Abraham's Sacrifice of Isaac

[liamconnor]

The story of Abraham called upon to sacrifice Isaac is a popular one for impugning the Jewish and Christian god. One asks, how could a good God require something like this?

When we immerse ourselves in ancient literature, we discover the context requires some nuance.

Abraham lived in a world where a deity, though not often, yet still might require human sacrifice. Abraham was only recently acquainted with this new god, and probably regarded him as he might any god; which means the demand for human sacrifice was not completely out of the blue when it was given.

The situation provided God with two opportunities: to test Abraham's devotion by imposing a recognizable litmus for obedience; and to distinguish himself from other gods by interrupting the process.

Does this interpretation resolve the specifically moral problem of the story?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Well, I spose, but it raises too many other questions, the primary being, how did Yahweh come to compete with a whole bunch of non-existent gods?

If Yahweh was there in the garden, the only real God in all creation. The only God. Where did the idea of the others come from, and why didn't this jealous God nip it in the bud right there?

Who were these other gods and why did they need sacrifice, how did this phenomenon arise with Yahweh over humanity's shoulder, mentoring it? Are you saying/implying with "new god," that Yahweh was new to the world?

Or that Yahweh had evolved from being human blood-thirsty to goat-blood-thirsty?

I am really at a loss, I am afraid.
'Needs more sp'lainin'.
V/R

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

The story of Abraham called upon to sacrifice Isaac is a popular one for impugning the Jewish and Christian god. One asks, how could a good God require something like this?

I ask me how a God could require him something if he ain't him there to do it.

When we immerse ourselves in ancient literature, we discover the context requires some nuance.

Or we realize the ancients mighta not been 'em so smart to begin with.

Abraham lived in a world where a deity, though not often, yet still might require human sacrifice. Abraham was only recently acquainted with this new god, and probably regarded him as he might any god; which means the demand for human sacrifice was not completely out of the blue when it was given.

Or, he lived him in a world of superstition.

The situation provided God with two opportunities: to test Abraham's devotion by imposing a recognizable litmus for obedience; and to distinguish himself from other gods by interrupting the process.

I propose the situation provides us with a third opportunity - that of showing God had him anything to do with him any of it.

And maybe a fourth - Theology, Doctrine & Dogma.

Does this interpretation resolve the specifically moral problem of the story?

Not when we can't show us he's bothered by him any of it, no.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Well, I spose, but it raises too many other questions, the primary being, how did Yahweh come to compete with a whole bunch of non-existent gods?

The people who thought HE was a liar and a false god also thought HE had gotten into a pretty good gig so some of them decided to play the game they thought HE was playing, setting themselves up with their version of the truth.

If Yahweh was there in the garden, the only real God in all creation. The only God. Where did the idea of the others come from,

People made up the name for themselves and other people accepted them as enlightened.

and why didn't this jealous God nip it in the bud right there?

GOD needed HIS creation to have a free will which meant HE had to allow them to be able to choose evil if HE was to fulfill HIS plan to have a true loving and real marriage with us. No free will, no true love; no real marriage. But those who did not want what HE wanted were given the ability to chose to reject HIM though they were warned about the legal and natural consequences for making such a choice.

Who were these other gods and why did they need sacrifice, how did this phenomenon arise with Yahweh over humanity's shoulder, mentoring it?

These false gods are ordinary people, demons by choice, condemned already and acting in accord with their sinful desires for what they think God should be like. Once HIS sinful elect (good seed) are all mature in their faith and by their free will will never choose to be evil again, then the demonic reprobates will be judged and banished to the outer darkness and the state of our heavenly Marriage will start.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 4 by ttruscott]

The scenario I expounded remains an irrational proposition even in the face of your arguments.

It is akin to you allowing your children to invent imaginary other parents, and not correct them until they were middle age.

Free-will does not compute.

Do you allow your children to run into traffic? To play with electrical sockets? Do you allow your children to invent and worship false gods?

No. Somethings do not fall under free-will, and those include damage from imagination.

So there is no possible path from the garden to polytheism to Abraham that includes a real God.

It is just a story.

QED.

[Bust Nak]

The situation provided God with two opportunities: to test Abraham's devotion by imposing a recognizable litmus for obedience; and to distinguish himself from other gods by interrupting the process.

Does this interpretation resolve the specifically moral problem of the story?

No, because a) the "litmus for obedience" in question is immoral and b) there are better ways to distinguish himself from other gods, namely an outright rejection of human sacrifice.

[marco]

Does this interpretation resolve the specifically moral problem of the story?

There are many interpretations and attempts to make the tale more pleasant. Basically a story where a powerful being asks that a father kill his son sets a bad precedent. Abraham's stupid acceptance should destroy any respect we might have had for the brute.

The story is not redeemed by artful interpretation. It is wrong to tell someone to kill a child. There are no what ifs or buts about it. The god depicted is obviously an object of admiration for nomadic savages; he is worthy of condemnation not excuses.

[ttruscott]

Does this interpretation resolve the specifically moral problem of the story?

There are many interpretations and attempts to make the tale more pleasant. Basically a story where a powerful being asks that a father kill his son sets a bad precedent. Abraham's stupid acceptance should destroy any respect we might have had for the brute.

The story is not redeemed by artful interpretation. It is wrong to tell someone to kill a child. There are no what ifs or buts about it. The god depicted is obviously an object of admiration for nomadic savages; he is worthy of condemnation not excuses.

1 Kings 3: 23 until finally he said, Both of you say this live baby is yours. 24 Someone bring me a sword.

A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, 25 Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.

Apply your point of view to this story: Solomon was a brute with evil intent ! set upon killing an innocent child !

Sometimes a little discernment about background and context is valuable.

[marco]

Does this interpretation resolve the specifically moral problem of the story?

There are many interpretations and attempts to make the tale more pleasant. Basically a story where a powerful being asks that a father kill his son sets a bad precedent. Abraham's stupid acceptance should destroy any respect we might have had for the brute.

The story is not redeemed by artful interpretation. It is wrong to tell someone to kill a child. There are no what ifs or buts about it. The god depicted is obviously an object of admiration for nomadic savages; he is worthy of condemnation not excuses.

1 Kings 3: 23 until finally he said, Both of you say this live baby is yours. 24 Someone bring me a sword.

A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, 25 Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.

Apply your point of view to this story: Solomon was a brute with evil intent ! set upon killing an innocent child !

Sometimes a little discernment about background and context is valuable.

The simplistic tale is an illustration of the supposed wisdom of Solomon and the correct answer to the command was a refusal from the real mother. In the Isaac story, Abraham's answer was compliance, which instructs us to accept that whatever God tells us to do, even if it is murder, should be done. At best God will stop us. If today people hear God's voice they have a perfect excuse for carrying out an evil act. The precedent - God can ask for murder -has been estabished. Solomon's point was to determine the true mother by her objection to having the baby killed; Abraham illustrates abject obedience even when the command is wicked.

When one tries to justify this wicked tale, one is not using discernment but inventing excuses. As a boy I found the story horrifying and asked a clergyman for an explanation. He said "God was testing Abraham." Even as a boy I understood this reply to be idiotic.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Does this interpretation resolve the specifically moral problem of the story?

Is it immoral to toy with a human who so obviously would go to such extremes in order to show his dedication to you?
What about those far reaching problems which can arise from those who then decide that should you demand human sacrifice then human sacrifice you shall have?

Even with the idea that you will not always stop the sacrifice from going ahead.

Sure, one could argue that in every case, it is simply about a test to determine the validity of the humans support for the GOD, and that where the GOD does not intervene, then it was never commanded by the GOD in the first place for you to sacrifice humans in the GODs name.

It is unlikely that the story is true in that any GOD commanded Abraham to do this act. No entity worthy of such title would have required this, simply based on the damage it would do throughout the following generations.

Small pebbles create large ripple effects.

The first thing one should think on is what kind of mind would create such a story and put GOD into it.