I think it is more like don’t destroy something you wish to keep in the case of Issac, not a internal moral code of don’t kill your children, which was at play here.
That Abraham was willing to accept an assignment that included sacrificing his son doesn’t mean that in another context he was a schmuck willing to kill his child.
We have no indication as to Abraham’s thoughts about any “moral code” he had, nor does the author give us any indication as to how grieved he was at such an assignment. What we do know, is that he accepted the assignment—apparently without complaint— and did what he was told. It is also crystal clear from the whole of Abraham’s life that he enjoyed a close personal relationship with God.
Nonetheless, we can certainly infer that Abraham loved his son; and that he didn’t wish him dead.
But there is no compelling eveidence that Abraham had any “moral code” that was so independent of his relationship with God that this assignment was a violation of his moral code.
In other words, it’s one thing for you to ask me to sacrifice my son. (assuming it’s a noble purpose, and one that I subscribe to) It’s another thing entirely another for God to ask. In both cases I may see the purpose as noble. For all we know, Abraham had faith in God sufficient enough that he was certain that the request had purpose, meaning and was ultimately righteous. (even if he may not have understood the full meaning or purpose)
But just because he may have agonized over the decision, and suffered in it’s application, doesn’t mean that it violated any moral code.
There are many practical examples. There a few thousand American (and Brits etc) who have given their children for their concept of “freedom”, “democracy” or the like, and have ‘sacrificed’ their lives. For many, not only was this “sacrifice” not immoral, but noble and righteous. (Cindy Sheehan and others like her duly noted) You may not simply not infer that a moral code was violated because suffering occurred, nor loss of life.
Then you probably shouldn’t have generalised as you did. Or snipped the part of my post that actually addressed that.
Actually we do have a brief look at it in Abraham asking God about Sodom, or at least exploring the concept. Yes we have no indication of a ‘internal moral code’ in the Issac passage.
I have. They told me there is no Holy Spirit. 
Just another example of the absurdity of your goyisher myths. My myths are much more reasonable. 
Exactly what I said.
You don’t have to infer the love - it says it explicitly. You might have to infer that he didn’t wish Isaac dead, but that’s not too hard a thing to infer. But if the assignment wasn’t difficult for Abraham, the story is pointless. If God had instructed Abraham to toss a rock at some scrub, Abraham would do it and ask what’s next. It only makes sense if God is asking Abraham to do something he would never do otherwise.
You’re going to have to stop repeating what I said. Activity without God’s command - immoral. Activity with God’s command: moral. (In Biblical terms.) The whole story is about obeying God’s will, even in to perform actions that would be immoral without it. I have to think that at some point around the time the Bible was written people rebelled against God’s commandments as spoken by the priests. This story says to just obey.
A parent does not give a child, the child being an adult at the time of induction. Nonetheless, this is a bad example. First, society sees fit to pressure those who don’t go in times of real emergencies, like in a draft. Second, the government creates other incentives, in terms of patrotic duty, protecting others, etc. When these are seen to be hollow - like in Britain after WW I, pacifism flourishes and it gets a lot harder to convince people to sacrifice.
The conclusion we are supposed to draw from the Isaac story is that obedience is good. The conclusion we might draw is that the sacrifice would have been utterly useless, since a ram was just as good, and that only an evil deity would even ask it.
BTW, at an AT&T conference a speaker, an AT&T person who was also a minister, called his speech “The Ram in the Thicket.” What it had to do with the subject I forget. The next speaker, an Israeli Bell Labber, started his talk with a cartoon of Isaac punching his father out. Now that would have been an interesting ending!
No this is not so, it would be Activity against God’s command - immoral
Issac was never meant to be sacrificed, not that the ram was just as good.
The reason I posted to you originally was due to your comment, “That’s what the story of Abraham and Isaac and the lamb is about, after all. God told Abraham to do something that went against his internal moral code, and Abraham did it anyway, and it turned out okay”, and my point then and now is that we can’t make an inference that Abraham faced a moral dichotomy simply because it was “something he would never do otherwise.”
For all we know, Abraham had no moral qualms about this assignment at all, while shouldering severe emotional qualms.
Sure, it was difficult. (and therefore not pointless) *But that doesn’t mean that it was against his moral code.
*
This is mostly irrelevent. Surely parents can be said to offer up their son for their country; both emotionally, figuritively and symbolically. In any event, many families take pride and honor in such sacrifices.
I presume you live in the US, but I can’t remember a time in my lifetime where society imposed any pressure on young people for military service. In any event, that is irrelevent. Many parents support their children’s decision to serve, and to risk their lives, and honor them accordingly. Few of them suffer moral issues.
True.
This is confusing. If the whole point was to establish whether Abraham was willing to manifest his love, faith through obedience than a ram could not have been an adequate surrogate.
In the end, Abraham’s willingness to carry out this assignment (for God intervened at the last moment) was sufficient----Isaac did not need to die.
I have a question. The task was made so that Abraham could show his love for God, and do so by placing his faith in God over his own concerns (if i’m reading the interepretations correctly). Would it be fair to say that one of these concerns was Abraham’s love for his son?
Absolutely.
Huh. I wasn’t actually expecting a yes to that. In my book that seems somewhat callous, I guess; plus, asking someone to prove their love by forsaking another seems to miss the point. If Abraham could give up his love for his son, who’s to say he couldn’t also with regards to God? Plus I wasn’t aware that God expected people to love him more than their own family.
You don’t? I’m speaking of another person who also doesn’t believe there is a god or gods. Does that clear it up? 
I think you missed the point of the discussion.
There’s no doubt in my mind that evangelicals are many times louder and more obnoxious than any atheist I’m aware of to date. I’ve even considered that some loud and extremely blunt atheists only serve to balance the dialog. That’s just not the point of this discussion at all.
but FTR several jackass judgmental self righteous believers doesn’t make some arrogant jackass atheist not be a jackass just because of the numbers comparison. Just like elephant crap doesn’t make mouse crap not be crap anymore. It’s just easier to avoid and overlook.
The bible states in several places that god is a God “exacting exclusive devotion.”
Jesus was equally demanding. Read Matthew 10:34-39:
This was before the Torah, so it is not clear what was and wasn’t against God’s command. In any case, I see you believe that if God told you to go out and gun down your neighbors, you refusing to do so would be immoral. Exactly my point.
No, God was hungry. I know this story is also commonly seen as forbidding human sacrifice to gods in place of animal sacrifice, so we don’t know what God was hungry for long before the Bible was written down.
For the umpteenth time, it was against his moral code in the absence of a command by God to do it or not to do it. After God told him to do it, it was clearly a moral thing to do, since God creates morality and Abraham was rewarded for obeying.
Action X is immoral if I do it upon my own motivation, but becomes moral when God tells me to do it. X can be kill your son, slaughter an opposing tribe, kill the witches, etc., etc.
My understanding is that young men in England in 1914 who did not go to war were considered cowards or worse. I heard from my father that this was true in WWII also. He waited to be drafted, but there was a meme about coward puncturing their eardrums to escape service. In Vietnam - not so much.
I still think that wouldn’t really work; I do see the point of it, but asking someone to give up love in order to prove love seems to undermine the entire idea. If you’re prepared to give up one love, what’s stopping you from giving up another? It seems a bit like a jealous lover getting their partner to stop seeing their friends so they don’t have to share.
On a personal level, I would find anyone who loved a being such as God is supposed to be more than their family extremely worrying. But then, I don’t believe in any; if they do exist, it’s still kinda creepy but not as bad.
I’m not sure that is the critical issue. All people must interpret whatever they call scripture on a personal basis. Even the stubborn ones who insist they aren’t doing that. Even the ones who like to use terms like “god opened my mind and let me see the truth” A liberal might feel just as sincerely guided by the Holy Spirit to a completely different conclusion than a fundamentalist who also feels guided by the Holy Spirit.
Is the liberal somehow supporting the fundamentalist view he doesn’t agree with simply by agreeing that the Holy Spirit does exist and can guide us? I don’t think so. I think support might be inferred if the liberal isn’t willing to denounce specific beliefs and practices of the fundamentalist because of an “at least he’s Christian” attitude.
Right. And even arriving on different paths this would hopefully be a point of unity. That’s what I keep trying to get at. Is it productive to try and look within the person to judge what we think is a right or wrong thought process, or can we admit that we all have a human mix of fact and emotional fiction. Of objective facts and our subjective view of them , and look at actions and consequences. Even though I know the journey is ultimately an inner one, we can look at results and the consequences of our actions to try and figure out if we’re on the right path.
People on both sides can be reluctant to recognize that certain beliefs that seem “right” to them might be influenced by their emotions. Some people seem to have a greater need to be “right” or to feel they “know”. It’s unfortunate that so much of religion is built on this. It makes people more reluctant to question belief. I appreciate your concept of provisional beliefs. We go forward with the understanding that I, and we, are still a work in progress and there is much left to learn. It’s correct to act on what we believe is right now, knowing that that probably will change as we grow.
I see your point, but isn’t the evangelical behavior of the fundamentalists what is objected to so often? Of course there is a crucial difference between holding your own beliefs and insisting others believe as you do. However, isn’t human progress built on challenging beliefs and norms?
Ah yes. and there is another side to that coin isn’t there?
I just can’t agree. Is your unproven personal *opinion * giving credence to someone who holds a vastly different unproven personal opinion?
We don’t have to claim there is no god to focus on the earthly consequences of our actions.
I don’t think I assumed or suggested that. We will continue to use labels for the purpose of communication but I hope, in the interest of fighting ignorance, we will know not to assume the worst or the best based on a label.
So do I. I’ve met adults recovering from that sort of thing. Some abandon the spiritual path completely and some discover one that works for them.
I don’t want to hijack the discussion by why do you use the term “blind faith” ?
My opinion doesn’t have to be proven or unproven (which is what makes atheism so nice). *I don’t know * and I haven’t seen any evidence that proves anything either way. I’m not aligning with either side of the question; believers are.
But there are more than just earthly consequences for believers. Christian ones, anyway.
You will sometimes. It’s part of self-preservation to make assumptions based on labels and past experiences. I don’t think that’s something that can be turned off.
I use the term blind faith with regard to those who are indoctrinated at a tender age; led into the fallacy by those they trust.