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.
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.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
*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.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, how do we know they believeed in "the next world"? That sounds like we're imposing Christian beliefs on them.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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....
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
posted
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. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I guess that's why I post here. 
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
that's still on my server.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
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.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
