|
Post by fixit on Aug 8, 2021 21:37:42 GMT -5
It doesn't make sense to pray to God for deliverence from temptation if he purposely tests us for good reason. James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 2 Peter 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: So do you believe that God does test us? At this stage in my life I'm not convinced that he tests us.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 8, 2021 21:49:36 GMT -5
It is the verses that you leave out, Dan, -like the second commandment of Jesus, -which I wonder about.
If true as you say that, "there's only one correct interpretation of any passage," and "its up to us to learn and understand what it is," -then what do you understand that second commandment of Jesus means?
Exactly what it says, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Matthew 22:29). No interpretation or clarification needed because its self-explanatory, some things mean exactly what they say.
So do you believe that God does test us?
I do... e.g; Abraham being asked to sacrifice Issac was a perfect example of a test from God.
|
|
|
Post by verna on Aug 8, 2021 22:03:39 GMT -5
So do you believe that God does test us? At this stage in my life I'm not convinced that he tests us. Thank you for your honesty fixit. 2 questions: 1: Do you believe that God allows Satan to test/tempt us? 2: how do you explain Dan’s example of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son?
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Aug 8, 2021 22:49:10 GMT -5
At this stage in my life I'm not convinced that he tests us. Thank you for your honesty fixit. 2 questions: 1: Do you believe that God allows Satan to test/tempt us? 2: how do you explain Dan’s example of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son? This is one of those things I tend to put on the "too hard pile" to be honest.
There are a number of ways of looking at it.
1) It didn't happen, and was a story by Moses to teach a lesson to the Jews, a possibly a forerunner story to Jesus
2) It did happen, but Abraham failed the test by not questioning God like he had done in Gen 18 regarding the loss of innocent life in Sodom. God rewarded him later for seeing the Ram and acting accordingly.
3) It did happen exactly as people believe and I struggle to reconcile it.
Personally, I suspect (1) but my faith is not in historical events and a literal interpretation, and in this I guess I am a bit in the Chuck camp. From what I can recall, this instance is mentioned only in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 8, 2021 23:39:05 GMT -5
It is the verses that you leave out, Dan, -like the second commandment of Jesus, -which I wonder about.
If true as you say that, "there's only one correct interpretation of any passage," and "its up to us to learn and understand what it is," -then what do you understand that second commandment of Jesus means?
Exactly what it says, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Matthew 22:29). No interpretation or clarification needed because its self-explanatory, some things mean exactly what they say.
But Dan, -you say "its up to us to learn and understand what the interpretation of any passage means," yet you also say that it is "self-explanatory!"
So it really isn't "self-explanatory" to just say it if you also have to "learn and understand" what it means does it?!
It also requires actions, -not just saying that one does "love thy neighbor as thyself!" You still are not explaining what one's actions should be toward "one's neighbor."Who is one's neighbor and how does one act towards that person to show they are following that commandment?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 8, 2021 23:43:02 GMT -5
At this stage in my life I'm not convinced that he tests us. Thank you for your honesty fixit. 2 questions: 1: Do you believe that God allows Satan to test/tempt us? 2: how do you explain Dan’s example of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son? I'm with Prags on this. I don't feel compelled to explain everything in the bible, and I don't stress about what I don't understand. Life itself will test us and the human nature that fits us for this brutal dog-eat-dog world clashes with the divine nature that fits us for the kingdom of heaven. Through it all God wants the best for us. Luke 12:31 Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and he will give you everything you need. 32 So don’t be afraid, little flock. For it gives your Father great happiness to give you the Kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 9, 2021 2:23:55 GMT -5
Thank you for your honesty fixit. 2 questions: 1: Do you believe that God allows Satan to test/tempt us? 2: how do you explain Dan’s example of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son? This is one of those things I tend to put on the "too hard pile" to be honest. There are a number of ways of looking at it. 1) It didn't happen, and was a story by Moses to teach a lesson to the Jews, a possibly a forerunner story to Jesus
2) It did happen, but Abraham failed the test by not questioning God like he had done in Gen 18 regarding the loss of innocent life in Sodom. God rewarded him later for seeing the Ram and acting accordingly. 3) It did happen exactly as people believe and I struggle to reconcile it. Personally, I suspect (1) but my faith is not in historical events and a literal interpretation, and in this I guess I am a bit in the Chuck camp. From what I can recall, this instance is mentioned only in the Bible.
May I suggest a fourth possibility, but before I do do consider this little scenario : "..... I heard a voice telling me 'Behold thy neighbour's wife, she is most comely. Go forth and ravish her , for she is yours.' " Now to whom should I attribute this voice? Abraham reportedly heard God telling him to go and sacrifice his son, child sacrifice being an abomination to the Lord. To whom ought he have attributed this voice? Now Abraham went ahead with the purpose to commit this abomination, but God stepped in to prevent such a sin. Just a #4 to add to your list.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Aug 9, 2021 2:30:39 GMT -5
This is one of those things I tend to put on the "too hard pile" to be honest. There are a number of ways of looking at it. 1) It didn't happen, and was a story by Moses to teach a lesson to the Jews, a possibly a forerunner story to Jesus
2) It did happen, but Abraham failed the test by not questioning God like he had done in Gen 18 regarding the loss of innocent life in Sodom. God rewarded him later for seeing the Ram and acting accordingly. 3) It did happen exactly as people believe and I struggle to reconcile it. Personally, I suspect (1) but my faith is not in historical events and a literal interpretation, and in this I guess I am a bit in the Chuck camp. From what I can recall, this instance is mentioned only in the Bible.
May I suggest a fourth possibility, but before I do do consider this little scenario : "..... I heard a voice telling me 'Behold thy neighbour's wife, she is most comely. Go forth and ravish her , for she is yours.' " Now to whom should I attribute this voice? Abraham reportedly heard God telling him to go and sacrifice his son, child sacrifice being an abomination to the Lord. To whom ought he have attributed this voice? Now Abraham went ahead with the purpose to commit this abomination, but God stepped in to prevent such a sin. Just a #4 to add to your list. Regardless of who you think was the author of the voice, hearing voices in ones head is a sure sign of psychosis.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 9, 2021 4:57:11 GMT -5
May I suggest a fourth possibility, but before I do do consider this little scenario : "..... I heard a voice telling me 'Behold thy neighbour's wife, she is most comely. Go forth and ravish her , for she is yours.' " Now to whom should I attribute this voice? Abraham reportedly heard God telling him to go and sacrifice his son, child sacrifice being an abomination to the Lord. To whom ought he have attributed this voice? Now Abraham went ahead with the purpose to commit this abomination, but God stepped in to prevent such a sin. Just a #4 to add to your list. Regardless of who you think was the author of the voice, hearing voices in ones head is a sure sign of psychosis. It was probably metaphoric.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Aug 9, 2021 6:07:00 GMT -5
The Sales Pitch. "Selling Salvation" It had never previously occurred to me, but reading the comments on this post that extol the virtues of the bible whilst, whether due to dishonesty or blind ignorance, failing to admit to this books blatant issues, reminded me of the techniques used by the 'classic' car salesman.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 9, 2021 7:17:03 GMT -5
Just curious, does anyone think going from Child Sacrifice to no Child Sacrifice is a good idea?.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 9, 2021 8:34:58 GMT -5
Exactly what it says, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Matthew 22:29). No interpretation or clarification needed because its self-explanatory, some things mean exactly what they say.
But Dan, -you say "its up to us to learn and understand what the interpretation of any passage means," yet you also say that it is "self-explanatory!"
So it really isn't "self-explanatory" to just say it if you also have to "learn and understand" what it means does it?!
It also requires actions, -not just saying that one does "love thy neighbor as thyself!" You still are not explaining what one's actions should be toward "one's neighbor."Who is one's neighbor and how does one act towards that person to show they are following that commandment?I would say one's Neighbour is everyone!, even the one's you hate the most. And how you act towards them is Grace, compassion,merciful, slow to anger and abounding in love. Sometimes that seems impossible, lots of people I would love to rub out....but I don't think that means you have to be emotionally favourable to someone that's just plain evil or a jerk?
|
|
|
Post by verna on Aug 9, 2021 10:07:58 GMT -5
Thank you for your honesty fixit. 2 questions: 1: Do you believe that God allows Satan to test/tempt us? 2: how do you explain Dan’s example of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son? I'm with Prags on this. I don't feel compelled to explain everything in the bible, and I don't stress about what I don't understand. Life itself will test us and the human nature that fits us for this brutal dog-eat-dog world clashes with the divine nature that fits us for the kingdom of heaven. Through it all God wants the best for us. Luke 12:31 Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and he will give you everything you need. 32 So don’t be afraid, little flock. For it gives your Father great happiness to give you the Kingdom. Yes I am with you. By it’s nature, life tests us, and we, by our nature are or are not up to the challenge. Perhaps God is able to help us with this. This dispels of the sadistic god concept which is a relief. Just a story to teach a lesson is my thought. Hmm - noticing that when I type god it is not automatically capitalized but when I type Satan it is. Wonder what the conspirisists (not a word I guess) make of that!
|
|
|
Post by verna on Aug 9, 2021 10:18:33 GMT -5
Thank you for your honesty fixit. 2 questions: 1: Do you believe that God allows Satan to test/tempt us? 2: how do you explain Dan’s example of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son? This is one of those things I tend to put on the "too hard pile" to be honest.
There are a number of ways of looking at it.
1) It didn't happen, and was a story by Moses to teach a lesson to the Jews, a possibly a forerunner story to Jesus
2) It did happen, but Abraham failed the test by not questioning God like he had done in Gen 18 regarding the loss of innocent life in Sodom. God rewarded him later for seeing the Ram and acting accordingly.
3) It did happen exactly as people believe and I struggle to reconcile it.
Personally, I suspect (1) but my faith is not in historical events and a literal interpretation, and in this I guess I am a bit in the Chuck camp. From what I can recall, this instance is mentioned only in the Bible.
Thanks Prags. I agree with you. A story to teach a lesson. I wouldn’t be surprised even, if back in the days when oral tradition was pretty much all there was, that people understood that stories were not necessarily “true”. Like when a fisherman tells us how big his/her fish was.
|
|
|
Post by verna on Aug 9, 2021 10:28:28 GMT -5
This is one of those things I tend to put on the "too hard pile" to be honest. There are a number of ways of looking at it. 1) It didn't happen, and was a story by Moses to teach a lesson to the Jews, a possibly a forerunner story to Jesus
2) It did happen, but Abraham failed the test by not questioning God like he had done in Gen 18 regarding the loss of innocent life in Sodom. God rewarded him later for seeing the Ram and acting accordingly. 3) It did happen exactly as people believe and I struggle to reconcile it. Personally, I suspect (1) but my faith is not in historical events and a literal interpretation, and in this I guess I am a bit in the Chuck camp. From what I can recall, this instance is mentioned only in the Bible.
May I suggest a fourth possibility, but before I do do consider this little scenario : "..... I heard a voice telling me 'Behold thy neighbour's wife, she is most comely. Go forth and ravish her , for she is yours.' " Now to whom should I attribute this voice? Abraham reportedly heard God telling him to go and sacrifice his son, child sacrifice being an abomination to the Lord. To whom ought he have attributed this voice? Now Abraham went ahead with the purpose to commit this abomination, but God stepped in to prevent such a sin. Just a #4 to add to your list. Ok I’m a bit slow. What exactly is the 4th possibility? You asked the question re: who’s voice was it but didn’t answer that. Are you suggesting whose voice it was? Some would say if it wasn’t god then it was satan. My guess would be that it was his hormones that told him to go ravish the comely woman. Another instance of where the concept of god can be used to condone bad behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by nathan02 on Aug 9, 2021 11:45:21 GMT -5
I'm with Prags on this. I don't feel compelled to explain everything in the bible, and I don't stress about what I don't understand. Life itself will test us and the human nature that fits us for this brutal dog-eat-dog world clashes with the divine nature that fits us for the kingdom of heaven. Through it all God wants the best for us. Luke 12:31 Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and he will give you everything you need. 32 So don’t be afraid, little flock. For it gives your Father great happiness to give you the Kingdom. Yes I am with you. By it’s nature, life tests us, and we, by our nature are or are not up to the challenge. Perhaps God is able to help us with this. This dispels of the sadistic god concept which is a relief. Just a story to teach a lesson is my thought. Hmm - noticing that when I type god it is not automatically capitalized but when I type Satan it is. Wonder what the conspirisists (not a word I guess) make of that! *** In the story of Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac was God trying to reveal His plan of Salvation to Abraham and to humanity. God was going to sent His Christ/His Son as the Lamb to live in the person Jesus to die for our sin so, our souls can enter heaven after death.
|
|
|
Post by mrdobalina on Aug 9, 2021 16:46:02 GMT -5
Just curious, does anyone think going from Child Sacrifice to no Child Sacrifice is a good idea?. Absolutely, I mean the children are our future tradesman, sacrifice a child today, very difficult to get an electrician or plumber at short notice tomorrow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2021 16:55:26 GMT -5
Just curious, does anyone think going from Child Sacrifice to no Child Sacrifice is a good idea?. Depends if we are going to use that to disparage what God was willing to do for us and what Abraham was willing to do as just an example of what was to come....
|
|
|
Post by verna on Aug 9, 2021 17:24:38 GMT -5
Just curious, does anyone think going from Child Sacrifice to no Child Sacrifice is a good idea?. Depends if we are going to use that to disparage what God was willing to do for us and what Abraham was willing to do as just an example of what was to come.... I would have sworn that was something we could agree on but I guess not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2021 17:28:55 GMT -5
Depends if we are going to use that to disparage what God was willing to do for us and what Abraham was willing to do as just an example of what was to come.... I would have sworn that was something we could agree on but I guess not. uh oh you've been peeking...
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Aug 9, 2021 17:30:52 GMT -5
Found this interesting. Deploring child sacrifice and the strength of the covenant
The story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice Isaac serves two main purposes, not the least of which would have been to provide the people of Israel with a satisfactory cultural explanation as to why they do not condone the sacrifice of children apparently performed by the native tribes around them. The use of dramatic tension presents the emotional side of child sacrifice from the point of view of Abraham, whose only son was not only long awaited and miraculous, but also promised - the presumed lynchpin of his covenant with God and assurance of both his numerous descendants and future status as a 'father of many nations'. But the story also serves to demonstrate the strength of Abraham's covenant with God, outlasting any human standards of trust.
In the story, for reasons that are not mentioned, Abraham determines that God is asking him to offer his beloved son as sacrifice. That no reason needed to be given suggests that this was not an unusual request assumed from deities in Abraham's time (although in Moses' time, when Genesis was supposedly written, child sacrifice was considered common practice only among the enemies of Israel, and is expressly forbidden under Hebrew law).
Abraham has already entered into a covenant with God at this stage, a common practice in those times between individuals, tribes or families that confirms trust by both parties in the integrity of their communication channels. Abraham's end of the bargain is to trust that anything he is instructed to perform will not compromise what he has been promised, even though it appears as if he is being told to destroy the only chance he sees of achieving it.
The trust demonstrated by Abraham is essential for a covenant like this to work. It is not a blind trust (as shown by Abraham's intervention in the story of Sodom), but one built on a history of honest and respectful communication. In a tribal situation, for instance, the communication channel would often begin as a single marriage between individuals from both tribes - if you cannot completely trust the accepted communication channels, then there is no covenant. Because if it looks like your neighbour is preparing for war, you want to be able to trust that their intentions are not against you. The audience would be well aware of many instances where covenants have failed due to miscommunication, fear and lack of trust, with often tragic results.
By Abraham's actions in the story, and his statement to Isaac that "God himself will provide a lamb for the offering", he demonstrates complete trust in the communication he has with God, even when it seems as if he is going to have to go through with the sacrifice which, from Abraham's point of view, would have destroyed the covenant. No covenant between families or tribes could be expected to survive this level of trust.
Despite the dramatic tension, it is also clear from Abraham's words to his son, mentioning the lamb, that the intended audience already knows the ending. The ramifications of this story, like Just So stories or World War II films, are expected because they are inherent in the audiences' cultural framework and worldview. The appearance of a ram at the opportune time provides the accepted substitute to child sacrifice now decreed in Hebrew law, and the covenant remains intact.
The situation in which Abraham is compelled to sacrifice his son - and the dramatic tension that takes the characters right to the limit before making the expected substitution - are actions taken not so much by God, but by the author. They serve to illustrate the deplorability of child sacrifice and the strength of Abraham's covenant with God over any other.
hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/31525/why-did-god-ask-abraham-to-offer-his-son-isaac-as-a-burnt-offering-genesis-22
|
|
|
Post by verna on Aug 9, 2021 17:31:35 GMT -5
I would have sworn that was something we could agree on but I guess not. uh oh you've been peeking... Yup. And every time I do I understand why I blocked you.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 9, 2021 17:55:58 GMT -5
Just curious, does anyone think going from Child Sacrifice to no Child Sacrifice is a good idea?. Depends if we are going to use that to disparage what God was willing to do for us and what Abraham was willing to do as just an example of what was to come.... It worries me when people say "what Abraham was willing to do" or "Abraham showed his faith" or other phrases to that effect. It means they have no idea what was actually going on. So do you think a supernatural God up somewhere asked Abraham to sacrifice his son?, How did this happen, was it words that you could actually hear?, was it in a dream? What are you picturing wally of how amd why it went down wally?.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2021 18:32:10 GMT -5
Depends if we are going to use that to disparage what God was willing to do for us and what Abraham was willing to do as just an example of what was to come.... It worries me when people say "what Abraham was willing to do" or "Abraham showed his faith" or other phrases to that effect. It means they have no idea what was actually going on. So do you think a supernatural God up somewhere asked Abraham to sacrifice his son?, How did this happen, was it words that you could actually hear?, was it in a dream? What are you picturing wally of how amd why it went down wally?. Ask Abraham or better yet read the story for yourself in the bible....
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 9, 2021 18:32:31 GMT -5
Found this interesting. Deploring child sacrifice and the strength of the covenant
The story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice Isaac serves two main purposes, not the least of which would have been to provide the people of Israel with a satisfactory cultural explanation as to why they do not condone the sacrifice of children apparently performed by the native tribes around them. The use of dramatic tension presents the emotional side of child sacrifice from the point of view of Abraham, whose only son was not only long awaited and miraculous, but also promised - the presumed lynchpin of his covenant with God and assurance of both his numerous descendants and future status as a 'father of many nations'. But the story also serves to demonstrate the strength of Abraham's covenant with God, outlasting any human standards of trust.
In the story, for reasons that are not mentioned, Abraham determines that God is asking him to offer his beloved son as sacrifice. That no reason needed to be given suggests that this was not an unusual request assumed from deities in Abraham's time (although in Moses' time, when Genesis was supposedly written, child sacrifice was considered common practice only among the enemies of Israel, and is expressly forbidden under Hebrew law).
Abraham has already entered into a covenant with God at this stage, a common practice in those times between individuals, tribes or families that confirms trust by both parties in the integrity of their communication channels. Abraham's end of the bargain is to trust that anything he is instructed to perform will not compromise what he has been promised, even though it appears as if he is being told to destroy the only chance he sees of achieving it.
The trust demonstrated by Abraham is essential for a covenant like this to work. It is not a blind trust (as shown by Abraham's intervention in the story of Sodom), but one built on a history of honest and respectful communication. In a tribal situation, for instance, the communication channel would often begin as a single marriage between individuals from both tribes - if you cannot completely trust the accepted communication channels, then there is no covenant. Because if it looks like your neighbour is preparing for war, you want to be able to trust that their intentions are not against you. The audience would be well aware of many instances where covenants have failed due to miscommunication, fear and lack of trust, with often tragic results.
By Abraham's actions in the story, and his statement to Isaac that "God himself will provide a lamb for the offering", he demonstrates complete trust in the communication he has with God, even when it seems as if he is going to have to go through with the sacrifice which, from Abraham's point of view, would have destroyed the covenant. No covenant between families or tribes could be expected to survive this level of trust.
Despite the dramatic tension, it is also clear from Abraham's words to his son, mentioning the lamb, that the intended audience already knows the ending. The ramifications of this story, like Just So stories or World War II films, are expected because they are inherent in the audiences' cultural framework and worldview. The appearance of a ram at the opportune time provides the accepted substitute to child sacrifice now decreed in Hebrew law, and the covenant remains intact.
The situation in which Abraham is compelled to sacrifice his son - and the dramatic tension that takes the characters right to the limit before making the expected substitution - are actions taken not so much by God, but by the author. They serve to illustrate the deplorability of child sacrifice and the strength of Abraham's covenant with God over any other.
hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/31525/why-did-god-ask-abraham-to-offer-his-son-isaac-as-a-burnt-offering-genesis-22
The picture painted that someone is so committed they would happily carry out a deplorable act to show their commitment is just plain disgusting. Obviously I don't think that is what story is getting at, but religion loves to use this story as a Gaslighting tactic, "do you have enough faith that you could do xyz". Imo "God speaking to Abraham" is basically Abraham recognising the Child sacrifice tradition is not right and acting the sacrifice out by using a animal instead. Or the compassionate/loving side of Abraham was displayed and overuled/modified tradition/rituals to be more compassionate and loving. The writer just describes this as God speaking, and our western minds just immediately think a conversation between zeus and a super zelous religous guy showing just how faithful he is. We can see that mindset by some of the replies in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 9, 2021 19:04:25 GMT -5
Found this interesting. Deploring child sacrifice and the strength of the covenant
The story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice Isaac serves two main purposes, not the least of which would have been to provide the people of Israel with a satisfactory cultural explanation as to why they do not condone the sacrifice of children apparently performed by the native tribes around them. The use of dramatic tension presents the emotional side of child sacrifice from the point of view of Abraham, whose only son was not only long awaited and miraculous, but also promised - the presumed lynchpin of his covenant with God and assurance of both his numerous descendants and future status as a 'father of many nations'. But the story also serves to demonstrate the strength of Abraham's covenant with God, outlasting any human standards of trust.
In the story, for reasons that are not mentioned, Abraham determines that God is asking him to offer his beloved son as sacrifice. That no reason needed to be given suggests that this was not an unusual request assumed from deities in Abraham's time (although in Moses' time, when Genesis was supposedly written, child sacrifice was considered common practice only among the enemies of Israel, and is expressly forbidden under Hebrew law).
Abraham has already entered into a covenant with God at this stage, a common practice in those times between individuals, tribes or families that confirms trust by both parties in the integrity of their communication channels. Abraham's end of the bargain is to trust that anything he is instructed to perform will not compromise what he has been promised, even though it appears as if he is being told to destroy the only chance he sees of achieving it.
The trust demonstrated by Abraham is essential for a covenant like this to work. It is not a blind trust (as shown by Abraham's intervention in the story of Sodom), but one built on a history of honest and respectful communication. In a tribal situation, for instance, the communication channel would often begin as a single marriage between individuals from both tribes - if you cannot completely trust the accepted communication channels, then there is no covenant. Because if it looks like your neighbour is preparing for war, you want to be able to trust that their intentions are not against you. The audience would be well aware of many instances where covenants have failed due to miscommunication, fear and lack of trust, with often tragic results.
By Abraham's actions in the story, and his statement to Isaac that "God himself will provide a lamb for the offering", he demonstrates complete trust in the communication he has with God, even when it seems as if he is going to have to go through with the sacrifice which, from Abraham's point of view, would have destroyed the covenant. No covenant between families or tribes could be expected to survive this level of trust.
Despite the dramatic tension, it is also clear from Abraham's words to his son, mentioning the lamb, that the intended audience already knows the ending. The ramifications of this story, like Just So stories or World War II films, are expected because they are inherent in the audiences' cultural framework and worldview. The appearance of a ram at the opportune time provides the accepted substitute to child sacrifice now decreed in Hebrew law, and the covenant remains intact.
The situation in which Abraham is compelled to sacrifice his son - and the dramatic tension that takes the characters right to the limit before making the expected substitution - are actions taken not so much by God, but by the author. They serve to illustrate the deplorability of child sacrifice and the strength of Abraham's covenant with God over any other.
hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/31525/why-did-god-ask-abraham-to-offer-his-son-isaac-as-a-burnt-offering-genesis-22
The picture painted that someone is so committed they would happily carry out a deplorable act to show their commitment is just plain disgusting. Obviously I don't think that is what story is getting at, but religion loves to use this story as a Gaslighting tactic, "do you have enough faith that you could do xyz". Imo "God speaking to Abraham" is basically Abraham recognising the Child sacrifice tradition is not right and acting the sacrifice out by using a animal instead. Or the compassionate/loving side of Abraham was displayed and overuled/modified tradition/rituals to be more compassionate and loving. The writer just describes this as God speaking, and our western minds just immediately think a conversation between zeus and a super zelous religous guy showing just how faithful he is. We can see that mindset by some of the replies in this thread. However, -isn't this the very idea which the god of the bible uses to coerce mankind into accepting Him as their only god?
That god of the bible says, "I have given my only begotten son as a "sacrifice" so you so that you may be saved." That god of the bible uses threats of everlasting torment if mankind does NOT accept Him as their only god.
So, with that kind of example, just HOW is one to go about trying to live their own lives?
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 9, 2021 19:29:04 GMT -5
The picture painted that someone is so committed they would happily carry out a deplorable act to show their commitment is just plain disgusting. Obviously I don't think that is what story is getting at, but religion loves to use this story as a Gaslighting tactic, "do you have enough faith that you could do xyz". Imo "God speaking to Abraham" is basically Abraham recognising the Child sacrifice tradition is not right and acting the sacrifice out by using a animal instead. Or the compassionate/loving side of Abraham was displayed and overuled/modified tradition/rituals to be more compassionate and loving. The writer just describes this as God speaking, and our western minds just immediately think a conversation between zeus and a super zelous religous guy showing just how faithful he is. We can see that mindset by some of the replies in this thread. However, -isn't this the very idea which the god of the bible uses to coerce mankind into accepting Him as their only god?
That god of the bible says, "I have given my only begotten son as a "sacrifice" so you so that you may be saved." That god of the bible uses threats of everlasting torment if mankind does NOT accept Him as their only god.
So, with that kind of example, just HOW is one to go about trying to live their own lives?
I disagree with the premise that the god of the bible uses threats of everlasting torture. Actually I disagree with the fundamentalist premise you have put forward as a whole. In simple terms I think the writers are saying separation from a gracious compassionate merciful ect type of life will be like hell. It's not a threat but advice. Salvation is being saved from selfishness or yourself.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 9, 2021 20:55:19 GMT -5
It worries me when people say "what Abraham was willing to do" or "Abraham showed his faith" or other phrases to that effect. It means they have no idea what was actually going on. So do you think a supernatural God up somewhere asked Abraham to sacrifice his son?, How did this happen, was it words that you could actually hear?, was it in a dream? What are you picturing wally of how amd why it went down wally?. Ask Abraham or better yet read the story for yourself in the bible.... Abraham is character not a person so that may be a bit difficult. I think the question was what do you picture wally?, not "what should I do wally?"....
|
|