posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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!
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to disagree with you there, beverly. I am naturally distrustful of human authority, yet I believe in an authoritative God.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
