Abraham was insane

[Blastcat]

After he started hearing voices, he mutilated his genitals and almost murdered his son.. but at the very last minute, the voices said NO.

Question for debate:

______________________

How is that not insane?

______________________

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by Blastcat]

At least, the Abrahamic religions have been trying to make a difference! Why is it we never hear about the barbarians? Much like "Atheism"! Not quite in the head...!

Ethical and moral character is celebrated by the religions and they do support full rationality which is why it's never declared insane to be merely religious!

To the contrary, moral blindness, sometimes celebrated by followers of "Atheism", a very diverse group, leads directly to patent insanity, the schizophrenia!

I don't accept that this thread is supposed to insinuate that all of JCI (by Abraham) thereby is crazy!

[Mithrae]

Instead the author/s of the passage seem to have either not really even considered that angle of interpretation, or intentionally left it ambiguous as to whether Abraham's blind obedience was morally praiseworthy... or just another example of Abraham's weak character.

Ambiguity? In this passage?

• Genesis 22:15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.â€�
  
  <bolding mine>

It couldn't possibly be stated more clearly.

As I mentioned, in an earlier story Abraham profited mightily from his deception of passing Sarah off as just his sister and risking her honour to the king of Gerar who took her; is that supposed to outline the moral praiseworthiness of fearing that foreigners will kill you for your ninety year old wife? Or is it possible that Abraham (and the voices in his head) were not intended to be viewed as the perfect example of what to do in every situation?

In this case, there's not even any reward or blessing there at all; the voices had already made all those promises to Abraham, several times in fact. This is simply a direct cause and effect: If you don't kill your children, you're probably going to have more descendants.


#####
#####

The obvious primary message of the story about Isaac and the goat, to its primitive bronze age hearers, is that we shouldn't sacrifice our children anymore; that trying to show devotion to the gods by sacrificing what you most 'love' is misguided thinking.

I agree that that is one of the several explanations Jewish commentators offer to explain this horrific story. It may be correct, but there is nothing 'obvious' about it. That is NOT what Christian commentators say. Christians say it is all about 'faith,' that the story means we should trust God and do whatever wackadoodle thing he tells us to do, 'trust and obey.'

Again, where exactly did you read that? Overwhelmingly, most Christian commentators on the story that I've seen have stressed in one way or another that any Christians who hear voices telling them to do something obviously immoral should not do so, and seek help. In the New Testament, in a similar vein to the story of Ezekiel, a hungry Peter sees in a vision some 'unclean' animals and hears a voice from heaven telling him to kill and eat them, but three times refuses to do so because they would defile him. Later he learns the meaning of the vision - that it's wrong to imagine that contact with gentiles will defile someone - and it is largely on that moral, inclusive basis that Christians ultimately set aside the ritual purity laws which divided Jews from Gentiles. Peter disobeyed the voice from heaven three times because it told him to do something against his current understanding of good, but eventually came around to disobeying the supposedly God-given ancient purity laws because of a more profound understanding of good.

I'm sure there are some Christians who say to obey the voices in whatever "wackadoodle" thing they command. There are some Christians who say that the earth is 6,000 years old, too. I feel a little sorry for them, but I don't see much point in debating or otherwise emphasizing them. It'd be kind of like the intellectual equivalent of beating up a six year old And implying by way of generalization that those people represent all of Christianity would kind of be primary school intellect in itself.

I agree with you that the Jewish idea that some suggest, that the story NEVER actually happened, but is meant to tell us 'not to sacrifice our children any more' makes sense and may actually be what was intended. But to believe that you must accept this is an illustrative story and NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

What makes you think that? It probably didn't happen of course; but if poor confused Abraham heard voices telling him to kill his son but, reluctant to do so, conjured up some more voices telling him to kill a ram instead while retrospectively rationalizing the nasty ordeal he'd put his son through, this is pretty much the story we'd end up with. He'd tell Isaac or Rebekah that God told him this, that and the other thing; and if one of them was naive enough to believe it without question they'd tell Jacob, and Jacob would tell Levi, and Levi would tell Kohath, and Kohath would tell Amram and Amram would tell Moses who (supposedly) wrote it down. Unquestionable history.

[Willum]

[Replying to Aetixintro]

So what I get from all that is Abraham was either insane or a liar.
Why go through such volumes to say that?
You really haven’t left much room for a divine voice.

[Danmark]

Instead the author/s of the passage seem to have either not really even considered that angle of interpretation, or intentionally left it ambiguous as to whether Abraham's blind obedience was morally praiseworthy... or just another example of Abraham's weak character.

Ambiguity? In this passage?

• Genesis 22:15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.â€�
  
  <bolding mine>

It couldn't possibly be stated more clearly.

As I mentioned, in an earlier story Abraham profited mightily from his deception of passing Sarah off as just his sister and risking her honour to the king of Gerar who took her; is that supposed to outline the moral praiseworthiness of fearing that foreigners will kill you for your ninety year old wife? Or is it possible that Abraham (and the voices in his head) were not intended to be viewed as the perfect example of what to do in every situation?

In this case, there's not even any reward or blessing there at all; the voices had already made all those promises to Abraham, several times in fact. This is simply a direct cause and effect: If you don't kill your children, you're probably going to have more descendants.


#####
#####

The obvious primary message of the story about Isaac and the goat, to its primitive bronze age hearers, is that we shouldn't sacrifice our children anymore; that trying to show devotion to the gods by sacrificing what you most 'love' is misguided thinking.

I agree that that is one of the several explanations Jewish commentators offer to explain this horrific story. It may be correct, but there is nothing 'obvious' about it. That is NOT what Christian commentators say. Christians say it is all about 'faith,' that the story means we should trust God and do whatever wackadoodle thing he tells us to do, 'trust and obey.'

Again, where exactly did you read that?

God's commandment to Abraham was very specific, and Abraham understood it very precisely: Isaac was to be "raised up as an offering", and God would use the opportunity to teach humankind, once and for all, that human sacrifice, child sacrifice, is not acceptable. This is precisely how the sages of the Talmud (Taanit 4a) understood the Akedah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac

In the 35 years or so I spent in the Christian community, the only view I heard expressed was about how great Abraham's faith was, how laudable it was that he was willing to kill his son to please God... that he trusted that no matter how vile an act, God would work things out for the best if you just 'trust and obey.'

It's not as if there aren't dozens of examples in the Bible where Bible kills people, even entire nations, or orders his followers to kill... even kill children. Right off the bat he's ready to kill off the entire human race... and just about does... plus the kittens. The kittens!

[Willum]

[Replying to post 24 by Danmark]

The kittens!

Yes, and we have left out the elephant in the room.
The modern-day affected people who use Abraham as a role-model for God wanting them to kill their own children.

No goats creep out of the bush to save them.
Bringing into question... that goat, could it simply have been lost and wandered trustingly to the only humans nearby?

Both of these make it pretty clear that the supernatural was not involved.

[otseng]

To the contrary, moral blindness, sometimes celebrated by followers of "Atheism", a very diverse group, leads directly to patent insanity, the schizophrenia!

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making negative blanket statements of a group of people.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Blastcat]

At least, the Abrahamic religions have been trying to make a difference! Why is it we never hear about the barbarians? Much like "Atheism"! Not quite in the head...!

Ethical and moral character is celebrated by the religions and they do support full rationality which is why it's never declared insane to be merely religious!

To the contrary, moral blindness, sometimes celebrated by followers of "Atheism", a very diverse group, leads directly to patent insanity, the schizophrenia!

I don't accept that this thread is supposed to insinuate that all of JCI (by Abraham) thereby is crazy!

Your comments are overbroad, short of facts and totally unsupported; and you've left out a major factor.
Mankind in general, regardless of religion, has become less brutal over the centuries. Stephen Pinker presents a good case for the decline of violence.