to maintain the leadership of the people. However, Isaac was not the only son of Abraham: he had a son prior, by another woman (Hagar), by the name of Ishmael. According to Jewish and Christian doctrine, both Hagar and the young Ishmael were abandoned by Abraham when Sarah had Isaac. The story didn't end there, but a more illuminating account can be found here. Suffice to say, Abraham drove out his son. This is important because it marks a moment in the history of Abraham where it was not a direct command of God that influenced a decision that would ultimately affect not only his people, but the generations to follow (and, if you are the religious type, all of history to follow).
Now, on to the incident.
Abraham was commanded to "sacrifice" his son, but there is not only much debate about why—which range in reasoning from his banishment of Ishmael to the coming covenant that would lead to Jesus—but to what actually was to take place according to his God's command. In fact, there are some scholars who say that the angel who came to Abraham claimed that his God did not command him to slaughter his son. This is important in that it makes the case that Abraham's God did not want Isaac's death, but Abraham's full obedience before making the covenant. No matter what the reason behind the command, it's very clear it was given to invoke obedience, and a clear case can be made that Abraham was not ordered to kill Isaac (or, according to some scholars, Ishmael.
I know, I know... "but Abraham didn't know this."
However, Abraham knew that he had to count on his God to retain His kingdom on Earth. His only other option would have been to worship another god, which could have eventually meant death or worse. In the context of life then, in the area where he lived, the gods meant everything. To some, the gods were angry tormenters for whom mankind was just a plaything (most of Mesopotamia). To others, he was their life-giver and source of calm and stability (like Egypt). Abraham's God was one of infinite power and love, but one who required the total faith of his followers (unlike some other gods, who allowed multiple concurrent gods being worshipped). Killing Isaac (or Ishmael) may have meant the loss of his intended heir, but not obeying would have meant the loss of his whole family, loss of safety for his people, and the probable deaths of many.
In essence, it comes down to: would you sacrifice your own son if disobeying it meant the lives of your community? Everyone else who depended on you? Your whole state? As far as the world worked for only Abraham, but everyone who lived in that area during that time, that's what it meant. So, unless you're willing to call the whole of the peoples in the land where the roots of half the world's civilization completely insane, any study of the incident in the context of that time and the way of life then, not in the context of today's society. Also, the significance of Abraham's relationship to Isaac and Ishmael, and not just as their father, needs to be taken into account before making a judgement on why, how, and what happened.
His great faith, which would have been a requirement as the leader he was, put forth to him the dilemma of either losing his son or his people. And that's assuming the story is literal, which is (debatably) far less likely than the opposite, considering the content, structure, and reasoning behind oral history of the time, both with the Jews and with other various faiths of that time.
So, back to the question: would I do it? I seriously don't know. That's a heavy problem, since even if I didn't believe in such a god (which I don't), my people would, making the decision more important, in that my decision would not only affect the life of my son and myself (and family), but my people as a whole. Do I betray their faith for the sake of my flesh and blood, or allow his death to maintain the state of my people?
By the way, that last part is a big factor in the reasoning for Christians (the whole father/son thing). Also, Icky, I'm sorry if that doesn't really give you much of a better answer. Still, that's my (semi) long answer (since a whole thesis could be written on just this one topic).
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Oh, and the mistranslation of old Hebrew words accounts for most of the misunderstandings behind Old Testament literalists—Yam Suf (Reed Sea, not Red Sea), the story of Jericho (which fell about 75 years before the earlist biblical account, and not because of an invasion), Moses' stop to get the Commandments (some say Horab, some say Sinai), and the building of the state of Israel to begin with (in which Judges has a more believable account of integration and assimilation instead of invasion).
None of this invalidates any religion, but it sure as heck puts into question the veracity of using bibles that were translated without using modern historical and archeological techniques as well as not having the wide range of linguistic sources to draw from. I think that the more accurate translation and discovery makes each related religion much more meaningful, beautiful, and amazing, not just with the Judeo-Christian faiths, but other faiths that have so much incredible history behind them.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
You know, Ick, you could at least tell me what you think of all that. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ralphie,
quote:I've never even gotten a "I can see that" from you
I think this would have had a much greater effect if I couldn't say the exact same thing about you. The difference between us is, I always thought that, between us, this was implied.
I really thought you understood me and I understood you better than this.
And then you have the arrogance to presume to teach me about the theory of prefiguring myths. Seriously, you once thought I was arrogant because I thought that you probably didn't know that much about Taoism. But you feel fine about assuming that I'm ignorant of this.
I knew about this before I knew who you were. I've read much longer and more detailed accounts than the one you provided. I also know about prefiguring in pre-Christian myths and about prefiguralists perverting Native American myths to fit the "everything is really about Jesus" mold. I don't form strong opinions without giving an honest look at opposing points of view.
I didn't disagree because I didn't know about it or understand it. I just don't really buy it, at least in the "we can ignore the manifest content of the myths and the meaning that people have consistently taken out it because it's only about Jesus" way that you seem to be applying it. I didn't believe it before, and I'm not going to believe it now because you restated it. It doesn't work for me.
And that's ok, because, while I have confidence in my own abilities, I have confidence in yours too. I thought that you knew for me that it's not about pride or humilty or about needing feel better than someone else and dismissing them, but about confidence. I don't want people to agree with me or accept what I say uncritically as gospel truth. I want people I can respect and who respect me.
I don't have to believe the same thing as you, because I believe in you. Or at least I did.
Did you even try to see my point of view? I presented ideas that are very important to me and are central to how I see the world. I think that I put them in an understandable format and that I did a reasonable job of showing why I felt the way that I did. You seem to have dismissed them out of hand, and I'm the ego-maniacal one?
I don't want an apology or to ague about this any more. Just lose my AIM. I've got plenty of people who like me because I amuse them. I don't need to support another.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
**crickets**
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Sorry, John. I had to go out to buy supplies for a class party Cor is throwing tomorrow.
Of course, now that you prodded me, my response will seem inadequate. *pout*
First of all, thanks for compiling all of that here . . . it was interesting reading. (No, seriously. As a theology minor, I get off on this stuff probably almost as much as you do!)
In the end, it still comes down to faith and the stakes. (You seem to suggest that faith doesn't matter in light of what's at stake, but how could he have even believed he was being ordered to kill his son if he didn't have that faith in his connection to Jehova?) You raise the stakes a little bit, so it's not just his son versus God, but his son versus God and his nation (and his personal standing).
And yet, it doesn't change my answer. I mean, let's remove God from the picture altogether. I seem to recall the question coming up in a thread once . . . if your kid was on a railroad bridge, and a train was coming, and you could pull a lever that could cause the train to derail, saving your kid and killing the passengers, would you do it . . . and what were the moral consequences of this choice . . . I don't think I could sacrifice my kids for God, and I don't think I could do it for a trainload of people (strangers or otherwise). Could I do it for both together? That seems to be the question here. (Of course, me not being a faithful person--in the religious sense--maybe the question is meaningless . . . ) (And I know this is still the wrong context . . . but that's what makes moral dilemmas interesting, neh? Putting them in a context we can imagine ourselves in?)
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Now, I asked earlier if it was sinful to acknowledge a limit to your faith . . . porter seemed to suggest it might be. A related question: would it be sinful to "fail" this test? (If in fact refusing God's command here is a failure.) I mean, if I recall the train thread, we came to the conclusion that there was no moral imperative either way . . . no action was satisfying, but neither option was immoral. Of course, now a direct order from God is in the picture. And yet, many of us have said that a direct order such as this one would give rise to doubts as to whether this was really God.
So?
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
The thing to remember is that Abraham KNEW that God existed beyond all shadow of a doubt - he had a large number of obvious miracles performed for him, and he "spoke" to God on a regular basis. Furthermore, he knew that the "Next World" was a better place, and he knew that everything that God commanded was ultimately for the good of all those involved.
Since none of us have outright miracles performed for us consistently (or even occasionally ) and none of us have spoken to God, our situation is so different than Abraham's that it cannot be compared.
So, if I personally heard a voice in my head commanding me to kill someone - well, I know that I'm nowhere NEAR the level required to recieve a prophecy - not to mention that Jews believe that prophecy doesn't exist nowadays - so I'd definitely go for psychiatric help.
Also, the thing to remember is that Abraham wasn't planning to commit murder; since he believed in the next world, it was more like an early send off - and the majority of Jewish sources write that Isaac was nearly forty years old, and stronger than his father, who was an old man, and that if Isaac hadn't been willing to go along with the whole thing, Abraham would not have been able to physically tie him up. The standard question, of course, is why wasn't this considered a test for Isaac as well. The answer is that it may have been somewhat difficult for Isaac as well, but like Abraham, he believed in the next world, so ultimately, he wasn't losing out on much. It was Abraham, who was losing his son, who'd have to remain behind to grieve, for whom it was the test.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Now, how do we know they believeed in "the next world"? That sounds like we're imposing Christian beliefs on them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, reader, many do consider it a test for Isaac also -- possibly even more so. (In my Maharal class, we've been learning about Avraham's 10 tests, and he says that Yitzchak and Yakov also each had ten tests.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*twinkle* Actually, Ic, she's assuming traditional Jewish beliefs. And "the next world" is rather different in Jewish theology -- not that it matters much to her argument.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Porter, Whether God is an object of creation or the ultimate creator himself is an extremely important issue. If God was created, he's not the ultimate God. I don't see how this isn't a huge issue.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
Rivka - You're definitely right that most people do consider the Akeida a test for Isaac as well, but who considers it a harder test than Abraham's? I'd like a source, if you have one, because at the moment, I don't understand how that could be possible. Not only is it not one of the ten tests that are so famous, it isn't the merit that we still rely on today the way Abraham's test was - we don't mention Isaac's part in the Rosh Hashanah davening....
Icarus - What Rivka said. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"My answer to #1 is 'I hope so.' Is there something so repugnant that I couldn't bring myself to do it even though God told me to? Possibly. I don't know."
Odd. My answer to the same question is "I hope not."
If I'm willing to do repugnant things for the sake of my God, my God and I are both repugnant.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
*hugs Tom enthusiastically*
Thank you for saying that. That's what I was dancing around, trying to say. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
reader, would you be willing to email me? I know people find it frustrating (quite reasonably) when I use a lot of Hebrew in posts, and I find trying to translate some of these concepts into English pretty difficult.
I'd email you, but you don't have an email in your profile.
Anyway, if I'm remembering correctly, the reason it could be a more difficult test for Isaac and still not be the merit we call upon has to do with the difference between an active test and a passive one. (Yep, that's the Chidushei HaRim -- last article on linked page.)
[ April 16, 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah! Found it -- it's R' Hirsch who says that Yitzchak's challenge was the greater.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
MrSquicky -- How much does it matter to our lives? Does if affect the choices we have, the decisions we make? To some people, maybe. To me, I don't think so. For most purposes, the "universe" of the entire human race does not extend beyond this solar system. Yeah, we can look in the sky and see pictures of other things, but we cannot affect ot be affected by them except in an extremely limited sense.
Likewise, what difference does it make to me if the God that made this earth is not the original creator? I am certainly willing to concede that to some people it might make a big difference. It just doesn't to me. It can be a fun thing to think about and try to wrap your mind around, but it doesn't really affect my faith. To me, part of faith is action, and there is no action that I take differently because I don't believe that the creator of the heavens and earth is the one, original creator of all.
quote: we came to the conclusion that there was no moral imperative either way . . . no action was satisfying, but neither option was immoral. Of course, now a direct order from God is in the picture.
My faith is that if you have a direct order from God, then you know that there *is* a moral imperative. And yes, rebelling against the will of God is a sin. It's one of the simplest definitions of sin, in fact. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Here's another question realted to this: All you people that would would refuse to worhip a God that told you to do this -- do any of you believe that God commanded Abraham to do it? Tom? romanylass?
I ask this because for me, I start from the basis that God *did* command him to do it, and that it was righteous for Abraham to comply. This story has had a big impact on how I view God and my relationship to Him.
But if this were just a story from somebody's mythology to me, then it wouldn't have such a big affect on me.
Just wonderin.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, I'm willing to accept either option. I believe that it's possible that the God from the Christian Old Testament exists. However, from my perspective of him, if he does exist, he's evil.
Posted by DOG (Member # 5428) on :
quote:Here's another question realted to this: All you people that would would refuse to worhip a God that told you to do this -- do any of you believe that God commanded Abraham to do it?
No of course not!
It's all about control! Control, I tell you! It's just like the chips they put into our heads when we're born! COntroL!
I'm sorry. What was the question?
--DOG
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have found in my personal experience that those that have-trouble-with/are-not-willing-to-believe-in an authoritative God also dislike/are-mistrusting-of authority in general. I wonder how much this is actually the case.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have to disagree with you there, beverly. I am naturally distrustful of human authority, yet I believe in an authoritative God.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:reader, would you be willing to email me? I know people find it frustrating (quite reasonably) when I use a lot of Hebrew in posts, and I find trying to translate some of these concepts into English pretty difficult.
I'd email you, but you don't have an email in your profile.
<snip>
Ah! Found it -- it's R' Hirsch who says that Yitzchak's challenge was the greater.
Actually, R' Hirsch only says that the two challenges were equal - I'll email you to quote from his commentary - and he's in the minority in that opinion. (I've also updated my profile to include an email address.)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I didn't say it worked in the other direction. Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Abraham was bold enough to argue with God about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Why didn't he argue about sacrificing his son? Also, does anybody ever wonder what it did to the relationship between father and son afterward? To his marriage? I, for one, would tell God to stuff it. And I'd much rather burn forever in Hell than obey a God who wants me to be an unquestioning slave to His Will. I was made intelligent, and there is something of the rebel in my nature. If a God made me, it would be cruelty to expect me to then deny my very nature.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:Abraham was bold enough to argue with God about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Why didn't he argue about sacrificing his son?
The situations were very different. In the first case, Abraham was arguing against a punishment. If destroyed, the people of Soddom and Gemorrah would have no chance to repent, and their situation in the next world would be a whole lot less pleasant. With Isaac, it was NOT a punishment - if God had told Abraham that Isaac deserved to die as punishment for something he'd done, I'd imagine that Abraham would've spoken up for him as well. Isaac, however, was righteous, so this would not have been the case.
quote:Also, does anybody ever wonder what it did to the relationship between father and son afterward?
The standard Jewish belief is that Isaac was an adult at the time and was a willing participant.
quote:I was made intelligent, and there is something of the rebel in my nature. If a God made me, it would be cruelty to expect me to then deny my very nature.
First, God wouldn't give you a test you couldn't possibly pass, so if it truly wasn't in someone's nature to do such a thing, the issue would never come up. Second, if you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that God existed and that everything he did was for the good, the logical conclusion would be that this command was also for the good, no matter how difficult it may have been to carry out emotionally.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Icky, sorry for seeming pushy. Yeah, I know all about having regular-life-stuff keeping you busy.
quote:And yet, it doesn't change my answer. I mean, let's remove God from the picture altogether. I seem to recall the question coming up in a thread once . . . if your kid was on a railroad bridge, and a train was coming, and you could pull a lever that could cause the train to derail, saving your kid and killing the passengers, would you do it . . . and what were the moral consequences of this choice . . . I don't think I could sacrifice my kids for God, and I don't think I could do it for a trainload of people (strangers or otherwise). Could I do it for both together? That seems to be the question here. (Of course, me not being a faithful person--in the religious sense--maybe the question is meaningless . . . ) (And I know this is still the wrong context . . . but that's what makes moral dilemmas interesting, neh? Putting them in a context we can imagine ourselves in?)
Actually, I think you caught much of the context with that. However, you'd have to change the trainload of people into a trainload of people who looked to you as their spiritual and/or political leader. A responsibility to them beyond them just being humans has to be established, because Abraham had far more responsibilities than being a father or a husband (or a servant of his God).
And jeniwren:
quote:Abraham was bold enough to argue with God about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Why didn't he argue about sacrificing his son?
Like reader said, different positions, different situations, and different stakes. All throughout the Old Testament are examples of God being reasoned with by the leaders (Moses and Jacob did it as well, off the top of my head). It's another thing that is the result of misconceptions about the OT god that he was some absolute tyrant. Heck, there are people this very day who give less consideration to what their subjects think than the god of Old Testament.
quote:Also, does anybody ever wonder what it did to the relationship between father and son afterward? To his marriage?
Actually, a case can be made that his relationship with both his son and wife were the reason he had to undergo this test. Note my mention of his already having a first-born heir, and subsequentially banishing him and his mother—all because Sarah was giving him dirty looks that made him sick—before the test. So, what kinds of issues were already there? He kicked out a concubine and his first-born son for the sake of a favored son and his wife. That's pretty darn telling, since there's nothing biblically that states Abraham was told by his God to do so (hence the argument that the test was punishment: which would he choose first, the kingdom of God or his favored child?).
quote:I, for one, would tell God to stuff it. And I'd much rather burn forever in Hell than obey a God who wants me to be an unquestioning slave to His Will.
Would you want a leader of this country who would forsake the safety and stability of the rest of the people of this nation for the sake of his son? I sure as heck wouldn't.
quote:I was made intelligent, and there is something of the rebel in my nature. If a God made me, it would be cruelty to expect me to then deny my very nature.
Then you wouldn't have been in Abraham's position in the first place. Abraham was the leader not because there was something of a rebel in him, but because there was much of a leader, and leaders are required to make hard choices for the sake of everyone for whom they are responsible. The type of leader who only takes responsibility for certain people is the worst kind of leader of all, and have been recorded as the worst tyrants of history. There is nothing unintelligent about the situation Abraham was put in, because he had to fulfill his responsibility. This is why I put so much context in the explanation I gave—this wasn't just some random man who was given a test of faith, and treating it as such is making a ridiculous mockery of the meaning behind the incident to begin with. Even if it's a totally figurative tale, those early Hebrews had an incredible grasp of what it means to be a good leader and truly righteous person.
Oh, and Icky, I don't know the doctrines about admitting the limits of your faith, but the single most important reason I don't belong to any religion is because I recognize the limits (or lack) of my faith. There are other, smaller reasons, but that's what keeps all faiths at arm's length for me. Maybe it is sinful. I don't know. It doesn't stop me from marvelling at the intricasies and beauty of many religions, but I'm also sure it adds to my critical eye for each as well.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:He kicked out a concubine and his first-born son for the sake of a favored son and his wife. That's pretty darn telling, since there's nothing biblically that states Abraham was told by his God to do so (hence the argument that the test was punishment: which would he choose first, the kingdom of God or his favored child?).
Actually, your facts are incorrect. God did tell Abraham to listen to Sarah's demand that he banish Hagar and Ishmael.
To quote:
quote:And Sarah saw the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking*. Wherefore she said to Abraham: Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir** with my son, with Isaac. But the matter appeared extremely bad in the eyes of Abraham on account of his son. Then God said to Abraham: Let it not be bad in thy sight on account of the lad and on account of thy bondswoman, everything that Sarah sayeth unto thee, obey her voice, for in Isaac will seed [descendents] be called unto thee.
*The original Hebrew word - meaning to mock - has other connotations that are far worse. The same root word is associated with the three cardinal sins, and the Jewish belief is that what Sarah saw was that Ishmael was straying from Abrham's beliefs and good behavior, and she was worried that he would be a bad influence on Isaac.
**By heir, Sarah was not merely referring to him being Abraham's physical heir, but his spiritual heir. Since Ishmael was already far down the path of corruption, there was no longer any chance that he could be Abraham's spiritual heir. Abraham's reluctance to send him away was due to the fact that if Ishmael was already straying so far while under his influence, how much more so would he stray among others.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:I think this would have had a much greater effect if I couldn't say the exact same thing about you. The difference between us is, I always thought that, between us, this was implied.
I really thought you understood me and I understood you better than this.
And then you have the arrogance to presume to teach me about the theory of prefiguring myths. Seriously, you once thought I was arrogant because I thought that you probably didn't know that much about Taoism. But you feel fine about assuming that I'm ignorant of this.
I knew about this before I knew who you were. I've read much longer and more detailed accounts than the one you provided. I also know about prefiguring in pre-Christian myths and about prefiguralists perverting Native American myths to fit the "everything is really about Jesus" mold. I don't form strong opinions without giving an honest look at opposing points of view.
I didn't disagree because I didn't know about it or understand it. I just don't really buy it, at least in the "we can ignore the manifest content of the myths and the meaning that people have consistently taken out it because it's only about Jesus" way that you seem to be applying it. I didn't believe it before, and I'm not going to believe it now because you restated it. It doesn't work for me.
And that's ok, because, while I have confidence in my own abilities, I have confidence in yours too. I thought that you knew for me that it's not about pride or humilty or about needing feel better than someone else and dismissing them, but about confidence. I don't want people to agree with me or accept what I say uncritically as gospel truth. I want people I can respect and who respect me.
I don't have to believe the same thing as you, because I believe in you. Or at least I did.
Did you even try to see my point of view? I presented ideas that are very important to me and are central to how I see the world. I think that I put them in an understandable format and that I did a reasonable job of showing why I felt the way that I did. You seem to have dismissed them out of hand, and I'm the ego-maniacal one?
I don't want an apology or to ague about this any more. Just lose my AIM. I've got plenty of people who like me because I amuse them. I don't need to support another.
Whoa. Hello, left field.
First and foremost, when did you start taking me at face value when I call you an egomaniac? I always call you an egomaniac and arrogant SOB. It's, like, a pet name by this point. I'm shocked you felt it was necessary to post back with such a strong and aggressive manner.
You and I are friends. We've been friend since you've shown up. I was still your friend when you thought all of Hatrack hated you. Suddenly I would call you an egomaniac out of resentment, spite, or a need to get my 'point' across?
C'mon. You know me better than that.
Second, just because 'you've known something for, like, EVAR!!!!1' doesn't mean that I know you know it and it doesn't mean I can't express my views (even if they're SOOOOO elementary) for the entire audience known as everyone on Hatrack not you.
I have no clue why you ended your post with some stupid, transparently manipulative sentence like, "I don't want an apology or to ague about this any more. Just lose my AIM. I've got plenty of people who like me because I amuse them. I don't need to support another," but you're better than that.
It's Ralphie, Squick. Pull in the claws and attack someone who you think deserves it, not someone you think will simply take it in order to keep peace.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Sorry, reader, but other texts have somewhat different accounts. You'll note that I never even said definitively whether it was Isaac or Ishmael who was used in the test. I wasn't just going by Hebrew text on this.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Who could hate Mr. Squicky?
"I hate Mr. Squicky."
It even sounds stupid.
Now, if I said "I hate Mr. Squishy", that would make sense. Who doesn't hate Mr. Squishy?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ralphie, I considered a long time whether or not to write that last bit. Now that I look at it, I regret the way I expressed it. It does look overly emotional (I'll probably make up for that by sounding robot-like here). However, I'm completely serious. I'm not trying to manipulate you here or make you feel bad.
I thought we were friends, which for me carries a strong conotation of mutual respect as well as mutual affection. For me, without respect there is no friendship, no matter how much I might like you and vice versa.
This isn't the first time I've felt condescended to by you, but I've always written it off to a misunderstanding or humor. The big thing for here wasn't the ego-maniac thing. Although I didn't appreciate it, it didn't really bother me. It was the total air of condescension and the idea that you were sure that I was being condescending to you. That you believed that of me led me to give credit to my feelings that you don't put much value in the mutual respect that I thought was very important in our relationship.
You certainly didn't go out of your way to insult me or anything. It just that you came from a perspective that didn't respect my ability to make a rational decision and you thought that I thought the same way about you.
You still have my (slightly tarnished) rspect. You're still one of my favorite people here. I hope I remain one of yours. I just don't think we're friends by my definition.
[ April 17, 2004, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I'm sorry you took (and have taken in the past) my posts as condescending. I certainly have not felt superior to you in any way - either by knowledge, reasoning ability, or character - at any time. Quite the opposite, in fact.
In this particular case, I reread what I wrote and realized my own ending, as well, was expressed differently than I intended, and I'm sorry for that. Honestly, I've never really thought you believed I've had a level of information of reasoning ability to match yours, but that may be more a perception I've built myself instead of having any basis from your words.
However, while I truly regret what apparently was the fastest and most incomprehensible falling out I've ever personally experienced, I have to say that - more than anything - I hate walking on eggshells around people. You may not believe you require that from others, and you most probably do not. But I've checked my posts to, and about, you. I think I've been flattering, playful and thoughtful. If you don't think I have then I will have to, by my definition, walk on eggshells around you.
I'm not taking you off my buddy list. AIM me if I'm on and the inspiration takes you. Otherwise, I guess your wish is my command.
[ April 17, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
warm toes in the sand can't possibly be a sin. can it?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
that's still on my server.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)