Isaac Was a Willing Sacrifice
In the course of my Bible study with my cousin I recently learned something that blew my mind: When Abraham obeyed the Lord’s command to (do everything up to) sacrifice his own son, Isaac wasn’t a young boy. In fact, he was probably in his 20s or 30s. (Some think he was 33, presumably because that is probably how old Jesus was when He was sacrificed.) And Abraham was more than 100 years old.
Therefore, Isaac obeyed his father’s plan that involved sacrificing his own beloved son.
Other parallels are that Isaac had to carry the wood (Jesus carried His own cross), and some argue (though others say it can’t be) that the location of Abraham’s altar on this episode was the same place where Jesus would be crucified almost two thousand years later.
Other observations to help make this story more understandable to modern readers:
==> God stopped Abraham before he actually killed Isaac. The point wasn’t that God demanded a sacrifice, the point was that God wanted Abraham to acknowledge that he would surrender everything to the Lord.
==> It was customary for pagans of that day to sacrifice their kids to appease their gods. So rather than concluding, “Ugh! The Old Testament is gross! God asks for a human sacrifice!” the point is rather, “Unlike the other deities of that age, the God of Abraham did not actually want him to kill his son.”
==> God gave up His only Son to be killed for us. God was only testing Abraham (without actually requiring it) to do something that God Himself would actually follow through with, centuries later.
The originators of the Jesus story had the Isaac story in mind, but not the other way around.
In as much as the Gospel copies narratives from the Old Testament to drive its narrative (such as the genealogies of Luke), it is quite a leap of faith to write off the Crucifixion narrative.
Well, I mean, technically God had both in mind the entire time.
This absurd Christian apologetics over the Isaac story will never get around the fact that most people find it grotesque and immoral beyond words:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVoloVvsupM
The fact that the divine bully called it off at the last moment doesn’t make any less foul and vile.
You say “divine bully” as if that was a character flaw.
Owners of property have the right to do with their property whatever they wish.
This isn’t to say that we like this aspect of God, but it at least makes sense.
In the biblical paradigm, does God owe us something?
“Owners of property have the right to do with their property whatever they wish.”
That argument is mind-numbingly stupid. If true, it would follow that any parent owns his children forever, and can do whatever his wishes with his children.
And even if you grant the premise that some god created people, it doesn’t follow he has any moral right to ownership.
“That argument is mind-numbingly stupid. If true, it would follow that any parent owns his children forever, and can do whatever his wishes with his children.”
Well, parents contribute DNA, but they aren’t contributing their kids’ souls, so I would argue that they didn’t create their kids.
“And even if you grant the premise that some god created people, it doesn’t follow he has any moral right to ownership.”
He mixed his labor with a resource that he created. He obviously owns his creations.
“He mixed his labor with a resource that he created. He obviously owns his creations.”
Where in the Bible is there any evidence that this moral principle is stated?? You’re just attempting to make god a Rothbardian.
Paul, Romans 13.1–7:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. …. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due to them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.”
If Rothbardian property rights were true, the Bible wouldn’t say this.
“If Rothbardian property rights were true, the Bible wouldn’t say this.”
Unless biblical “authorities” had delegated authority from monarchs.
But then there’s also the question of what constitutes legitimate authority? Does conquering grant authority (might makes right)? Majority acquiescence (they have to already own something to delegate that ownership)?
In Esther 3:1-3, there’s a blatant disregard for authority, and by the end of the book we find that this act was rewarded.
Correction: “… delegated authority from kings”, not monarchs.
Finally, Rothbardian libertarianism, by your own texts, is anti-Christian:
(1) Titus 3:1:
“Remind them (viz., believing Christians) to be subject to the rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work …”
(2) 1 Peter, 2.13–15, 17:
“For the sake of the Lord, submit to every human institution, ..”
For the sake of the Lord, submit to every human institution, ..”
Go along to get along, then witness.
No matter, it is all a personal choice.
Don’t like the rules, don’t join the club.
What constitutes an institution?
Is it when someone just calls it that? Can I do that, and that will count?
Unless authority is based on individual property rights, I don’t see how it can be legitimate.
LK,
So sorry this is a hodge podge of responses and instruction that you most likely will disregard. Still please feel free to read through. I rarely follow up on posts I make, I will try to on this if you have questions or statements.
You find it immoral because you see it with different eyes than others do. How many deaths have you felt in your life. Have you sought to know that there is more than this mortal existence.
If there is a God and if as a portion of that the human soul ( and I would suggest all souls ) are in some way immortal, then what cares God of the brief moment and troubles we experience here on this earth?
You see your perspective on ‘Mortality’ is one of your own defining. You have created a belief system that has no basis in anything. Yet you ridicule another system that sees things entirely different from your own point of view.
God is. He is actually quite wonderful. I have slowly gotten to know more about Him over the years and the more I know the more wonderful He is.
He is not some kind of super hero deity that you find in comics, or looking at the Greeks. Rather He is a teacher, an instructor, someone who’s only purpose is to bring about the Immortality and Eternal life of Man.
So now I ask you this. If mankind does not destroy itself, and given enough time what will we, of our own ability become? What is science except the acceptance and following of rules and laws that exist independent of ourselves? What if God is simply a person that has a perfect knowledge of all the laws of the Universe, and obeys them perfectly?
Now as for being Omnipotent. This is actually a mistranslated of the original Hebrew. I would suggest that it really comes closer to the word ‘All Nourishing’. Which is very different. This does not mean that God does not have power, but I would suggest that the glory of God is intelligence. To illustrate this look at the other words used to describe God.
Omniscient – The irony here is that if you really break down this word to its Latin base it is not ‘All Knowing’ rather it is ‘All Knowledge’ – or perhaps a better way of looking at it is ‘All Science’. Now there is a chance that this would make God also ‘All Knowing’. I mean there is a chance, though I admit I do not know this for certain. That God can travel through both time and space. If so he can see how events play out. but I do not know this to be true or not.
Look. In the end you may point and ridicule. I understand. Had I not witnessed and experienced the things I have I may very well be right there with you. Since I have a cursory knowledge of God I must therefore tell you there is a God. That you may know Him, and that your objections and misunderstanding of the nature of God is due to your own bias and misinterpretation as to His motives.
In the end LK, I do not care if you come to know God or not. That is between you and Him. But I would suggest that your railings against God are just that, an attempt to be correct in a world where you have such little true knowledge of things. Take for instance your use of Romans and Titus and 1st Peter.
Yes I will ultimately submit to all things that a government forces upon me. Yet that does NOT mean I will not stand and say that it is wrong. Also this is not meant for things that would force me to break the commandments that God has given to me or others. God is not silent and the Bible does not keep the spirit of the Lord from working on us today. These were instructions given to specific people in response to specific situations. That may be drawn on in general ways even today.
Did Daniel submit to the orders of the King not to pray to God? Of course not. Nor would God have blessed them for having done so. So it is obviously not ALL THINGS that you are to submit to. Did not the Apostles lose their lives one by one because they did not submit to the authority of the various states they went into? Yes they did.
You misunderstand the very nature of God and then attempt to use words meant for others in response to questions asked to prove your point. Showing that you do not understand God, nor the times in which the Apostles or Christ lived. This is not to say that you are not arguing your point and that you are not a very intelligent person. Rather that you do not know what the heck you are actually talking about.
Can your words and arguments sway those that are as ignorant as yourself? Probably, but anyone who knows God will feel in their heart that the words you bring to bear are not being used correctly. This is again the Spirit of the Lord, that testifies of truth pricking the hearts of the faithful that there is something wrong with what you say.
LK. You are wrong. It is okay I am wrong about many things. Let us then take up the mantle of Keynes and know that when the facts change we change our minds. May you change your mind and find something greater than you ever thought possible.
Cheers
I am asking everyone to read Innocent’s post. There are so many things that can be said in response but it needs to be viewed on its own. Wow.
The question that theists will never answer, except with delusions and fantasies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo
Replace God with Government, and it explains your delusions and fantasies.
There is a very simple question to demonstrate the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your theism.
In Deuteronomy 20:16–18 god orders a genocide.
If you — Innocent — were convinced that god had ordered you to commit genocide, would you in fact commit genocide and say it was moral to do so because god ordered it?
Intellectual: In your scenario, god is *actually* ordering me to commit genocide, so saying yes would pass the intellectual test.
Moral: You can’t have a legitimate moral code without a code giver, so, unless, in your scenario, your god is more moral than mine, then saying yes would also pass the moral test.
By what standard do you assess genocide to be immoral?
“You can’t have a legitimate moral code without a code giver, so, unless, in your scenario, your god is more moral than mine, then saying yes would also pass the moral test.”
There you have it. You admit to being willing to commit genocide if you thought god ordered you to do it.
You’ve endorsed divine command theory. You have no moral high ground whatsoever. You don’t have any consistent, absolute moral standard, for god might order genocide today but that genocide is wrong tomorrow.
I’d be fascinated to see if Bob Murphy would also give his assent to this view too.
“You’ve endorsed divine command theory. You have no moral high ground whatsoever.”
What part of “moral codes require a code giver” don’t you get?
Obligations are to people, not ideas or things.
Morality is a code of “oughts” – that is, obligations.
*You* have no moral high ground – even in theory – without a belief in a code giver.
“I’d be fascinated to see if Bob Murphy would also give his assent to this view too.”
For what it’s worth:
Killing for God
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/05/killing-for-god.html
(I was totally looking for something else when this popped up.)
LK,
Congrats, you just demolished social democracy.
If 51% of society voted to commit genocide against the other 49%, then according to your intellectually bankrupt ideology, it is superior to private property ethics that prohibits democratic law enforcement.
Genocide is PERMITTED in social democracy, provided the majority “vote” for it.
The only difference between Old Testament theism and your depraved worldview is a disagreement over which God concept we are to sacrifice the individual to.
“Let us then take up the mantle of Keynes and know that when the facts change we change our minds.”
When others find out my facts are wrong, I like to escape scrutiny by asking “What do you do, sir?”
What most people find grotesque and immoral has no bearing on what is actually grotesque and immoral towards the individual.
See what “most Germans” thought during the 1933-1945.
“God gave up His only Son to be killed for us. “
lol… He’s omnipotent!! He didn’t need to engage in any such bizarre human sacrifice: he could have accepted any person showing regret and contrition over alleged sins and forgiven them. If god was not capable of this, then he was not omnipotent, and the whole Christian belief in an omnipotent god is a sham.
“He didn’t need to engage in any such bizarre human sacrifice: he could have accepted any person showing regret and contrition over alleged sins and forgiven them.”
The reason he couldn’t is because it’s part of his nature to hate sin. The sinner must pay with his life.
If that’s his nature, then he can’t just decide otherwise.
And since, obviously, he can refrain from doing anything he wants, it’s not a matter of omnipotence. He is simply unwilling due to his nature.
(Aside: Arguments against omnipotence are usually overplayed. For example, it’s not for lack of power that God can’t violate the laws of logic.)
The reason he couldn’t is because it’s part of his nature to hate sin. The sinner must pay with his life.
.. which means this (supposed) nature limits his power very much. Conclusion: he clearly isn’t omnipotent.
“The reason he couldn’t is because it’s part of his nature to hate sin. The sinner must pay with his life.”
Riiiiight… so if you eat pork or work on the sabbath, you must be killed. What a wonderful chap.
“.. which means this (supposed) nature limits his power very much. Conclusion: he clearly isn’t omnipotent.”
I repeat: “And since, obviously, he can refrain from doing anything he wants, it’s not a matter of omnipotence. He is simply unwilling due to his nature.”
So you say that god didn’t need to have human sacrifice, but — gasp!! — it couldn’t have been any other way. lol
No, I’m saying that he has the physical capacity to not punish someone for his sins and just forgive them (your original argument), so whether or not he chooses to refrain from doing so says nothing about his omnipotence.
It couldn’t have been any other way – not because of a lack of omnipotence, but a lack of will (due to his nature).
Are you sure? Maybe they are saying the reverse. Maybe they are saying instead that it couldn’t have been any other way, but it didn’t need to be.
🙂
Next, LK will humiliate all theists by asking “if God can do anything, can he make a rock so big he can’t lift it?”
We also would have accepted, “Can God run a deficit so big bondholders can’t finance it?”
Can god create a problem that the free market cannot solve? Seriously.
Yes. The free market can’t solve the problem of sin, only Jesus can.
Apparently he was also in favour of communism too:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2014/04/early-christian-communism.html
Ooh, snap..
Do Brits speak like that, too?
Sneering is not answering. That old George Carlin joke perfectly skewers the unintelligibility of the Abrahamic religions’ claim of “omnipotence”. Theist *should* be humiliated by their flat inability to answer Carlin, and their flat refusal to even try too.
Hey Craw,
Let’s put aside your sneering rejection of my attempt to logically answer these types of problems. Even if you weren’t someone who had been previously banned, I would at this point be telling you to stop being so obnoxious. Thank you.
I was responding to Brian’s flippant, sneering dismissal of a strong objection.
Your attempts to logically answer? Is “we would also have accepted…” anything but “ditto”? I think not. So, I don’t see an attempt at a logical answer there.
Obliquely threatening to ban me might count as obnoxious, no?
If you *are* Ken B, you and I are cool – not everyone can appreciate your style.
I hope you are able to stick around, at any rate.
You’re on point Bob. Also, Abraham was promised by God that he would have descendants through Isaac.
Abraham had faith that they would both somehow return. ““Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go over there; and we will worship and return to you.”
The author of Hebrews says:
“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, “In Isaac your [n]descendants shall be called.” He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.”
Kudos Matt S. I reiterated your point below.
“In the first place, consider the details pertaining to chronology. Sarah gave birth to Isaac when she was 90 years old (Genesis 17:17). She would have been 92 or 93, 95 at most, when Isaac was weaned. She died at age 127 (Genesis 23:1)—when Isaac was 37 years old. Following Isaac’s birth, the events of the rest of Genesis chapter 21 (i.e., the driving out of Hagar and Ishmael, and the incident with Abimelech), as well as the events of chapter 22, all occurred during a 35-year period (approximately). Notice the expression “many days” in Genesis 21:34, as well as the phrase “after these things” in 22:1. These allusions would suggest that some time had elapsed prior to the offering of Isaac.”
According to Dave Miller, PhD, the author of the piece cited as to Isaac’s age the quoted passage is true. Sarah was 90 – that’s not a misprint – 90 years old when she gave birth to Isaac. Let that settle in and ask yourself if that sounds remotely probable.
Does anyone recall Andrea Yates? She drowned her five children under divine command. I know what you are going to say, “she was insane and suffering from, at least, severe post-partum depression.” How do you know that? How do you know that God didn’t command her to kill her children? Based on the Isaac story we certainly know that God does command parents to kill children – the “reprieve” notwithstanding. Who would worship a God that tortures his adherents in this way? Seeing the apologists spin this is a sight to behold.
“Sarah was 90 – that’s not a misprint – 90 years old when she gave birth to Isaac. Let that settle in and ask yourself if that sounds remotely probable.”
Define “remotely”:
Another 70-year-old in India has IVF baby
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28112285/ns/health-pregnancy/t/another–year-old-india-has-ivf-baby
[2008]
60-year-old woman gives birth to twin girls
[www]http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/12/27/60-year-old-woman-gives-birth-to-twin-girls.html
[2013]
Also, in the biblical paradigm, people lived longer in Abraham’s time.
Given the two stories you posted you appear to be arguing that in vitro fertilization explains Sarah giving birth at 90. Curious why that wasn’t mentioned in the Bible.
I guess Genesis 17:19 could have read – “God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. I developed a system whereby eggs are fertilized in a test tube and implanted in Sarah’s body allowing her to give birth at an advanced age. I know you don’t know what eggs, sperm, fertilization, or test tubes mean but trust me, in a few thousand years this will be commonplace.”
“Also, in the biblical paradigm, people lived longer in Abraham’s time.”
In the biblical paradigm, walls fall from trumpet blasts, men live inside the belly of a fish for days, the dead rise from the grave, men walk on water, rivers turn to blood, seas are parted allowing passage through them, first born male children are mysteriously wiped out, and the list goes on. With God, literally, all things are possible.
“Given the two stories you posted you appear to be arguing that in vitro fertilization explains Sarah giving birth at 90.”
Given that the two stories posted were a response to your challenge to ask oneself if that were remotely possible, one might also suppose that I was arguing that the biblical story was at least “remotely possible”.
“With God, literally, all things are possible.”
So stop challenging the biblical accounts on their own terms.
Say, instead, “that never actually happened”, rather than, “that doesn’t make sense on its own terms”.
Did in vitro fertilzation of the sort described in the stories you cited exist in Sarah’s time? No. The point of the stories is that they constitute anomalies to the way things usually work and that it is only through in vitro fertilization that these old women could give birth.
I’m assuming based on your response that you don’t understand the burden of proof and that you don’t see the irony in your citation to the IVF stories.
“… and that you don’t see the irony in your citation to the IVF stories.”
Dude. What’s the meaningful difference between “possible” and “remotely possible”?
You’re the one that made the qualification.
Actually it was “probable” not “possible.” The distinction is huge. It’s possible a unicorn may be elected head of the North Korean politburo. It is not very probable.
It is possible that a 90 year old woman conceived naturally and gave birth. It is not very probable. In your own formulation the old women required a MASSIVE outside assist through man-made means. The Bible does not mention any such means being used. If it does please point me to the verse.
“Actually it was “probable” not “possible.” The distinction is huge.”
Great.
Now what’s the meaningful difference between “probable” and “remotely probable”?
That there’s a huge difference between “possible” and “probable” is not the issue at hand.
“Now what’s the meaningful difference between “probable” and “remotely probable”?”
It is probable that the Chicago Cubs will win the World Series this year. It is not remotely probable that the Cleveland Cavaliers will win the Super Bowl.
“It is not remotely probable that the Cleveland Cavaliers will win the Super Bowl.”
What *is* remotely probable, in your view?
“Remotely” really has you hung up doesn’t it?
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/remotely
For purposes of clarification do you think it either probable or highly probable that a woman of 90 conceived a child naturally and went on to live until she was 127 years old?
Also in the biblical paradigm: meat slabs speak of their own volition.
It’s like the Bible is anti-science.
Apparently there is at least one meat slab who likes to make outrageous claims of its own volition – like a 90 year old woman gave birth naturally.
I wonder if that meat slab also invented the question mark?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTJj4wbmAhk
I’m just saying that if women can still bring babies to term at 70 – IVF, or otherwise – that maybe the only reason we don’t see 90 year olds giving birth is because they ran out of ammo?
The IVF is critical in this formulation. You would need to point to a woman approximating Sarah’s age who conceived naturally and brought the baby to term.
The otherwise is apparently a magic waving of god’s baton.
“You would need to point to a woman approximating Sarah’s age …”
Or, for purposes of your specific challenge, “remotely approximating” Sarah’s age.
“Or, for purposes of your specific challenge, “remotely approximating” Sarah’s age.”
No. 80 would be approximately Sarah’s age. 25 would be remotely approximating Sarah’s age.
“Does anyone recall Andrea Yates? She drowned her five children under divine command. I know what you are going to say, “she was insane and suffering from, at least, severe post-partum depression.” How do you know that? How do you know that God didn’t command her to kill her children?”
PMS Treatment Clinic … FAQ’s
http://www.pmstreatmentclinic.com/faqs.html
“Why did Andrea Yates kill her five children?
Andrea was suffering with postpartum psychosis. She was out of touch with reality and should have been hospitalized. She may have heard voices telling her to kill the children. Her psychosis could have been prevented if she had been given injections of bioidentical progesterone immediately after giving birth. Unfortunately, the American medical and psychiatric communities do not view this disorder as being hormonal. They view it as a psychiatric disorder possibly requiring electroshock therapy and antidepressants.”
Apparently, doctors don’t know that synthetic hormones hurt women, and that they should be giving bioidentical hormones.
Cool stuff on that site.
Think about how much pain and suffering could have been avoided if Abraham had just been on bioidentical hormone treatments.
I confess to a certain grudging admiration for Bob Murphy for making this post.
The story of Abraham and Isaac is really the beating heart of the three “Abrahamic” religions. In it we see the moral nihilism, the cruelty, the absurdity, all in one concentrated dollop. Yet Bob Murphy proudly proclaims “I embrace it all: the silliness of 90 year olds giving birth, the evil of child murder, the cruelty of demanding such a sacrifice. Screw logic and evidence! I love it!” It’s brazen, daft, and immoral but at least it’s honest.
“the silliness of 90 year olds giving birth”
Silliness? Surely if God could create the universe from nothing making a 90 year old woman give birth would be in the realm of his power.
Making logical theists seems beyond his capacity.
Also, making consistent atheists.
Because logic is not a property of objects that are bound by causal relationships, but of minds which must have the capacity to be a source of first causes in order to assess the information of which it has become aware.
Bob,
First, I am a self-professed atheist. Second, I think LK and Craw are totally failing to comprehend Bob’s point and are making flawed arguments because they are twisting the underlying concepts beyond recognition.
LK keeps using the word “moral” and “morality” with respect to god’s actions in the same way as he would for man’s actions. What’s moral for man is not necessarily moral for god and vice versa. A man killing another man may be immoral. But a man killing a pig or a chicken to eat it is not immoral. Similarly, for god to kill a man….. or many men…. is not immoral.
Craw talks of child murder. It is only murder if man kills man. It is not murder if a tiger or a lion or for that matter god kills a man or many men.
I think self-professed atheists need to come up with better arguments than these. I also think they need to understand spiritual writings spiritually, not materially.
“It is not murder if a tiger or a lion or for that matter god kills a man or many men.”
That daft argument would entail that god is like an animal: no moral agent and concept of right and wrong.
lol.. you just throw the Classical theist view of god out the window… You’re only digging yourself deeper into the hole.
**and NO concept of right and wrong**
LK,
Where on earth did you get that from? I just clarified that the definition of murder is only when man kills man. Where in what I wrote did you get the equivalence between God and the other animals I mentioned? Your wonders never cease, do they?
” I just clarified that the definition of murder is only when man kills man.”
Pathetic word games. Call it “killing” that most people find repugnant if you want — and the moral debasement of it all still stands.
“What’s moral for man is not necessarily moral for god and vice versa”
That is B.S. If the Christian god were evil, he would cease to be god. So therefore MUST be bound by a moral code to benevolent and loving.
No word games, LK. Even if you call it killing, people who find it repugnant do so because it conflicts with their morality as human beings. When God, who is not a human being, kills humans, it is not necessarily repugnant.
And then you go dancin around using words like “good” and “evil” when such words pertain only to human behaviour. They are inapplicable to God. Even when God causes the death of a human, he does not become evil. By your yardstick, God is evil because he made man mortal.
LK,
Why is making definitions clear a word game? It is very important in this argument. God is not man. What is repugnant to man when done by another man need not be repugnant when God does the same. In the theist’s terms, when God kills a person, he is only taking back what he has given – life. There is nothing repugnant in taking back what you gave for a limited time period. So there is nothing fundamentally immoral in god’s action when he takes a man’s life.
And if you followed what I said above, the Christian God never becomes evil. What he gives, he gives with an expiry date he alone knows. When he takes it back, he is taking back what is his on the said expiry date. Pleasure and pain are equally part of the experience called life that he gives his creation. So your diatribe makes no sense.
You fail to understand that to the believer, concepts like right and wrong originate from God. What I said does not imply that God is beyond right and wrong. All I said is that you are applying man’s sense of right and wrong to God.
What’s even worse is that in the sentence you cited, I was only talking of the word and concept “murder”. Why and how did you drag right and wrong into it? You a cat? ‘Cozy that looks like something the cat dragged in.
* ‘Coz
Damned autocorrect.
It’s not murder if a man kills a child? SS officers swinging babies against trees isn’t murder?
Man = mankind, so child = man (and woman = man).
If Craw is indeed Ken B, this kind of deliberate misinterpretation and twisting of words is par for the course.
Please note the deliberate insertion of “a” before “man” as proof of the correctness of my accusation.
So I’m to blame for your unclear writing? You said child miurder was beside the point and contrasted “a” lion killing “a” child with your definition of murder.
Let’s discuss the real point not your speculations. The monotheistic faiths justify the murder of children by persons. You want to pretend I just meant disease or disaster where god kills children, but that’s just evasion. The bible has god telling his followers to kill children.
Once again, God killing children through germs or other humans makes no difference. The killer and the killed are his creations and instruments. Refusal to comprehend this is not compensated for by hyperventilating and throwing the gauntlet.
Bala knows jack about Christian theology. He’s just making stuff up.
Traditionally, god is conceived as a personal being and perfectly good:
“Whereas classical Greek religion ascribed to the gods very human foibles, theism from Plato onward has affirmed that God is purely good and could not be the author of anything evil (Republic). In Judaism divine goodness is thought to be manifested especially in the giving of the law (Torah). ….
While goodness encompasses all moral perfection (e.g., truth telling, justice), benevolence is that particular aspect of goodness that wills the benefit of another. …
Divine goodness raises the question of whether God wills x because it is good, or x is good because God wills it. The former seems to weaken divine sovereignty, but the latter seems to make goodness arbitrary. The arbitrariness may be somewhat relieved if God’s will is understood as bounded by his unchanging character. God would not, for example, decide to make torturing for enjoyment right since his nature forever condemns it.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-west/#SH3i
But, no says Bala the genius theologian, “What is repugnant to man when done by another man need not be repugnant when God does the same” — meaning Bala thinks god can order rape, slavery, mass murder, genocide, torture etc. or any evil you can imagine when classical theology forbids him from doing such things. lol
You won’t address the point, no matter how often I repeat it. In christianity and islam, grown men killing children is often portrayed as a good thing.
According to your definition that is murder, right? So how am I “twisting concepts out of recognition” to say monotheists approve of some child murders?
LK,
Since you are an expert on theology (and economics and law and logic) please do reconcile for this ignorant soul this contradiction – Why would a benevolent, compassionate God create man mortal, therefore necessitating the taking of life? Maybe….. just maybe…… the mere taking of life does not contradict god’s compassionate, benevolent nature and you shouldn’t be the cat that dragged something in when Bob makes a limited point about the sacrifice of Isaac.
Oh no, Craw. The answer is simple and I am surprised a man of your keen intellect hasn’t got it yet.
If it is god’s will that I shall not be the instrument of the taking of a child’s life, so be it because I would be sinning by doing what God has prohibited. But if it is god’s will that I be the instrument of this child’s death, I would be an even bigger sinner if I were to refuse to bend to god’s will.
The catch in all this is, of course, how you come to know god’s will.
“According to your definition that is murder, right?”
In the biblical paradigm, there’s a difference between killing and murder.
Murder is the unjust killing of another.
Killing can include murder, but also justified killing or accidental killing.
So, murder is more specific.
(And no, killing children is not often portrayed favorably in Christianity.)
I wonder if LK has, through his Marxist catechism, learned that the only reason Keynesianism has been adopted by left wing economists is for them to promote Marxism without having to speak like Marxists.
And I thought we just being polite by calling them Keynesians instead of communist.
Or the story is a reminder that a sin isn’t just avoiding that which is deemed wrong but also failing to do what is commanded by God.
Wow. I stop looking for one day and look what happens. Well, it’s a nit too late to jump on this bandwagon.
Only one person mentioned Hebrews and he got no response. Both Abraham and Isaac knew they were heirs of the promise (which was confirmed multiple times earlier in the narrative). So then God says to sacrifice Isaac.
Does anyone not see the problem with the typical interpretations required by LK (and others)? In short, Abraham believe both of these things:
1) The promise would be fulfilled though Isaac (who had no children at this time).
2) Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac
Abraham trusted God that both of these things were true. He believe the sacrifice was NOT the end for Isaac. THEREFORE Hebrews says what it does. That Abraham believed God “even to raise the dead” in order that his promise be fulfilled.
Thanks Matt S. I’m not sure why no one noticed.
Jim
So, the sacrifice was a put-up job?
I’m not sure what you mean.
Abraham believed that Isaac was STILL going to be the heir – even after the sacrifice. He didn’t know HOW that would happen. But he trusted God that it would.
While someone thought it was stupid to believe that a 90 year old woman could have a baby, SO DID THAT WOMAN (for a time). At that point, she and Abraham had doubts about whether God could keep his promise as stated, just because too much time had passed. So Ishmael was put forward as the heir of those promises.
Eventually Abraham and Sarah came to believe God would fulfil His promise no matter what the circumstances seemed to them. Abraham’s trust was so complete that “he, who had embraced the promises, was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, ‘It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.'” (Heb 11)
For what it’s worth:
In Hebrews, it says that the reason Abraham was willing to kill his own son is because he believed that God could raise the dead.
So Abraham fully intended to kill his son, and this faith was rewarded by God.
I take that to mean that it’s not beyond God to actually require such a sacrifice, even though it was a test in this particular instance.
(Not sure how that meshes with his criticism of other nations sacrificing their kids to false gods.
(Also, the other story where the guy makes an oath to sacrifice whatever next comes out of the house (?) and it happened to be his daughter, I think was a sacrifice of the rest of her life.)
Yup. I don’t disagree. I didn’t mean to imply that Abraham didn’t intend to go through with it. But let’s not loose site of the covenantal context. In Hebrews it’s the “promises” that are the content of Abraham’s faith and that they would be fulfilled though Isaac, believing that God could “even raise the dead” if that’s what was necessary.
The world was blind, dumb, sin riddled and without salvation up to the very moment Jesus ascended to Heaven.
Everything prior to Death, Burial and Resurrection was goobly gook, including the entire Old Testament. Blind leading the blind.
*Christians* who dwell in the OT are asking for trouble.
Jesus says everybody will always be trying to kill Him, now and forever.
Dear world and pseudo *christians* Please stop trying to kill Jesus and the gift of salvation.
“Everything prior to Death, Burial and Resurrection was goobly gook, including the entire Old Testament.”
Jesus didn’t think so. He took the Old Testament as God’s word and quoted it as such. In face he held people responsible as if God spoke to them through the scriptures.
Matt 22:31:
“And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”
Yes, Jesus threw some of their own nonsense back in their face, Jesus was good like that.
“God will provide himself a lamb.”
Abraham perhaps doesn’t realize that he is prophesying. The sacrifice ends up not being Isaac but a ram caught in the thicket. But it really is the case that Christ not Isaac is the sacrifice, the lamb God provides. Isaac is often pitched as a story that is allegorical of Christ. This isn’t quite right. Isaac is us. When Christ was going to be crucified, Pilate attempts to pacify the mob by offering Barrabas. Bar – abba (son of the father). The sons of the father go free (though guilty) and Christ pays the price (though innocent). But Isaac’s story is instructive. We, like Isaac, must attempt to live a life that is an example of Christ in some lesser way (as was Isaac’s). He was a miracle birth, a birth that fulfilled a covenant made to Abraham. He willing went to be sacrificed. His life is a foreshadow of Christ. Our lives can be an example of Christ too when we do the things he would do. 3 Gospels mention Simon who carried the cross of Christ for a period. This is what discipleship requires. We might not hang at Golgatha, but we are asked to carry to the cross for a period. We willing must go up the mountain prepared for our own sacrifice. But it is only at the end that we learn that “God will provide himself a lamb.”
That’s what I believe anyway.
Stephen from the New Testament book of Acts is an absolutely fascination and mostly overlooked character. Look very closely at acts 6:14 14 For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.”
Acts 6: 8-14
8 Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people. 9 Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia—who began to argue with Stephen. 10 But they could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit gave him as he spoke.
11 Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.”
12 So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. 13 They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. 14 For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.”
15 All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel.