Would you sacrifice your own son like Abraham was ready to

[Jagella]

I was studying Hebrews 11 today which praises people of faith. Verses 17-19 of that chapter lauds Abraham's obedience to God as Abraham was ready to murder his own son Isaac. (The original grotesque tale appears in Genesis 22.)

Would you murder your own son if God asked you to?

Yes--Well, this answer speaks for itself.

No--Then you admit that your religion is immoral.

I think I have faith of my own that none of the Christians here will give a straight, honest answer to this question. You will stonewall and do everything you can to divert attention away from this issue. You know that your religion is immoral but will never admit it.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 45 by rikuoamero]

For what it's worth, I disagree with jagella, at least if he means there is a 1:1 causal relationship between being a Christian and committing child abuse.

I was abused by my fanatically Christian mother both as a boy and even as an adult. She would most often cite her Christian beliefs while abusing me. I've seen similar behavior in my Christian sister.

And I wasn't. While I did suffer abuse as a child, it wasn't done under the rubric of Christianity. One of my uncles is Catholic and does wonders for his son.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 69 by marco]

I was beaten when I was 5 by a teacher for using "which" and not "who" in the Lord's Prayer. My fingers bled as she screamed "who" incomprehensibly in my ear.

Thanks for sharing. I think the more we speak out on child abuse (and adult abuse for that matter) the closer we get to putting an end to these evils.

But she was wrong and the beliefs she held may have been right despite her application of them.

They may have been right, but you're not making a case that Christian doctrines are not likely to lead to child abuse. Here's but a sample of infamous Bible passages espousing child abuse.

Proverbs 13:24:

Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them.

Exodus 21:17:

Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.

...it would be wrong to deduce a religion is bad because of some nasty practitioner.

Well, there are many more reasons I could cite to demonstrate that taking Christianity seriously leads to evils, but as I see it, those "nasty practitioners" are more than enough to see that it does lead to evils.

Islam may be a good religion despite the suicide bombers.

A few suicide bombers is nothing to worry about.

[rikuoamero]

But perhaps there is a deeper lesson in the passage, that God was teaching Abraham that human sacrifice is wrong.

Commanding him to kill his son as a human sacrifice is a rather odd way to teach that human sacrifice is wrong. You'd think a god could come up with a better method. I'm just some dude and I could do a better job.

The deeper lesson was not in the reported initial command, but rather in God sending the angel to stay Abraham's hand.

My point is that YHVH did not command the sacrifice, because human sacrifice is sin, and God does not tempt anyone to sin.

So it must have been Abraham's idea (if the event actually happened). Or the author of Genesis, in a clumsy attempt to glorify Abraham for his "great faith".

The story, if taken at face value does no service to either God or to Abraham. It casts both of them in an atrocious light.

Why mistrust what the story 'reports' just because it makes one of the characters look diabolical? The part of the narrative that I presume you believe is part and parcel of the same text that explicitly says God ordered Abraham to do this wicked act.
If you're going to say the part where God gives the order must be false, then you'd have to discard the other parts as well. One is not a seeker of truth if you prejudge someone as good and declare that any stories that cast them in an atrocious light must by default be false. I've done that before.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 71 by rikuoamero]

One of my uncles is Catholic and does wonders for his son.

That's great. I must wonder how he gets around his religion's doctrines of child abuse and the Vatican's practice of hiding pedophilia in the priesthood.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 71 by rikuoamero]

One of my uncles is Catholic and does wonders for his son.

That's great. I must wonder how he gets around his religion's doctrines of child abuse and the Vatican's practice of hiding pedophilia in the priesthood.

I've wondered that myself. While he does quote Catholic teachings and I see the lengths he goes to to care for his son who has cerebral palsy...I've never questioned him as to what he thinks of the priesthood. He may just be one who has the faith but thinks the priesthood is corrupt, a common sentiment.

[William]

[Replying to post 72 by Jagella]

I think the more we speak out on child abuse (and adult abuse for that matter) the closer we get to putting an end to these evils.

Perhaps a good start is not to use abrahamic religious labels by calling child abuse 'evil' and instead use a more secular phrase, such as 'mentally unstable'?

[Elijah John]

But perhaps there is a deeper lesson in the passage, that God was teaching Abraham that human sacrifice is wrong.

Commanding him to kill his son as a human sacrifice is a rather odd way to teach that human sacrifice is wrong. You'd think a god could come up with a better method. I'm just some dude and I could do a better job.

The deeper lesson was not in the reported initial command, but rather in God sending the angel to stay Abraham's hand.

My point is that YHVH did not command the sacrifice, because human sacrifice is sin, and God does not tempt anyone to sin.

So it must have been Abraham's idea (if the event actually happened). Or the author of Genesis, in a clumsy attempt to glorify Abraham for his "great faith".

The story, if taken at face value does no service to either God or to Abraham. It casts both of them in an atrocious light.

Why mistrust what the story 'reports' just because it makes one of the characters look diabolical? The part of the narrative that I presume you believe is part and parcel of the same text that explicitly says God ordered Abraham to do this wicked act.
If you're going to say the part where God gives the order must be false, then you'd have to discard the other parts as well. One is not a seeker of truth if you prejudge someone as good and declare that any stories that cast them in an atrocious light must by default be false. I've done that before.

Well, the Genesis account contradicts the passage (in James, I believe) which states that God never tempts anyone to sin.

So which passage is the believer to accept at face value? The one that seems to say that God toys with us in malevolent ways? (Genesis). Or the one which upholds his benevolence. (James).

Granted, James does not recount the same story with a better spin, but he does give us a principle which contradicts the savage account from Genesis. (that God never tempts anyone to sin)

So how else can a believer reconcile the two passages?

Even the author of Hebrews is troubled by the story. But his explanation seems a leap. That Abraham believed that God would immediately resurrect Isaac.

The Bible is full of such contradictions and contradictory principles, which compel the believer to:

a) ignore the troublesome passages as though they don't exist. (it's all good, even if we don't "understand") in vain attempts to defend the indefensible.
b) apply God-given Reason and favor the benign passages in order to dismiss the atrocious passages...or
c) to dismiss the Bible in it's entirety,.

Can you think of other options?

[ttruscott]

Shutting down institutions that commit child abuse would be a great start. Do you support evil and institutions that practice it?

Institutions do not commit child abuse though some of their members do. Name one institution that is built on a principle of child abuse, recruits new members on the requirement that people are good at it and rewards those who have abused the best...

Ludicrous.

Every person who commits child abuse is a member of at least one organization...even if it is just the welfare system.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 77 by Elijah John]

The Bible is full of such contradictions and contradictory principles, which compel the believer to:

a) ignore the troublesome passages as though they don't exist. (it's all good, even if we don't "understand") in vain attempts to defend the indefensible.
b) apply God-given Reason and favor the benign passages in order to dismiss the atrocious passages...or
c) to dismiss the Bible in it's entirety,.

Can you think of other options?

d) Believe those parts that are supported by other evidence e.g. there is a lot of evidence to support the existence of the kingdom of Israel, but not the existence of hundreds of thousands/millions of Hebrews in Egypt.
e) Apply "God-given Reason" and favour the atrocious passages (why go with the benign over the atrocious, other than sheer bias?)

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 77 by Elijah John]

The Bible is full of such contradictions and contradictory principles, which compel the believer to:

a) ignore the troublesome passages as though they don't exist. (it's all good, even if we don't "understand") in vain attempts to defend the indefensible.
b) apply God-given Reason and favor the benign passages in order to dismiss the atrocious passages...or
c) to dismiss the Bible in it's entirety,.

Can you think of other options?

d) Believe those parts that are supported by other evidence e.g. there is a lot of evidence to support the existence of the kingdom of Israel, but not the existence of hundreds of thousands/millions of Hebrews in Egypt.
e) Apply "God-given Reason" and favour the atrocious passages (why go with the benign over the atrocious, other than sheer bias?)

Good point about option "d".

Regarding "e", silly me ...I had assumed that most believers or would-be believers would want a positive religious experience. But I do take issue, Reason would not favor the atocious passages. That is, unless one starts with the assumption that God is a monster.