I’m trying to come up with any differences between the Abraham story, and the one of the lady in Houston a couple of years ago who drowned her five kids in the bathtub because god told her to. I can’t think of any, except one we know is true, the other is a myth which may or may not be.
What I wonder about the whole thing is that, a few chapters before the binding of Isaac, Sodom is destroyed, but before it is, Abraham pleas with God to spare the city. Why is Abraham willing to argue with God to save a city of evil people, but not to save his own son?
Uh yeah. We got a guy down at the local State Hospital who also heard the voice of G-d, creator and master of the universe. Except e was told to kill the governor, because women are not meant to be governors. In this case the police got to h before G-d came and told h that it was just a joke.
So, what? Think G-d is still up to Hsr old tricks? And why was H speaking to David Koresh and Charles Manson? Same reasons? Did H forget to tell them to stop? Or did they think maybe the devil was trying to trick them into stopping?
How, just how do you know it’s G-d and not your imagination, or whacked-out brain cells or hallucinations? How do you tell the difference? I’ve heard that hallucinations can be pretty convincing!
Emphasis mine.
I’m not being mean, DC, certainly I am the undisputed KING of the typo. It’s just that the mental picture I got from obligagtion had me laughing so hard! I saw Abraham out in the desert being choked by the ‘Holy Rope Belt of G-d’ 'cause e hesitated in slaying h son…
No offense, had to share the laugh!
My overly simplistic take on it (and it’s been over a decade since I read the story): it wasn’t a test for God’s benefit, it was for the benefit of Abraham, Isaac, and his followers.
Yes, of course God could look into Abraham’s soul and see what kind of man he was. But could Abraham do that for himself? We all like to think we know what we would do in any given situation, but we don’t really know until we have to go through that situation ourselves. If you go through your whole life saving yourself the trauma, then your entire life has been lived in your head.
It’s the same as when someone gives you advice – it can make perfect sense to you, but you don’t really understand it or appreciate it until you go through it yourself. You have to make your own mistakes. A life unchallenged isn’t really life.
Abraham had to go through a situation that seemed tragically unfair and traumatic, but at the end of it, he had greater faith in God, a greater understanding of his role and purpose on earth, a greater love for his son. And a story that is still being debated thousands of years later, to help each of us define why exactly it is we exist and what is important to us.
Abraham could have been the GWB of his time - after all, he, too, hears the voice of God [or so he says] and is willing to sacrifice hundreds of innocent children to achieve personal gain for himself and his buddies.
In fact, in the context Abraham had more than sufficient evidence that G-d existed and was quite a powerful being. In addition to personal appearances which an outsider might reasonably (if uncharitably) describe as “voices in his head,” he had the famine which afflicted the Pharoah, personal appearances to people close to him, the correct prediction of a son from his barren wife and, in case a scintilla of doubt remained, Abraham personally witnessed the destruction of two cities.
So here’s my question. By the time Abraham was called upon to sacrifice Isaac, any reasonable person would have concluded that not only is G-d real, but that obeying Him reaped substantial dividends and that disobeying Him was a Really Bad Idea. Does this, in the tradition of Judaism, devalue Abraham’s obedience in any way? Today’s Jews are not called upon to make sacrifices on the level of Abraham (or any number of others in the stories of the bible), but they also don’t have the benefit of personally meeting G-d and seeing his works or wrath.
Ah, for the good old days.
I’d listen very carefully to a ‘burning bush which was not consumed by the flame.’
I’d listen very carefully to a reliable prophetic source (and in fact, I have, but it didn’t do me much good).
But I haven’t had (to my awareness anyway) a significant instruction from the Creator regarding specific actions.
I have gotten hints, in the terms of outcomes from improper actions, but… don’t need the divine for that.
Where is G-d when we need H?
Probably eating Krispy Kreme donuts and playing poker (Texas Hold 'Em), while leaving the details up to The Son.
(“all the commandments of the old are aright, but this new commandment I give you: That ye love one another as I have loved you.”
I like that.
The “ultimate source of goodness” would NEVER ask a parent to kill a child, IMHO.
And I would have found Abraham to be far more noble, if he had told God what He could do with Himself and offered to sacrifice himself instead. “I’ll go to Hell rather than harm another.” Wouldn’t that be MORE of a virtue-sacrificing yourself so that another may live, rather than blind obediance to a manipulative, tyrannical bully?
Except you’re making the assumption that God is a “manipulative, tyrannical bully”, which isn’t the assumption that Genesis makes. In assuming that God’s demand to Isaac to sacrifice his son is wrong, you’re putting your own values on the book.
The KJV calls them “plagues” and Pharoah wouldn’t have had that problem had Abram not sold his wife to Pharoah, claiming she was his sister. And later he did the SAME damned thing to Abimelech, king of Gerar–when she was ninety! This is a role model?
Nope, that was his nephew, Lot. And don’t get me started on THAT Springeresque family! :rolleyes:
As Western values are supposedly based on what is in the Bible, I think it is fair to expect the dude who supposedly wrote or inspired it to walk it like He talked it. “Tyrannical bully” is a kind description of the OT God. “Psychopathic tyrannical bully” is closer to what is described.
No he’s (she’s?) not. He’s concluding it. He’s saying that the act of commanding a father to kill his son makes one a bully.
Here are some pet theories of mine:
-
Abraham went along because he was testing God. In which case, the key moment here was to the sacrfice, but God’s interruption of he sacrifice.
-
Abraham failed his test, which is why his descendants were not called the Children of Abraham, but rather Children of Israel - Israel being the name Abe’s grandson Jake was given for beating the crap out of an angel. I think God wanted the true father of the nation to be someone willing to defy him, not an obedient sap like Abraham.
-
I heard a theory somewhere that human sacrifice was very common in local religions, and the whole point of the lesson was to show Abraham that his God doesn’t want him to do these kind of things (a lesson repeated in the story of Cain and Abel, as well as at other points in the Tanach). God was just being didactic, having Abraham go through the motions of human sacrifice so he’ll understand what they were talking about, and then stopping him at the last moment to stress his point:
“Abraham, if you ever get the impulse to do this, STOP. Just stop like I’m stopping you now. Don’t - and I mean DON’T - sacrifice your own son. See that goat over there? Sacrifice that instead. See the difference? Son… goat. Son… goat. Son bad - goat good”.
What Diogenes has been saying.
First off, I’d like to say that the Old Testament is valuable as myth and can provide a variety of insights, just as the Greek myths can. Once you start pretending that these myths refer to real events, however, you will encounter the type of worry and confusion that the OP is.
Actually, the kind of things DtC has been explaining can be turned into a kind of proof against monotheism. Many of you will know it:
If the Good is ordained by God, then God could declare murder “good” tomorrow, and it would be so. But this would be goodness in name only, as we would still not perceive it as being anything other than the worst evil. Therefore, God’s ordaining of goodness must involve more than merely calling one thing good and another bad arbitrarily.
But what is that element? Goodness is not gel that can be spread on something. It exists in the relationship between things. Just like 2 + 2 = 4. Even if we grant that God creates the initial system, he is not free to violate its rules any more than he is free arbitrarily to decree that 2 + 2 = 5.
Now we can get into the argument over whether a monotheistic deity has ordained the truths of mathematics. I certainly say no, and I think that implies that a monotheistic God is subject to the laws of good and evil, not their creator. But if God is not the ordainer of good and evil, then traditional monotheism is untenable.
In any event, the OP is correct: God is not free to mess with people’s heads whenever he feels like it. If we perceive God’s actions to be evil, then they are evil according to either the A) original relationships he created, or B) principles beyond even his control.
[QUOTE=cmkeller]
Well I was using your words so perhaps I misinterpreted. What I meant to say is how is an outsider to know whether someone who claims to hear the voice of God is delusional or not? Your statement (below) presumed that you can tell when someone is delusional.
“Can we please not equate it with someone who, in modern times, delusionally claims to hear G-d? Even if you don’t believe the story in the Bible is true, it at least has to be taken in that context.”
You have been messing with your own head!
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Some of you are missing a key thing about cmkeller’s explanation: the phrase “in the context of the Biblical story”. In the context of the Myth (in the good sense of the word) of Abraham, in order to analyze the meaning or validity of the Lesson it’s supposed to teach, there is no issue of some outside observer determining if the guy next door is having a prophetic revelation or rather a reaction to contaminated falafel – we are to suspend disbelief and for the sake of the argument stipulate that the dude DID communicate with the God, and then argue the OP question to the effect of what what does this say to us about the nature of the Judeo/Christ/Islamic concepts of the “God” and obedience thereto.
(And DtC, I simply meant that to the faithful of the applicable religions, the God’s morals are unchallengeable. May I say some people here do seem remarkably confident of how well they’d stand up if ever faced with defying an Eternal Omnipotence)
JRDelirious,
I get it. I am not disputing that Abraham did communicate with God. I am wondering how anyone can know that God i*s not *speaking to someone today. cmkeller seems to have that ability, as evidenced by the quote in my post, and I was asking him to justify it. I will ask you the same thing. If one grants that God does in fact speak to humans, how can anyone justify dismissing *anyone’s * claim to such communication as "delusional’?
She.
Interesting! But was God the frst to call them that in the Scriptures?