Thomas II

Toto,
Thank you!! :wave:

lee_merrill

And they were certainly wrong.

But that doesn't mean that there are no judgments, to be carried out, that are morally valid.

Only if God has a right to decree the time of any given person's death, if that perogative is his, which may be the case, if he knows more than any human authority would, if he can see beyond death, and if he knows maybe even, all the future...

Regards,
Lee

John A. Broussard

Don't weaken, Lee. Drop those ifs, mays and maybes. Stick to your guns.

God has a right to decree the time of any given person's death.

That perogative is his

Which is the case

Since he knows more than any human authority

and he can see beyond death

and he knows the future.

See. Isn't it a lot braver to say it that way? Since you have no evidence to support your views, be positive! No shillyshallying.

lee_merrill

Well, I do actually firmly believe that, but I use this way of speaking to try and pull instead of pushing...

But this question was to some degree proposing an inconsistency in the worldview of the Bible, though supporting this viewpoint needs to be addressed too, but this would probably be another topic.

Regards,
Lee

Wallener

That's exactly it. In a superstition-riddled culture, the answer is resoundingly "No!"

Which is why the story had to be created the way it was: the story would not have be acceptable if Abraham had said no or if G-d didn't appear to be playing a game of brinksmanship. The only way to express the message that it is not OK to sacrifice kids is for Abraham to appear obedient and G-d to decide "Oh, well, as long as I know you're willing, I don't want you to actually do it".

Is there any other culture that (a) sacrificed children and (b) still exists in a form not completely different from its roots? I'd be curious what there "Just say no" story looks like.

John A. Broussard

What makes it all especially silly is the fact that god knew that Abraham was willing, so why did he bother to put him to the test.

I did hear one theist claim that Abraham was testing god. Think about it. Not such a bad interpretation. That's real brinksmanship.

John A. Broussard

Now that we've established that you firmly believe the following, we can go on and have a meaningful discussion:

***

God has a right to decree the time of any given person's death.

That perogative is his

Which is the case

Since he knows more than any human authority

and he can see beyond death

and he knows the future.

****

Let's deal with that last one first. Since god knows the future, he knows exactly how you are going act in each moment of your life, down to the most minute detail.

Given that, can you do anything other than what he knows you are going to do?

See? It's a lot easier to deal with issues when both sides say exactly what they mean.

You're up next.

Wallener

Because if G-d hadn't, there would be no story.

Abraham is the patriarch precisely because he is the first character to argue with G-d. He does it repeatedly, and he is the first character to get G-d to change its mind. "Think about it", indeed!

Anat

Note Genesis 22:12 "And he said: 'Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him;..." Why the seemingly superfluous bolded phrase? Because by now, after 3 days of hiking with all the necessary equipment Abraham was so into sacrificing and cutting that he couldn't just let go when God told him to. "You mean you dragged me all this way for nothing? Can't I at least cut off a finger or two? How about some scars or a tatoo?" Thus "neither do thou any thing unto him". Not only does this story teach objection to child sacrifice, but also objection to mutilation that wasn't acceptable. (As opposed to circumcision which was, but that's a different story.)

Did the Greeks or Romans ever stop child sacrifice? I understand that myths about youths turning into flowers are a remnant of fertility rituals involving human sacrifice.

Anat

There is a progression from Noah to Abraham to Moses. Noah accepted being saved with just his family, and did not intervene for others. Abraham demanded saving of the righteous, but also asked that the guilty be forgiven (the former was granted but not the latter). In Exodus 32 Moses not only asks for forgiveness for the guilty, but is willing to forgo his own election as God's chosen when God wants to abandon his previous choice.

9 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people. 10 Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make of thee a great nation.' 11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said: 'LORD, why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people, that Thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
...
14 And the LORD repented of the evil which He said He would do unto His people.
...
32 Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written.' 33 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book."