# Reading > Religious Texts >  Abraham's dilemma

## Taliesin

I read a book some while ago. ("Hyperion" and "Hyperion's Fall" by Dan Simmons)
One topic of it was about a man who wrote a disquisition about Abraham's dilemma.
That is: Should have Abraham said no, when God told him to sacrifice his son? That, that the God did not allow the death of his son does not matter. What mattered, was that Abraham was ready to kill his own son because God told him to. 
The man concluded that at those times the relationship between God and mankind was simply one of obedience and orders. 
He went on and said that mankind had evolved to a state, where the parents would sacrifice not their children, but themselves.
Finally, he wrote, that the relationship between God and mankind should evolve to a sstate of no commands and obedience, but as equal to equal.

Now, the man who wrote this disquisition comes to a totally different understanding of Abrahams dilemma in the end of the book - Abraham did not try to kill his son because of obedience to God, neither did he do it because of love.
He brought God to a test.
When God stopped Abrahams hand, then He had proven himself as a worthy God. It was the only way to be sure.

Well, I personally think that it was quite an interesting dilemma.
Now, I know at least one another similar thing in mythology. Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter, Iphigenia, to appease Artemis. In earlier legends, Iphigenia died. In later legends, it was changed. Iphigenia staid alive and Artemis sent a deer to be sacrificed instead of her. Also, Iphigenia was miraculously transported away. I think Artemis was turned into a kinder goddess by that.

What do you think about the dilemma?

----------


## atiguhya padma

I think Soren Kierkegaard wrote something like this. 

Quite honestly, Abraham was probably psychotic. It reveals him to be grossly inhuman. At the same time, it shows that total obedience to the notion of God, at all costs, is itself inhuman.

AP

----------


## Robert Sutherla

Taliesin:

The story of Abraham and Issac is a profoundly disturbing account, resulting in disparate interpretations between Soren Kierkegaard on the one extreme and Eric Fromm on the other extreme.

Personally, I side with Fromm. 

1. God never intended that Abraham carry out the sacrifice. He intended to test him in order to see whether he would. Being in the land 20 years by that point, Abraham may have been corrupted or tempted by the piety of the Canaanites who believed the sacrifice of the first born to be the highest form of piety. By putting Abraham through the emotional turmoil, he led Abraham to understand in the deepest possible sense God's abhorance with the sacrifice of the innocent. God stopped the test.

2. God cannot contradict himself. If God intended the sacrifice of the innocent, then he would be contradicting his general revelation in creation (the natural moral law) and his special revelation in scripture. Kierkegaard's notion of a "teleological suspension of the ethical" is incoherent.

3. If God can command the death of the innocent as Kierkegaard claims, then God can authorize terrorism.

4. Abraham should have questioned God as Moses and Job did, demanding answers before he was prepared to act and not acting before God gave those answers. That would have been the best way to fulfill his test. Nevertheless, he was given some credit by God. His actions however indicate he failed his test.

----------


## crisaor

Assuming God was testing Abraham to see what he'd do, where's the point in that? I mean, since we're talking about a God that is presented as perfect (Old Testament), then he'd surely know how Abraham would react, otherwise there's no omnipotence there.

----------


## subterranean

Yea, but Abraham didn't know. Regarding to freewill of man, there was a probability that Abraham didn't obey God and refused to sacrifice his son. If that what happened then I suppose the story would change and Abraham wouldnt be called as father of the believers..Like in the case of Jonah, he refused to go to Niniveh and God gave him a lesson...with that fish thing.

----------


## ajoe

I'm just surprised Isaac didn't try to run away. I mean, if my father laid me down there and tied me up with a knife in his hand, I'd have the good sense to think he's gone mad and call the police.

----------


## subterranean

well Ajoe, you live in the 21st century...

----------


## Johnmc

I would just like to add some input on this subject.

Abraham's dilemna, as it has been called, has to be taken into context, Robert was correct to introduce the context of the cannanite influences of that time, but a more relevent context to this story is the fact that Isaac was born to Abraham when he was over a hundred years old. This means that Abraham had been around for a long time, and he was used to talking to God, and knew from experience to do what God told him. IMO this test was more for the benefit of future generations than it was for Abraham. By showing the level of faithfulness in Abraham that would allow him to sacrafice his son, God give a clear presidence to allow for us to better understand his level of faithfulness to us when he sacrificed his son Jesus. Abraham already knew that when God makes a promise, He delivers. His reaction to God's promise that he would conceive a child was laughable doubt, but nonetheless, he believed and it was credited to him as righteousness. This "If you say so" attitude was an expression of trust despite imperical evidense of the implausability of a man conceiving a child at such an age. The willingness to offer his son as a sacrificefurther exemplified this trust in that he knew that God had told him that his offspring would grow into a great nation. If abraham believed this promise, he had nothing to fear in offering his son as a sacrafice. If you are familiar with the bible you will notice that God has already justified Abraham as righteous, so there is nothing for Abraham to prove. This is why I think the test was more profetic than anything else, because it give a referense that conects Jesus' sacrifice to faithfulness. 

Just a thought!

----------


## crisaor

I think those are good points.

----------


## miss tenderness

> Abraham did not try to kill his son because of obedience to God, neither did he do it because of love.
> He brought God to a test. When God stopped Abrahams hand, then He had proven himself as a worthy God. It was the only way to be sure.


Interesting ,interesting, Abraham's life is one the stories that stops me whenever I pass by, whether in the holy Quran or in other books. When I read Allah's description for him, or the way he mentions him(with full respect , love and grace) ,tears full my eyes. However, it's just disgraceful for Abraham's high memory to take the point Tal's mentions above. I mean, Abraham does n't need to test God, he knew Him and deeply believed and called for Him before this incident. It would be a really late stage to test God then. Abraham's act is an act of obedience to His God and it really tells you the profound stage of faith Abraham's reached.




> I'm just surprised Isaac didn't try to run away. I mean, if my father laid me down there and tied me up with a knife in his hand, I'd have the good sense to think he's gone mad and call the police.


Oh,dear :Biggrin: 

>>>Isaac was a faithful man himself, he knew that it's God's order and it's a test. Maybe deep inside,due to his faith and trust in God, he had a feeling that God would never put him in a bad situation ,he knew that though seemingly he'll suffer but God wont allow any injustice to befallen him. 

Pc. I brought back this thread from the history :Biggrin: I dunno how I came across it!but I loved its topic.

----------


## mtpspur

Hebrews 11: 17-19 (King James translation) states: By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son. Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called (Genesis 21:12): Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

In my opinion/belief Abraham is a picture of two things: Willingly and obediently sacrificing his greatest possession--his only begotten son--shades of John 3:16--for there is no forgiveness of sin without the sheding of blood and a picture of looking forward to the resurrection of his son (had Isaac died) and the Lord Christ returning from the dead.

----------


## miss tenderness

> Willingly and obediently sacrificing his greatest possession--his only begotten son


exactly,willingly and obediently.Exactly.

----------


## Orionsbelt

I had heard once an interpretation of this story. Isacc, especially at Abraham's age, represented Abraham's future as promised. So the test was not one of obedience so much as it was a test to see what Abraham would do if the promise was denied. Would Abraham "not accept " the prize so to speak. Possibly, give up his own place in history. So pleading would have been a bad thing in this case. As opposed to pleading out of love for your son. 


Obviously, and in deference to Ishmael, this is only one version.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Willingly and obediently sacrificing his greatest possession--his only begotten son


I don't buy it. Isaac is not Abraham's possession, he is a human being. Human beings cannot be owned, and therefore cannot be given away. The only person that Abraham has enough possession over to sacrifice is himself.

----------


## Virgil

> I don't buy it. Isaac is not Abraham's possession, he is a human being. Human beings cannot be owned, and therefore cannot be given away. The only person that Abraham has enough possession over to sacrifice is himself.


 :Confused:  What do you mean? It's his son. The use of the word "possesion" here is not quite like owning an article, but a child is tied to his parents. Are you saying that a child does not belong to his parents? 

Possession or not, Abraham was put in a position of choosing between obeying God's word and killing his child. I could not have answered that call.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> What do you mean? It's his son. The use of the word "possesion" here is not quite like owning an article, but a child is tied to his parents. Are you saying that a child does not belong to his parents?


Yes I am. Parents certainly have _authority_ over their children, but authority is not the same as ownership. You cannot sacrifice your children in the same way that you can sacrifice your possesions. Persons cannot be bought, sold or given away because they cannot be possesed because they are persons.

----------


## Chava

The notion that children belong to their parents is far-fetched. Parents have a responsibility towards their children, but they do not own them, something that becomes ever more obvious as the child grows up. Parents can support you, and guide you, but you are never their possesion.

----------


## Virgil

> Yes I am. Parents certainly have _authority_ over their children, but authority is not the same as ownership. You cannot sacrifice your children in the same way that you can sacrifice your possesions. Persons cannot be bought, sold or given away because they cannot be possesed because they are persons.





> The notion that children belong to their parents is far-fetched. Parents have a responsibility towards their children, but they do not own them, something that becomes ever more obvious as the child grows up. Parents can support you, and guide you, but you are never their possesion.


Well, it's somewhere in the middle. True they can't be sold, but they can be given away in adoption. Let me tell you, if your child damages or breaks something, who pays? Who is responsible for a child's actions? I agree it's not possession as an article, but no one can take away your child from you. There is some level of possession to it.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Adoption is a whole different kettle of fish, in my humble opinion. Transfering responsibility for a child to another person is not the same kind of sacrifice. In Abraham's case, he wished to make a trade (Isaac for God's favor). A person who gives their child up for adoption does not recieve anything in return. Abraham is being immoral, because he does not have the right to trade Isaac, because he is not Abraham's possession.

----------


## subterranean

I'm not sure whether in the age of Abraham, a child could say things like, "Dad, you have no right to do this to me".

----------


## Virgil

> Adoption is a whole different kettle of fish, in my humble opinion. Transfering responsibility for a child to another person is not the same kind of sacrifice. In Abraham's case, he wished to make a trade (Isaac for God's favor). A person who gives their child up for adoption does not recieve anything in return. Abraham is being immoral, because he does not have the right to trade Isaac, because he is not Abraham's possession.


First of all, a child can't just say, or better declare, I want a different set of parents. If so i would have traded my poor parents for a rich set. So even inthe most liberal of countries children are bound to their parents.

Second, you don't understand the Genesis story. Abraham wasn't seeking God's favor; he was commanded by God to kill his son. In a culture where one is supposed to submitt to God's will, God has put Abraham in a moral bind. Each course of action puts Abraham in a immoral state.

Third the notion that children are not parents possesions is a relatively modern notion of liberal societies. Perhaps the laws of your country declare children as autonous beings, but that is not the norm around the world or certainly historically. Many cultures historically did sell children as personal possesions.

----------


## miss tenderness

> In Abraham's case, he wished to make a trade (Isaac for God's favor). A person who gives their child up for adoption does not recieve anything in return. Abraham is being immoral, because he does not have the right to trade Isaac, because he is not Abraham's possession.


Maybe you won't get this, Cupp, because you are an atheist , but if Isaac isn't Abraham's possession( he actually isn't) ,then he is His Creator's possosion .Thus, the order of killing him came from a God who owns everything including Isaac. Maybe Abraham ,pbuh, took it this way. If you create sth , you own it. God owns Isaac .

----------


## Orionsbelt

Sorry, I've been out for a few days. 

God's promise was that Abraham would be the father of many nations. As a result, Abraham may have become full of pride or somehow undeserving of the title. So the test was more "are you worthy" more than are you obedient or loving. Taking away Isaac would not only be killing his son but it would represent a withdrawl of the promise. Having Abraham do the deed himself even more of a test. The purpose would be to judge Abraham's motives. Perhaps analogous to having a rich man part with gold. It seemed to make more sense to me than other interpretations. I took it as along the lines of the men in the synagogue praying, one very humble, and the other less so. One more worthy, the other less so.

All this other stuff is kind of interesting though.

----------


## mtpspur

Never dreamed using the word possession would cause such commentary. If this will placate the over sensitive (who I suspect are NOT parents as I assure you the LAW treats you like you own them) perhaps I should have said Abraham was giving his responsibilities to Isaac back to God. On the other hand I'm a curmudgeon so I'm sticking with possession. A parent will always feel like their children are their most special possessions (though I often 'like' the cats better.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Maybe you won't get this, Cupp, because you are an atheist


I resent the implication a little bit. I was _raised_ Catholic, you know.




> but if Isaac isn't Abraham's possession( he actually isn't) ,then he is His Creator's possosion .Thus, the order of killing him came from a God who owns everything including Isaac. Maybe Abraham ,pbuh, took it this way.


This still doesn't quite make it OK with Abraham, in my opinion. Issac may be _God's_ possession, but he still isn't Abraham's, and Abraham still isn't allowed to treat him as such. It could, however, be construed that Abraham saw himself as carrying out God's wishes for his possession, which could be morally defended if one subscribes to the position that whatever God says is, by definition, morally right. I have no wish to debate that position at the moment, if nobody minds.  :Smile:

----------


## miss tenderness

> I resent the implication a little bit. I was _raised_ Catholic, you know.


what I meant , Cupp , is that you may not approve of this point due to your being an athiest.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> what I meant , Cupp , is that you may not approve of this point due to your being an athiest.


Oh I see. Well, no I don't entirely agree, but I do understand the argument.  :Smile:

----------


## miss tenderness

:Smile: glad you do :Biggrin:

----------


## Logos

> First of all, a child can't just say, or better declare, I want a different set of parents.


Actually....in 1992 eleven year-old Gregory Kingsley of Florida _did_ successfully sue his parents for separation
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...976611,00.html

and although it was immediately appealed
http://www.phil-mor.com/articles/parents_rights_2.htm

"_George and Elizabeth Russ retained custody of Gregory pending the appeals."_  :Thumbs Up:  I wonder what the status of the case is now.

----------


## Ann Ganon

> I read a book some while ago. ("Hyperion" and "Hyperion's Fall" by Dan Simmons)
> One topic of it was about a man who wrote a disquisition about Abraham's dilemma.
> That is: Should have Abraham said no, when God told him to sacrifice his son? That, that the God did not allow the death of his son does not matter. What mattered, was that Abraham was ready to kill his own son because God told him to. 
> The man concluded that at those times the relationship between God and mankind was simply one of obedience and orders. 
> He went on and said that mankind had evolved to a state, where the parents would sacrifice not their children, but themselves.
> Finally, he wrote, that the relationship between God and mankind should evolve to a sstate of no commands and obedience, but as equal to equal.
> 
> Now, the man who wrote this disquisition comes to a totally different understanding of Abrahams dilemma in the end of the book - Abraham did not try to kill his son because of obedience to God, neither did he do it because of love.
> He brought God to a test.
> ...



Abraham's dilemma has nothing to do with Iphigenia. Human sacrifice is as old and wrong as man himself. It's always been about getting something for ourselves: a battle won, the god's favor etc... Until this unique event that is. Here, God is showing us His sacrifice for us. Abraham already "believed God" and it was "accounted to him for righteousness." He already was accepted by God, by faith. (See Hebrews chapter 11) 
This final test was showing the father of faith the price God paid for us.
If you read John chapter 8, that will be made clear. Mount Moriah and Calvary are really the same hill. Through Abraham's seed, the promise given in Genesis 3:16 would come to pass. That promise was-- that in the same way Abraham was willing to sacrifice his only son, that he had waited so long for.... God was going to do the same thing and sacrifice His only son on Mt. Calvary. Abraham "saw" Jesus Christ that day and "was glad." He now understood the extreme price God would have to pay in order to save mankind. Have you seen Him yet? I have. and I am glad.

----------


## Virgil

> Actually....in 1992 eleven year-old Gregory Kingsley of Florida _did_ successfully sue his parents for separation
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...976611,00.html
> 
> and although it was immediately appealed
> http://www.phil-mor.com/articles/parents_rights_2.htm
> 
> "_George and Elizabeth Russ retained custody of Gregory pending the appeals."_  I wonder what the status of the case is now.


Yeah, but Logos, that was an extraordinary set of circumstances where there were essentially two sets of parents, based on having been adopted. The child wasn't free to choose a third set was he?

----------


## Theshizznigg

There is only one occasion of actual human sacrifice to Jehovah in the Old Testament. I forget the exact passage, (I don't have my bible with me.) But for the victory that God gives his family he promises to sacrifice the first thing he sees, which turns out to be his daughter. He did as he said he would, hence the reason there is a Jewish holiday in which the women are supposed to leave the men for a week, then return to them.

"S Deans. I love you." - Volgurius

----------


## libernaut

> I think Soren Kierkegaard wrote something like this. 
> 
> Quite honestly, Abraham was probably psychotic. It reveals him to be grossly inhuman. At the same time, it shows that total obedience to the notion of God, at all costs, is itself inhuman.
> 
> AP


Exactly!  :Banana:

----------


## Thorwench

It's interesting that everyone who posted focused on Abraham and his mindset. I always wondered about God here. Although Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son I doubt that he would have done so gladly (if he did it wouldn't be a sacrifice). He must have been full of anguish and his heart must have been heavy. Now, what loving God (father) would ask one of his beloved children to make such a sacrifice and put him through such an ordeal and then, after the poor guy has resolved to do so, cry "test, test, test"? This is, given the concept of a loving God, entirely incoherent. Even if it is argued that by calling it off God showed his love and mercifullness and was thus loved even better by Abraham it still looks as like a game of good cop/bad cop played out by one single entity (i.e. God). 
However, looking at this story theologically and historically, it seems that it wants to show at least 2 things (as were already mentioned): human sacrifices are not required by THIS God and anunciation of God's own sacrifice. This is shown somewhat crudely perhaps but it carries the message effeciently and relatively (for us) clearly. If the story however is taken to carry a moral message transcending these two or similarly shaped aspects, it would be highly dubious one, in my opinion at least. God, besides encouraging some sort of blind fanaticism, would appear not much different from the capricious, cruelly playful and deceitful gods monotheism went against.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> I'm just surprised Isaac didn't try to run away. I mean, if my father laid me down there and tied me up with a knife in his hand, I'd have the good sense to think he's gone mad and call the police.


I think that is the point. I think that Isacc loved and trusted his father, and knew that Abraham knew what he was doing, which was the same relationship that Abraham had to God. Abraham loved and trusted his "father", God, and knew that He knew best. Every choice he had made, such as packing up and leaving his homeland, 'cause God said so, was an act of faith. He had learned to trust in God, and do what he said, and he was rewarded for it. Also, it was an allusion( is that the right word?) to what Christ would do. He would be sacrificed, but he would go willingly, and in the end, he conquered death.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> I think Soren Kierkegaard wrote something like this. 
> 
> Quite honestly, Abraham was probably psychotic. It reveals him to be grossly inhuman. At the same time, it shows that total obedience to the notion of God, at all costs, is itself inhuman.
> 
> AP


Actually, I think that he just trusted God. Just b/c today absolute trust is rare, doesn't mean it is inhuman. When you were little, and your parents told you to do something, even if you didnt understand it, you did it out of obedience, b/c you knew your parents knew better than you. (This is to everyone, not just you. I dont know your behavior as a child.) That was the mindset of Abraham to God. Abraham knew that God knew best, and that his comprehension compared to God was zil, so he did it. As for psychotic, a study of Abraham's actions would reveal he isn't even close to being crazy.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

Even before I had any children, I like to think that I would have regarded the Abraham/Isaac story as a critical moment in the history of Judaism and succeeding religions, a moment when Abraham made the humanly wrong choice for himself, for Isaac, for all of us.

It was a moment when a critical choice was presented: is there a point at which the very essence of humanness splits off from faith-based blind obedience?

Now, having two sons and a daughter, I believe I would have experienced a moment of sheer terror when 'God' commanded the sacrifice of any one of them, and that after that moment I'd have proudly said *Shame on you and begone.*

And I would thence become a born-again human being. Born-again, or at last!

----------


## quasimodo1

The Abraham Conundrum is discussed here, with some clarity, except for an acceptable definition of "god" which as a best case I would consider "the universal subconscious". But that's a view from the other side of the barbed wire. Take a look...http://www.victorshepherd.on.ca/Othe...gs/abraham.htm quasimodo1

----------


## Redzeppelin

I think it is risky to examine this episode without setting the context properly. The context necessary to understand _anything_ in the Bible is the character of God. Who He is and what kind of character He has is of utmost importance. Think about it: we base a lot on the credibility of someone: that if a firefighter tells me to jump into the waiting tarp held below, the odds are pretty good I'll take his word for it; if an engineer assures me that the bridge he designed can bear a certain load, I'm inclined to trust his word. Now we turn to God - who promised Abraham that He (God) would create a great nation through Abraham - and we know that Isaac was a miraculous child because Sarah bore him well past what was considered a possible birthing age (hence her laughter when the angelic visitors suggested she would have a son). Logically, Abraham had to have had that in mind when he obeyed God and set out with Isaac. It would be pointless to promise Abraham a massive legacy and then kill the very being who was to be the beginning of that legacy. Since Abraham knew God, we can assume that he knew what the Bible tells us to be true of God: He is loving, kind, just, merciful, beneficent and all-knowing. If Abraham did not know these things to be true, he probably wouldn't have obeyed the command; and, let us not forget that this test was reserved for late in Abraham's life (he was 100 when Isaac was born) - God very likely would not have asked this test had Abraham been younger.

When parents raise children, one of the things that is essential is for the child to learn to obey the parent without question (assuming the parent is good and not some psychopath); without this habit in place, a child could run into a dangerous situation - I think it very important that when a parent says "stop!" or "run!" or "hide!" that the child that decides to dialogue on the logic of the command may suffer. Children need such boundaries in order to survive a life they are very naive of in order to reach adulthood.

God placed much faith in Abraham - and I think the command was God's way of asking Abraham "Do you trust me - even with the life of your child?" I don't think Abraham for one minute doubted that God would provide a way out - did you notice what he said to the servants when he and Isaac headed off to the sacrifice?

"Stay here by yourselves with the donkey; while I and the lad go yonder; so *we* may worship and return to you." (Gen 22:5)

Much is at stake in the cosmic battle between God and Satan, and Abraham had demonstrated twice earlier in his life that he didn't completely trust God (the two times he went into foreign lands against God's will and lied about Sarah being his wife); God needed to know (and he needed Abraham to know) what kind of man he (Abraham) was. To be granted great things requires great things of us. 

If it's any consolation, I don't think God would ask this particular test today.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> The Abraham Conundrum is discussed here, with some clarity, except for an acceptable definition of "god" which as a best case I would consider "the universal subconscious". But that's a view from the other side of the barbed wire. Take a look...http://www.victorshepherd.on.ca/Othe...gs/abraham.htm quasimodo1


The problem for me with the article you proposed is that it is ingenious abstraction, and discusses the issue(s) as one might a particularly difficult chess-match. It pays scant attention to the flesh-and-blood component of the problem. If indeed 'God' later gave his only begotten son as a testiment of how deeply he loved the world, then even scripture recognizes that there can be no deeper love than that between parent and child. And 'God' supposedly made us of flesh and blood, from which are derived our emotions - something I take to be different from spirit or of the mind wherein the idea of spirit resides. 

In testing Abraham as he does (and I submit that the test itself, even if aborted by God, is close enough to being as hideous as if it had been allowed to be carried out) - In testing Abraham as he does, God appears to me to be asking him to betray the *human covenant* which to me is as sacred as the covenant with God: else what was the point of creating the human family?

----------


## libernaut

> As for psychotic, a study of Abraham's actions would reveal he isn't even close to being crazy.


Actually his action: contemplating murder, even in the name of God, is considered to be psychotic by most.

----------


## MaryLupin

> ...and that after that moment I'd have proudly said *Shame on you and begone.*
> 
> And I would thence become a born-again human being. Born-again, or at last!


You know I have never thought of this as a cultural moment of choice...but you are quite right. It was. Maybe we will get there. What a bible that would be!

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

On various stages of that multi-stage theatre of our minds we play a sort of double game, on one level maintaining a sort of _Pretend to Believe_ (PTB) and on the other, _Common Sense Tells Me_ (CSTM). E.g., in the romantic drama PTB acts out _If I dont have this man or woman, I will die,_ which facilitates our coming on to him or her in as persuasive a manner as possible; while CSTM knows that I will not die... But for PTB to be optimally effective, it is best to behave as if one believes in it implicitly, 101%

If one operates as I do on the assumption that each and every one of the Bible stories was written by different individuals, and that like fiction everywhere the stories are projections of the authors fantasy wishes and fears, then the Abraham/Isaac story comes about like this. The author is the father of at least one much loved son. One day he is thinking about his relationship with God, as people of that time no doubt frequently did. _How deep is my faith, really,_ he wonders to himself, and imagines the most severe test to which that faith might be put. _What if... what if God asked me to sacrifice my son to him? No, no, of course He wouldnt do that... But if he did... would I? Could I..._

He projects himself into the figure of Abraham, the patriarch of whom he has heard other stories, notably of how at such an improbably late age Abraham and Sarah were promised and given a son, a first child and furthermore because of their age the only child they are likely ever to have. He wills himself into Abrahams mind, into both his faith and his bottomless love for Isaac. Now the two are pitted against each other! God is telling him, _Of these two most cherished things you can only have one or the other. To maintain your faith you must sacrifice your lovely Isaac, and you must do that yourself! You must stand above him with your dagger raised and his trusting eyes directed up at you!

Or you can keep your darling son but forfeit your faith in me._

Now CSTM kicks in: _God doesnt really mean that! The God I know, the God of infinite love and compassion cannot mean that, so it would be safe for me to go through the motions of laying Isaac down upon a rock, covering him with tinder, honing my dagger and raising it... God will not permit, will not require me to carry it out!_

But in order for the test to be truly meaningful, that is, acceptable to the God who sees even the most deeply hidden corner of my heart, _I must not only pretend to believe: I must actually believe. I must see myself carrying this out, must actually feel the dagger go through Isaacs breastbone, into his heart, see the blood spurt out and cover my hand..._

Remember, however, that there is another Abraham, the one who is writing this story, imagining it, living it along with the Abraham he has conjured. And now, for him, CSTM comes at last to the rescue and as he completes the story - as at some level he imagined it from the beginning - God stays Abrahams hand!

But the Abraham of his story will never be the same again. He will know himself from that moment forward as a man who was ready to kill his son in order to prove his faith in the All-Mighty, the All-Merciful. _A faithful man, a faith-filled man - and an infanticide._

----------


## firefangled

> On various stages of that multi-stage theatre of our minds we play a sort of double game, on one level maintaining a sort of _Pretend to Believe_ (PTB) and on the other, _Common Sense Tells Me_ (CSTM). E.g., in the romantic drama PTB acts out _If I dont have this man or woman, I will die,_ which facilitates our coming on to him or her in as persuasive a manner as possible; while CSTM knows that I will not die... But for PTB to be optimally effective, it is best to behave as if one believes in it implicitly, 101%
> 
> If one operates as I do on the assumption that each and every one of the Bible stories was written by different individuals, and that like fiction everywhere the stories are projections of the authors fantasy wishes and fears, then the Abraham/Isaac story comes about like this. The author is the father of at least one much loved son. One day he is thinking about his relationship with God, as people of that time no doubt frequently did. _How deep is my faith, really,_ he wonders to himself, and imagines the most severe test to which that faith might be put. _What if... what if God asked me to sacrifice my son to him? No, no, of course He wouldnt do that... But if he did... would I? Could I..._
> 
> He projects himself into the figure of Abraham, the patriarch of whom he has heard other stories, notably of how at such an improbably late age Abraham and Sarah were promised and given a son, a first child and furthermore because of their age the only child they are likely ever to have. He wills himself into Abrahams mind, into both his faith and his bottomless love for Isaac. Now the two are pitted against each other! God is telling him, _Of these two most cherished things you can only have one or the other. To maintain your faith you must sacrifice your lovely Isaac, and you must do that yourself! You must stand above him with your dagger raised and his trusting eyes directed up at you!
> 
> Or you can keep your darling son but forfeit your faith in me._
> 
> Now CSTM kicks in: _God doesnt really mean that! The God I know, the God of infinite love and compassion cannot mean that, so it would be safe for me to go through the motions of laying Isaac down upon a rock, covering him with tinder, honing my dagger and raising it... God will not permit, will not require me to carry it out!_
> ...



I have always loved this version of that story by Bob Dylan:

God said to Abraham, kill me a son.
Abe said, man you must be puttin' me on?
God said, no. Abe said, what!
God said, you can do what you want, Abe, but
but the next time you see me comin', you better run!
Well, Abe said where you want this killin' done?
God said, out on highway sixty-one.

----------


## quasimodo1

To PrinceMyshkin: Relative to this discussion...my addition does not indicate that I will take a side although obviously I have one. The key word relative to this debate is "conundrum" not "dilemma". One can't be sorted out because of inconsistancies and contradictions in the hypothesis. A dilemma implies an important impending choice. Is that what we have here? quasimodo1

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> To PrinceMyshkin: Relative to this discussion...my addition does not indicate that I will take a side although obviously I have one. The key word relative to this debate is "conundrum" not "dilemma". One can't be sorted out because of inconsistancies and contradictions in the hypothesis. A dilemma implies an important impending choice. Is that what we have here? quasimodo1


In a sense that (important impending choice) is what we do have here, as 'God,' via his agents here on earth, is constantly demanding of us that we show our faith in 'him' by sacrificing our reason.

Or at least by raising our sons and daughters so that they be prepared to sacrifice theirs.

----------


## Orionsbelt

Isn't this what we all face? 

In terms of a Hebrew culture living in a desert focused on the tribe and their God. Lets face it, what else was around. The Hebrew God if nothing else is a reflection of these people. The rule of law and the relationships of human to human is the center piece. Survival and contentment depend on these things. The Native American had centered on the Sun and the Buffalo. Abraham faces conflict and uncertainty about his legacy and his God these are the only things that he had. Each morning armed with your beliefs and your hopes you face the day. Whatever you think of the details, whatever your frame of reference. Perhaps very existential huh? Just think'n

----------


## Pendragon

This is what Theshizznigg was looking for in the Bible:

Judges 11:
[30] And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
[31] Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
[32] So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.
[33] And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
[34] And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
[35] And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
[36] And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
[37] And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.
[38] And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
[39] And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
[40] That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

There is this verse as well:

Ecclesiastes 5:

[4] When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
[5] Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay

Jephthah would have been better off to have not opened his mouth.

With Abraham, I think Red pointed out where he told his servants as he and Issac left "we will return to thee." Amazing words for a man who knows he must sacrifice his son to say, "We'll be back!"

God Bless

Pen

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> With Abraham, I think Red pointed out where he told his servants as he and Issac left "we will return to thee." Amazing words for a man who knows he must sacrifice his son to say, "We'll be back!"


That is a very slender reed on which to erect an edifice! Ought we not to remember as we read these accounts that the people mentioned in them *were* people, not merely or primarily symbols? Yes, their world-view will have been different from ours; but in their human relations would they have been so utterly different?

So Abraham is a) a devout believer in God, but b) a father, one who has known and (I assume) loved Isaac through all the stages of emerging from his mother to become an infant, then a toddler, a boy, a young man. Now Abraham is off to fulfill God's command. He _may_ at some level believe that God does not mean it, but *he cannot be sure of that*. So can we expect him to be of clear, calm mind? When he says "We'll be back" is it confidence speaking, or habit, or plain muddle?

I repeat: he is going, as far as he knows, to sacrifice his son. Is it only those of us who have beloved children who can understand his frame of mind? Or perhaps these and all other Biblical stories are so familiar to us, so far from our first encounter with them, that we deal with them only as parables, moral exemplars, and forget to feel with those who suffer.

----------


## firefangled

> But the Abraham of his story will never be the same again. He will know himself from that moment forward as a man who was ready to kill his son in order to prove his faith in the All-Mighty, the All-Merciful. _A faithful man, a faith-filled man - and an infanticide._



Prince, I did not do this explanation justice in the least with my quip of Dylan (which may have had a better place and time).

Your finish to this analysis is an excellent insight, something I have never thought of in this way. I have always looked at this story, as I was so frquently taught growing up, as an example of Abraham having his faith tested to an extreme measure, which of course is part of it, but the true insight here is yours, and who is to say it is not the more valuable moral. To have an event that causes us to truly see the darkest recesses of our being is an essential step to full self knowledge. It is this knowledge that gives birth to authentic humility and ironically is what would "stay" us from judging others.

Thank you for this.

----------


## Pendragon

> I repeat: he is going, as far as he knows, to sacrifice his son. Is it only those of us who have beloved children who can understand his frame of mind? Or perhaps these and all other Biblical stories are so familiar to us, so far from our first encounter with them, that we deal with them only as parables, moral exemplars, and forget to feel with those who suffer.


You may have forgotten, Jerry, that I have three children: a daughter, 20, a son, 18, and another son, 15. I almost lost my older son at age 4 to pnuemonia. I would spend all night in his hospital room until my wife releaved me in time to go to work at 6:00 a.m., go to work, come home, snatch some sleep, pick up Summer from the babysiter and go releave my wife. I know about the fear of losing a child and how it affects your faith. It is the hardest thing you'll ever go through if you are a true parent, as I believe you to be, and I believe Abraham also was. 

Do I think he had his doubts? Certainly. But he also believed that it would be fine somehow.

God bless

Pen

----------


## Orionsbelt

> To have an event that causes us to truly see the darkest recesses of our being is an essential step to full self knowledge. It is this knowledge that gives birth to authentic humility and ironically is what would "stay" us from judging others.


Couldn't agree more. Probably why in the parables Jesus prefers sinners. My mother used to say "God save us from holy people"

----------


## Pendragon

> Couldn't agree more. Probably why in the parables Jesus prefers sinners. My mother used to say "God save us from holy people"


Allow me to qualify that a little. "God save us from the self-righteous." A person who is truly trying to do the will of God knows full well that one is far from perfect and cannot point the finger at others without pointing at ones self as well. It is the self-righteous who feel they can claim to be better than others, thus deceiving themselves and no one else.

God Bless.

Pen

----------


## Orionsbelt

Well I can't change mum's words but I'll grant you the distinction. Thinking a little more around this topic... is this not what ultimately gives a person true freedom and true character. Having discovered the ability to perform some act that goes against the grain moral or otherwise, being mentally capable, physically capable and unhindered by outside standards, and still choosing restraint. I'm not saying this well.......Not doing something because you don't have the capacity is not the same as making an unencumbered choice!

----------


## weepingforloman

> I think Soren Kierkegaard wrote something like this. 
> 
> Quite honestly, Abraham was probably psychotic. It reveals him to be grossly inhuman. At the same time, it shows that total obedience to the notion of God, at all costs, is itself inhuman.
> 
> AP


To obey God at all cost is to consummate the very nature of man.




> I read a book some while ago. ("Hyperion" and "Hyperion's Fall" by Dan Simmons)
> One topic of it was about a man who wrote a disquisition about Abraham's dilemma.
> That is: Should have Abraham said no, when God told him to sacrifice his son? That, that the God did not allow the death of his son does not matter. What mattered, was that Abraham was ready to kill his own son because God told him to. 
> The man concluded that at those times the relationship between God and mankind was simply one of obedience and orders. 
> He went on and said that mankind had evolved to a state, where the parents would sacrifice not their children, but themselves.
> Finally, he wrote, that the relationship between God and mankind should evolve to a sstate of no commands and obedience, but as equal to equal.
> 
> Now, the man who wrote this disquisition comes to a totally different understanding of Abrahams dilemma in the end of the book - Abraham did not try to kill his son because of obedience to God, neither did he do it because of love.
> He brought God to a test.
> ...


God did what He did to let Abraham know how much stress his relationship with God could handle. Abraham needed to know how strong his own faith and love for God was.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Weepingforloman: "To obey God at all cost is to consummate the very nature of man."

At cost to oneself, yes.
At cost to others is madness and megalomania.

----------


## Pendragon

> Weepingforloman: "To obey God at all cost is to consummate the very nature of man."
> 
> At cost to oneself, yes.
> At cost to others is madness and megalomania.


And there is a warning in the Bible.

St. John:16 [2] They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Could that be any clearer? 

God Bless.

Pen

----------


## Whifflingpin

Pendragon: "And there is a warning in the Bible. St. John:16 [2] They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. Could that be any clearer? "

It could not - as long as we remember to apply it to "Us" as well as "Them."

.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Weepingforloman: "To obey God at all cost is to consummate the very nature of man."
> 
> At cost to oneself, yes.
> At cost to others is madness and megalomania.


The episode with Abraham is, perhaps, outside the normal scope of things. He had had proof positive that the spirit who spoke to him was God. And thus, Abraham could trust absolutely that God would guide him truly. The same sort of dynamic cannot apply to today, it is generally accepted (outside of Pentecostal circles, and uber-conservative Catholics) that God does not speak directly to humans anymore. So please, please, please, don't kill anyone because you think God told you to. Although I sometimes wonder about certain scenarios, for instance Dietrich Bonhoeffer's attempt to assassinate Hitler.

----------


## atiguhya padma

The story of the madman Abraham teaches us that humanity is not of particular concern to believers. It is far more important to follow your deluded religious conviction than to consider the lives of others.

----------


## Granny5

Would anyone supporting Abraham's decision to murder his son consider supporting someone today who murders their children because "God commanded me to." And Abraham did decide to murder his son, he was just stopped by the hand of God. Why would Abraham hearing the voice of God be any different than someone today? I don't see the difference and for the life of me I can't see how anyone could do such a thing, then or now. The only lesson anyone can learn from the story is if you hear voices, kill a child.
Abraham was a nut, then and now.

----------


## motherhubbard

I do not want to get in a mud slinging hateful debate, but Abraham is such a central figure of the Bible I hate to see his character assassinated. Abraham was told to leave his country and kinsmen and he obeyed. He was given the sign of the covenant, and he obeyed (that had to hurt). He was promised to have descendants than outnumbered the stars. He was promised that through his seed all of the nations of the world would be blessed. During his life he saw many great works of the Lord and was under a different dispensation than we are. God spoke to Abraham with his voice, not through a written word but with is own voice. 

We cannot speculate what Abraham thought might happen to Isaac. Perhaps he thought that God who had caused him to be born more than 55 or 60 years past his wife’s ability could somehow take care of him as he always had. Maybe he thought the child belonged to God in the first place more than himself. Of course he was sad and worried. The heaviness is all about him as they climb up that hill. Can we assume that he loved Isaac less than we love out children? No, this is the child of promise. We can assume that his faith in God is great. I’m not saying that his belief is great, but that his faith is great. Abraham didn’t have to believe, there was evidence for him. He had to have faith that God would provide a sacrifice, and make things work. Abraham did not pretend to know more than God.

It was a huge thing to ask Abraham to sacrifice his son. Most of these threads mention something about how God is capable of a greater love than man. God sacrificed his son for us while we were yet sinners. I think the purpose of this story is to help us to understand what a great sacrifice a son is to offer so that later on when God sacrifices his only begotten son we can understand what a sacrifice that was.

----------


## Pendragon

> Pendragon: "And there is a warning in the Bible. St. John:16 [2] They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. Could that be any clearer? "
> 
> It could not - as long as we remember to apply it to "Us" as well as "Them."
> 
> .


To which I assent, whole heartedly. What applies to one must alpply to all, else don't preach it. It is a thing that has bothered me for a long time, a blanket condemnation of others while failing to apply the same standards to one's self. 

I disagree, AP, that Abraham was mad. As I said before, I believe he understood full well that this was only a test and that nothing bad would happen. I am, however, against people who allow kids to die rather than seek medical aid, proclaiming "faith in God" as an excuse. You can tell them that all good things come from God, that man did not discover medicine by accident, but by observation and study, and by experiment and tests. If God has chosen not to heal the kid miraculously, He still provided a way: Doctors and medicine are there that can do the job. To let the child suffer needlessly and die needlessly is cruel, criminal, and downright evil.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## motherhubbard

> If God has chosen not to heal the kid miraculously, He still provided a way: Doctors and medicine are there that can do the job. To let the child suffer needlessly and die needlessly is cruel, criminal, and downright evil.


I agree. I dont believe God does for us what we can do for ourselves. He raised Lazarus from the dead (Lazarus couldnt do that for himself) but did not unwrap his cloths (Lazarus could do that for himself).

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I disagree, AP, that Abraham was mad. As I said before, I believe he understood full well that this was only a test and that nothing bad would happen.


The question for me, rather, is whether God was mad - or psychotic. Granted, human secular psychology may not be applicable to God but he was proposing this to a limited, fallible human being. If he created us (in his image, note) and if the love of our children is the highest expression of our humanity, then he is proposing another test such as the one he would later propose to Job:_ Show me that you value me above all else!_

And if Abraham believed it was a test - merely a test - then it was no test at all, but a charade. Did Isaac, equally, believe that it was a test? Or did he - even if for no more than a few minutes - suffer the unimaginable terror and despair that his father might be about to kill him?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Weepingforloman: "To obey God at all cost is to consummate the very nature of man."
> 
> At cost to oneself, yes.
> At cost to others is madness and megalomania.


The issue under discussion seems to be the "cost" of following God - in this story, what was the "cost" of doing what God asked? I do not agree with the idea that Abraham _intended_ to sacrifice Isaac so much as he intended to _do as God asked_ with faith that God - being who Abraham knew Him to be - meant no ill towards his (Abraham's) son. As well, we forget that Abraham and God talked - it's one thing to feel impressed by God to do something and quite another to have Him speak to you personally.

As well, we forget that the Bible says children are a gift from God: He is free (as terrible as this sounds to you and me both) to do as He wills with what He _creates_. This is more disturbing if one does not view God as _good_ - which - if we're going to discuss a Biblical story, it seems that we also ought to consider the context within which that story is told (the Bible) which establishes that God is loving, kind, merciful, just and good (as evidenced by His intervention in this story).

----------


## RichardHresko

Aquinas addresses the issue of Abraham's sacrifice in Summa Theologiae I, Part II, question 100, article 8:

"Likewise when Abraham consented to slay his son, he did not consent to murder, because his son was due to be slain by the command of God, Who is Lord of life and death: for He it is Who inflicts the punishment of death on all men, both godly and ungodly, on account of the sin of our first parent, and if a man be the executor of that sentence by Divine authority, he will be no murderer any more than God would be."

This is certainly an interesting take on the event.

Redzeppelin, I think, was close to the mark when he said: "I do not agree with the idea that Abraham intended to sacrifice Isaac so much as he intended to do as God asked".

In light of Aquinas' remarks, one could interpret the story as one of submission to the inevitable -- God will claim the life of Isaac regardless of Abraham, and has the right to do so. The question then becomes one of Abraham's submission to God's will. This is a recurrent theme in Judaism, Christianity, and is in fact the very meaning of the word, _Islam._

When Prince Myshkin says:
"If he created us (in his image, note) and if the love of our children is the highest expression of our humanity, then he is proposing another test such as the one he would later propose to Job: Show me that you value me above all else!" he is absolutely correct. And yes, human beings are indeed fallible, and limited. I agree also that it is doubtful for human psychology to be applicable to God. 

I think that love of our children is not the highest expression of our humanity, at least in terms of Biblical expression, and that should indeed make us pause.

Were someone to tell me that he had been told by God to sacrifice his son I would certainly call the authorities to have him locked up. But, as I stated somewhere earlier, I do not accept any human being telling me that he knows God's will. And the non-human beings that talk to me disappear when I am finally sober.

Abraham's story here is perhaps more of a test for the listener than for Abraham. Are we listeners willing to accept that our place is one of submission?

Let us also consider on the other hand Genesis 18:23-33, where Abraham bargains with God for Sodom and Gomorrah. This offers a strange contrast with the Isaac story, no? Except insofar as Abraham seems to know the boundary between pleading and disobeying. I will point out that Abraham does not argue a direct order, but will plead if it is merely a revealed plan.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"I do not agree with the idea that Abraham intended to sacrifice Isaac so much as he intended to do as God asked with faith that God - being who Abraham knew Him to be - meant no ill towards his (Abraham's) son. etc etc"

That was all very well for Abraham - albeit that sounds to me like having his cake and eating it. Either he was prepared to sacrifice his son, or he was not. If he was then he was, in intention, an infanticide; if not then the story is meaningless. Either way - Isaac was treated as a mere thing.

"we forget that the Bible says children are a gift from God: He is free (as terrible as this sounds to you and me both) to do as He wills with what He creates." God may do as He wills with adults or chidren - but we may not, in His name or otherwise. Perhaps in your country such cruelty would be permitted, and held up as a good example for future generations. In mine, any father who tied his son to a rock and threatened to sacrifice him would end up in prison or a mental institution - whatever his excuse. 

If you attempt to take the story literally, then it establishes that God is not loving, not kind, not merciful, nor just nor good (as evidenced by the whole sequence of events up to the last.)

And if you consider that God is all those good things, but still believe that the events happened, then Abraham demonstrated the kind of insanity that people may come to when they believe that God speaks to them personally. 

The only context in which this story would be acceptable is as a fable, maybe a dramatic symbol of God's rejection of human sacrifice, as has been mentioned earlier in the thread.

----------


## Granny5

[QUOTE=Whifflingpin;421744The only context in which this story would be acceptable is as a fable, maybe a dramatic symbol of God's rejection of human sacrifice, as has been mentioned earlier in the thread.[/QUOTE]

In all this thread this makes the most sense to me. Thank you.

----------


## RichardHresko

> "I do not agree with the idea that Abraham intended to sacrifice Isaac so much as he intended to do as God asked with faith that God - being who Abraham knew Him to be - meant no ill towards his (Abraham's) son. etc etc"
> 
> That was all very well for Abraham - albeit that sounds to me like having his cake and eating it. Either he was prepared to sacrifice his son, or he was not. If he was then he was, in intention, an infanticide; if not then the story is meaningless. Either way - Isaac was treated as a mere thing.
> 
> "we forget that the Bible says children are a gift from God: He is free (as terrible as this sounds to you and me both) to do as He wills with what He creates." God may do as He wills with adults or chidren - but we may not, in His name or otherwise. Perhaps in your country such cruelty would be permitted, and held up as a good example for future generations. In mine, any father who tied his son to a rock and threatened to sacrifice him would end up in prison or a mental institution - whatever his excuse. 
> 
> If you attempt to take the story literally, then it establishes that God is not loving, not kind, not merciful, nor just nor good (as evidenced by the whole sequence of events up to the last.)
> 
> And if you consider that God is all those good things, but still believe that the events happened, then Abraham demonstrated the kind of insanity that people may come to when they believe that God speaks to them personally. 
> ...


Abraham was willing to return to God that which already belonged to God. I agree that if Abraham did not wholly believe that he was to sacrifice his son then the story is, as you say, "meaningless."

I do not see that the story establishes that God is "not loving, not kind, not merciful, nor just nor good (as evidenced by the whole sequence of events up to the last.)" I would argue that _even if Isaac were sacrificed_ God would still be loving, just, and good (I am not sure how kind fits in as a description of God). Let's focus here on justice. God has a right to Isaac's and everyone else's life. If his act is just, then how is it not good? Does the story show God's love? Would it show God's love even if Isaac were sacrificed? One can argue that it does in that any revelation from God is an act of love. Further, to borrow an observation of Augustine's (for once I am leaving old Aquinas to get some rest), there may be love in the idea that Abraham is showing him that we open ourselves to greater pain and suffering by being too attached to that which must change and must die. This is an idea Augustine expresses in _Confessions_ when he discusses the death of his friend. 

Once again, I concur with the idea that anyone in his right mind would and should lock Abraham up. But in considering the _meaning_ of this story we can leave aside what we would do in a similar-seeming situation now.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I do not see that the story establishes that God is "not loving, not kind, not merciful, nor just nor good (as evidenced by the whole sequence of events up to the last.)" I would argue that _even if Isaac were sacrificed_ God would still be loving, just, and good (I am not sure how kind fits in as a description of God). Let's focus here on justice. God has a right to Isaac's and everyone else's life.


If God were to say to you, you may have life but on the understanding that I might take it back any time I wish to, would you accept it on those terms? Or put it another way, you may have life but on the understanding that at any moment I might ask of you the thing that makes human life most worth living, would you accept it on those terms?




> If his act is just, then how is it not good? Does the story show God's love? Would it show God's love even if Isaac were sacrificed? One can argue that it does in that any revelation from God is an act of love. Further, to borrow an observation of Augustine's (for once I am leaving old Aquinas to get some rest), there may be love in the idea that Abraham is showing him that we open ourselves to greater pain and suffering by being too attached to that which must change and must die. This is an idea Augustine expresses in _Confessions_ when he discusses the death of his friend.


If you have a child, I don't think you need any further answer to y our first question. As to the second, given the Abraham/Isaac story and Job and possibly others I can't think of at the moment, one might argue that we open ourselves to greater pain and suffering by being too attached to that which operates according to either logic or morality which is either alien to or beyond the reach of human understanding.




> Once again, I concur with the idea that anyone in his right mind would and should lock Abraham up. But in considering the _meaning_ of this story we can leave aside what we would do in a similar-seeming situation now.


Why would we do that? We are not concerned with what _we_ might have done back then but what we would do with the only consciousness we have. If you or I were as sane as we can possibly be, we might very well become psychotic by virtue of being subjected to such a test. Or, as I suggested elsewhere, even after our hand was stayed, we would know ourselves for ever afterwards as someone capable of infanticide and the faithful worshipper of a God who gave us our humanity and then asked us to behave in flagrant contradiction to it. And we might vey well live the rest of our lives in fear and trembling of what God might next ask of us.

What do we think, by the way, of those who play a similar such game on the human level: _If you really loved me, then----_ He who seeks to test another's love is pretty well guaranteed to find it inadequate, and there will always be another test if somehow he or she passes that first one.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> That was all very well for Abraham - albeit that sounds to me like having his cake and eating it. Either he was prepared to sacrifice his son, or he was not. If he was then he was, in intention, an infanticide; if not then the story is meaningless. Either way - Isaac was treated as a mere thing.


He was prepared to sacrifice his son - faith requires us to believe that God intends the best for us _even when it doesn't look like it at the time._ If the Bible teaches us anything, it is that God is like the US Cavalry in the old western movies: He often comes through when things look their worst. Isaac was treated as what Abraham knew he was: a gift supplied by God (remember that Isaac's birth in Sarah's old age made it clear that Isaac was not a natural baby but clearly due to God's intervention - hence her laughter when overhearing the prediction that she would give birth).




> God may do as He wills with adults or chidren - but we may not, in His name or otherwise. Perhaps in your country such cruelty would be permitted, and held up as a good example for future generations. In mine, any father who tied his son to a rock and threatened to sacrifice him would end up in prison or a mental institution - whatever his excuse.


But God often asks us to do things for Him for whatever His purposes may be. And, as I said earlier - I don't believe this task is one that God would put forth for a believer today (for various reasons). We know little of Abraham's historic time-period by the way - you are merely guessing that Abraham's gesture was "crueler" than the society within which it occurred. We know that later on in the Bible, references are clearly made to the pagan worship of Molech which required the sacrifice of living babies in a most horrible manner. You are committing a fallacy by taking a story thousands of years old and "trying" the lead character's sanity by 21st century standards - like expecting Mark Twain to have written _Huckleberry Finn_ without using the "n-word."




> If you attempt to take the story literally, then it establishes that God is not loving, not kind, not merciful, nor just nor good (as evidenced by the whole sequence of events up to the last.)


Had God commanded Abraham to _carry out_ the sacrifice, I think you'd have a much more difficult-to-argue-with-point. 




> And if you consider that God is all those good things, but still believe that the events happened, then Abraham demonstrated the kind of insanity that people may come to when they believe that God speaks to them personally.


Sacrificing one's child is not the "acid test" that believers are expected to "pass." (Though Christ made it clear that no earthly relationship was to take priority over the individual's relationship with God). I think God sometimes wishes to make sure that we're clear on our priorities: anything that we feel our life orbits around is a potential to our relationship with God - and since God knows the eternal consequences of our choices, He is desperate that we avoid the wrong choice; as such, He may - in His wisdom - decided to show us exactly where we and He stand. God needs us to be clear: does anything stand between He and us? Sometimes He asks us to give up something He knows we love dearly so that we are able to assess our relationship to Him: do I love God enough to trust Him in giving this thing up? I don't think He requires us to sacrifice that which we have a healthy attitude towards. God knew how important a son was to Abraham - perhaps He wanted Abraham to be clear on his priorities - because ultimately, this conversation will ground to a halt on the same stumblilng block most of these do: Is God who He claims to be? If He is, then He is to be trusted; if not, then not.




> The only context in which this story would be acceptable is as a fable, maybe a dramatic symbol of God's rejection of human sacrifice, as has been mentioned earlier in the thread.


Only acceptable to you because the vision of God it gives is not compatible with the kind of God many nonbelievers apparently want: one who grants only good for His followers, asks little in return by way of personal inconvenience and trial, and punishes evil swiftly. Abraham - remember - is considered the "father" of a people: one doesn't achieve this title without considerable personal value: perhaps his faith is what allowed him to be chosen for this honor.

----------


## AngelEyes714

What Abraham did WAS indeed a test, but a lot more than that - it was a foretelling or a foreseeing of what's to come.

Abraham is from an era where all the gods that the people believed in did require such sacrifice. It was a big part of the religion then. Abraham is one of the first outside of Adam and Noah to have come into contact with THE God. God DID tell Abraham to take his son...after all his promises that he would give Abraham many descendents. Abraham believed that gods required that kind of sacrifice...and he displayed an awesome amount of trust to think that if God wanted to take this child away from him, then he would provide another way. Whether its another child, or saving Isaac.

The thing is, is that Abraham didn't know that God wasn't like that. And by sending a ram,
1) God showed how he was different from the other gods
2) Edified Abraham's trust in him
3) Provided a foreshadowing of the sacrifice for all of us that he was going to provide through HIS own son.

In this act, we can see that God does not want us killing our children - and as you go further through the bible, that characteristic of God is reaffirmed in Christ's teachings. We have a better knowledge of who God is in this matter because we've seen the after-effects and we have scripture. Abraham did not know God like that. He had an even more limited view of him than we do.

Another point - God planned it - he didn't tell Abraham to sacrifice his son and then change his mind...he planned the ram the entire time.

----------


## RichardHresko

Prince Myshkin writes:
"If God were to say to you, you may have life but on the understanding that I might take it back any time I wish to, would you accept it on those terms? Or put it another way, you may have life but on the understanding that at any moment I might ask of you the thing that makes human life most worth living, would you accept it on those terms?"

We have a choice? Short of suicide (maybe) if there is a God that is precisely the terms by which we live. As far as I know I do NOT have the ability to say, "Death? Well that is a fine idea, but I think I'll pass..." Nor, as far as I know, can I opt out of Alzheimer's or strokes, or other diseases that would take away my mind. So 'acceptance' is really beside the point, no?

With respect to my remark about God's goodness, "If his act is just, then how is it not good?" Prince Myshkin responds: "If you have a child, I don't think you need any further answer to y our first question."

Yes and no. I offered a possible explanation within the context of the Bible and its interpretations by the Church Fathers. But as I remarked in the post previous to the one Prince Myshkin responded to, "I think that love of our children is not the highest expression of our humanity, at least in terms of Biblical expression, and that should indeed make us pause." Of course this raises a central issue: What _is_ the highest expression of our humanity? Or, perhaps put in a slightly different way, what is our purpose? Or yet another way, what is that which defines us as human? These are neither rhetorical nor obvious questions.

Prince Myshkin also writes:
"As to the second, given the Abraham/Isaac story and Job and possibly others I can't think of at the moment, one might argue that we open ourselves to greater pain and suffering by being too attached to that which operates according to either logic or morality which is either alien to or beyond the reach of human understanding."

That is a hard one to call. First of all, there is undoubtedly suffering due to attachment of things in this world, as Augustine points out in the _Confessions_ and Gautama Buddha makes clear in his own enlightenment. Second, I am not sure that experience of the divine, which is what we are discussing here, is either alien, or logical, or moral.

As to the charge of infanticide, as pointed out above, it can be argued that Abraham would not have been guilty of murder. 

The question of what God can ask of us is an important one. I would argue that IF we accept that there is a God (with all the trappings of the definition)then what he asks of us can not be more than what we obligated to give him. IF, on the other hand, we do not accept a God other than one that is merely a very powerful (even infinitely powerful) being, then we are right to be fearful. But I would maintain that that being is not a God, but rather a bully, earning our fear but not our love and worship.

I think if we look at the story of Abraham as one of God's testing Abraham's love we cannot but feel disgust towards God, as we would if some person played that sort of game. That is why I don't think that that is a useful way to look for meaning in it.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Prince Myshkin writes:
> "If God were to say to you, you may have life but on the understanding that I might take it back any time I wish to, would you accept it on those terms? Or put it another way, you may have life but on the understanding that at any moment I might ask of you the thing that makes human life most worth living, would you accept it on those terms?"
> 
> We have a choice? Short of suicide (maybe) if there is a God that is precisely the terms by which we live. As far as I know I do NOT have the ability to say, "Death? Well that is a fine idea, but I think I'll pass..." Nor, as far as I know, can I opt out of Alzheimer's or strokes, or other diseases that would take away my mind. So 'acceptance' is really beside the point, no?


Yes, there are many material chances of any of us suffering a sudden and seemingly arbitrary death, no matter how good the practice of medicine and preventive medicine has become, no matter how sensibly we attend to our health. So maybe the possibility of God's whim is nothing more than an addition to cancer, stroke, automobile accident. Let me rather address the question that life is God's gift to us, therefore we shouldn't quibble with his right to weithdraw at any time for whatever reason. In human terms, would you accept a gift if in giving it to you the donor said, you can have this for a while - maybe quite a while - but I might take it back at some time in the future? Some will respond to this that I am arguing in terms of human psychology, and should not apply that to God - at which point of course I can only throw up my hands, because that is the fall-back argument that theists always use. God is thus and thus and thus, they proclaim, reading and understanding God as they find convenient, but the minute they have no answer then it's _We can't expect to understand God perfectly._




> With respect to my remark about God's goodness, "If his act is just, then how is it not good?" Prince Myshkin responds: "If you have a child, I don't think you need any further answer to your first question."
> 
> Yes and no. I offered a possible explanation within the context of the Bible and its interpretations by the Church Fathers. But as I remarked in the post previous to the one Prince Myshkin responded to, "I think that love of our children is not the highest expression of our humanity, at least in terms of Biblical expression, and that should indeed make us pause." Of course this raises a central issue: What _is_ the highest expression of our humanity? Or, perhaps put in a slightly different way, what is our purpose? Or yet another way, what is that which defines us as human? These are neither rhetorical nor obvious questions.


But as far as I understand Scripture, God created us human. He did not create us as mini-gods. Cf The Garden of Eden story, "But of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, thou shalt not eat..." If devotion to God is the highest good man is capable, according to believers, what then is their next highest good if not the love for their children? Is that not where we replicate God's love for us, his children? 




> I think if we look at the story of Abraham as one of God's testing Abraham's love we cannot but feel disgust towards God, as we would if some person played that sort of game. That is why I don't think that that is a useful way to look for meaning in it.


Yes, we all read at times to see what use we can make of what we are reading, but that is a very different matter from having a goal in mind and then looking for confirmation of it. A different, to my mind more useful way to read Scripture is to try to understand the mindset of the writer, of his or her time as reflected in the story, what was he or she intending to convey by the story - and did he or she perhaps convey something more or other than intended.

----------


## AngelEyes714

"I think if we look at the story of Abraham as one of God's testing Abraham's love we cannot but feel disgust towards God, as we would if some person played that sort of game. That is why I don't think that that is a useful way to look for meaning in it."
-RichardHresko

Maybe not so much testing as teaching. I don't know - there are many points in the Bible where God demands sacrifice - though this is the only one where requests human blood sacrifice (and keep in mind that he planned on replacing Isaac from the very beginning).

The thing is, that to make God the center of our lives, it requires Trust that God is going to give us something even better (like God providing a Ram...or being betrayed by your brothers, becoming a slave, and ending up one of the most powerful men in Egypt...or a Crucifixion followed by Resurrection). Sacrifice is necessary to experience something better...and God wants us to have that something better so he is going to call us to sacrifice.

I think that this story is a very good motif for that kind of sacrifice - even if its about sacrificing a child. I don't think that this causes disgust because you are missing the most crucial element in the story. That Ram did not appear on ACCIDENT. It was part of the entire story.

And per my previous post, it HAD to be Isaac, Abraham's son, who was going to be offered as sacrifice, because without that, we don't have the full meaning of God offering up his own son for us.

----------


## RichardHresko

Prince Myshkin writes:
"Let me rather address the question that life is God's gift to us, therefore we shouldn't quibble with his right to weithdraw at any time for whatever reason. In human terms, would you accept a gift if in giving it to you the donor said, you can have this for a while - maybe quite a while - but I might take it back at some time in the future?"

There are actually some gifts of this type legally, for example gifts causa mortis, some gifts in trust, etc. certainly since a gift is voluntary, it can be offered on any terms the giver desires. Whether someone wishes to accept is another question. My point is that in effect that the conditions you outlined are apparently what we get. Nobody as far as I am aware is given the opportunity to turn down life before birth (excluding some Buddhist stories of boddhisatvas (sp?) who volunteer to return to earth to help others.

Prince Myshkin says:
"If devotion to God is the highest good man is capable, according to believers, what then is their next highest good if not the love for their children? Is that not where we replicate God's love for us, his children?"

But if the order is as you have given, then there is no problem with the Abraham story and Abraham has the proper priorities.

Of course, there are other ways to define our humanity. Aristotle maintains that what makes us human is thought, and that therefore thought is what provides us with our greatest/purest (as in unadulterated) happiness which is the proper goal of human life.

----------


## RichardHresko

Prince Myshkin writes:
"Yes, we all read at times to see what use we can make of what we are reading, but that is a very different matter from having a goal in mind and then looking for confirmation of it. A different, to my mind more useful way to read Scripture is to try to understand the mindset of the writer, of his or her time as reflected in the story, what was he or she intending to convey by the story - and did he or she perhaps convey something more or other than intended."

Reading any literature is demanding, scriptures are more so. Of course, there are those who look for confirmation. There are others, Aquinas among them I believe, who sincerely try to use scripture to understand God's revelation. That presupposes that there is such a thing as revelation and such abeing as God. You are suggesting a variation of Higher Criticism, and that has value as well. 

In my posts here I have worked from the premise that for the sake of argument let's accept that there is some revelation offered here. Given that, how have philosophers and others approached the texts in question.

I reject the idea that Scripture can either prove or disprove the existence of God and/or revelation, since such arguments will either involve circularity or mere gainsaying.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> "I think if we look at the story of Abraham as one of God's testing Abraham's love we cannot but feel disgust towards God, as we would if some person played that sort of game. That is why I don't think that that is a useful way to look for meaning in it."
> -RichardHresko
> 
> Maybe not so much testing as teaching. I don't know - there are many points in the Bible where God demands sacrifice - though this is the only one where requests human blood sacrifice (and keep in mind that he planned on replacing Isaac from the very beginning).


May I ask then what lesson you derive from this story? Maintain your faith in God even he makes what feels like the most painful conceivable demand of you?

Fine. You have the right to derive that lesson for yourself but do you have the right to impose that lesson on Isaac? There is an eerie, macabre resemblance in this story to the infamous Milgram experiment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment which taught us much that we would prefer not to have learned about unquestioning respect for authority.




> The thing is, that to make God the center of our lives, it requires Trust that God is going to give us something even better (like God providing a Ram...or being betrayed by your brothers, becoming a slave, and ending up one of the most powerful men in Egypt...or a Crucifixion followed by Resurrection). Sacrifice is necessary to experience something better...and God wants us to have that something better so he is going to call us to sacrifice.


In this case I submit, the thing Abraham DID sacrifice was his basic humanity. I noted with irony that another poster cited this story as proof of Abraham's worthiness to become the father of his people. Perhaps... perhaps that is why so many of his people went without resisting into the gas chambers during WWII.




> I think that this story is a very good motif for that kind of sacrifice - even if its about sacrificing a child.


STOP! Please, picture for a moment any actual flesh and blood child you know, rather than the picture-book Isaac.




> I don't think that this causes disgust because you are missing the most crucial element in the story. That Ram did not appear on ACCIDENT. It was part of the entire story.


We cannot know, we simply cannot KNOW whether God intended from the beginning to provide the ram. What if Abraham had hesitated? 




> And per my previous post, it HAD to be Isaac, Abraham's son, who was going to be offered as sacrifice, because without that, we don't have the full meaning of God offering up his own son for us.


Indeed, and what good has come to the world from the sacrifice of his son? And do not forget Christ's despair on the cross: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Prince Myshkin writes:
> "Yes, we all read at times to see what use we can make of what we are reading, but that is a very different matter from having a goal in mind and then looking for confirmation of it. A different, to my mind more useful way to read Scripture is to try to understand the mindset of the writer, of his or her time as reflected in the story, what was he or she intending to convey by the story - and did he or she perhaps convey something more or other than intended."
> 
> Reading any literature is demanding, scriptures are more so. Of course, there are those who look for confirmation. There are others, Aquinas among them I believe, who sincerely try to use scripture to understand God's revelation. That presupposes that there is such a thing as revelation and such abeing as God. You are suggesting a variation of Higher Criticism, and that has value as well. 
> 
> In my posts here I have worked from the premise that for the sake of argument let's accept that there is some revelation offered here. Given that, how have philosophers and others approached the texts in question.
> 
> I reject the idea that Scripture can either prove or disprove the existence of God and/or revelation, since such arguments will either involve circularity or mere gainsaying.


It's occured to me that the Abraham/Isaac story is a precursor to the infamous Milgram experiment! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

----------


## AngelEyes714

> May I ask then what lesson you derive from this story? Maintain your faith in God even he makes what feels like the most painful conceivable demand of you?


Actually, yes.




> Fine. You have the right to derive that lesson for yourself but do you have the right to impose that lesson on Isaac? There is an eerie, macabre resemblance in this story to the infamous Milgram experiment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment which taught us much that we would prefer not to have learned about unquestioning respect for authority.


Isaac trusted his own father. And has cliche as that sounds and as morbid as that sounds in this context, that's what it boiled down to. Abraham trusting that God REALLY was Good...and Isaac trusting that his father was REALLY Good.




> STOP! Please, picture for a moment any actual flesh and blood child you know, rather than the picture-book Isaac.


Because I'm a woman, the very thought of destroying my child's life is repulsive to me. And yet, somehow, men who still loved their children were willing to sacrifice them to unknown gods in Abraham's time. If this had been Sara being asked to do the sacrifice, I think she would have screamed her head off and told God off...Men, in my experience of observing them, have more ability of seperating the emotional from the mental discipline required for obedience.




> We cannot know, we simply cannot KNOW whether God intended from the beginning to provide the ram. What if Abraham had hesitated?


And why can't we know? One thing, the definition of the God we are referring to is that he is OMNISCIENT. All Seeing - he knows what we are going to do and he has a plan for us. From the first chapters in Genesis, you can see that God was planning for an alternative. There wasn't just one tree in the garden, there were 2 - Tree of Knowledge (eat of which and you will die) and the Tree of Life (eat of which and you will never die). Angels were put to gaurd that tree because we are stupid people who need to be prepared to see what he wants us to see. So why couldn't he plan, from the get go, to have an alternative there? That alternative fits with the entire theme of the Bible. Take it out, and that story makes no sense. The Ram is crucial to this story, and taking it out completely defeats its purpose. You can't discover the real meaning of a story without looking at the entire story and it seems that the ram is the piece that has not been taken into full consideration.




> Indeed, and what good has come to the world from the sacrifice of his son? And do not forget Christ's despair on the cross: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"


And that is what it all boils down to. The good that came to the world was the chance for life everlasting. And no, I won't forget Christ's despair on the cross, because that's what keeps me looking forward to tomorrow. Christ was desperate for God...his father...who had deserted him on that cross...and 3 days later, Christ was resurrected from death...and 40 days later, he was with God on his right hand side. My suffering will never compare to that.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<As well, we forget that the Bible says children are a gift from God: He is free (as terrible as this sounds to you and me both) to do as He wills with what He creates.>

And it seems god does indeed does as he wills with children. Each year, around 6 million children die thanks to malnutrition and disease related to malnutrition. Imagine the holocaust happening every year. And god apparently allows this to happen, thanks to natural occurrences, like failed crops, drought, etc. Imagine the wealth of the church. It alone could probably save every one of these children. But I guess god hasn't told the chuch leaders to do so.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> <As well, we forget that the Bible says children are a gift from God: He is free (as terrible as this sounds to you and me both) to do as He wills with what He creates.>
> 
> And it seems god does indeed does as he wills with children. Each year, around 6 million children die thanks to malnutrition and disease related to malnutrition. Imagine the holocaust happening every year. And god apparently allows this to happen, thanks to natural occurrences, like failed crops, drought, etc. Imagine the wealth of the church. It alone could probably save every one of these children. But I guess god hasn't told the chuch leaders to do so.


Yes, natural disasters... something we cant control, we can only provide help afterward... However, if we could, would we have saved them? We kill off another couple million babies each year b/c we dont want them. If people love those other kids that much, why not love the ones they bear themselves? Natural disasters we cant stop. Abortion we created ourselves. How sick. 

Why blame the church? What if everyone on here gave ten percent of their paychecks to missions? Don't you think we could help, instead of blaming the church? Our church gives to 17 missionaries, 19 projects, including hurricane relief, and Samaritan's purse every month. That's just our small, 200-people congregation. Think of how much the church does nationwide. Most just happen to do it behind the scenes.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Yes, natural disasters... something we cant control, we can only provide help afterward... However, if we could, would we have saved them? We kill off another couple million babies each year b/c we dont want them. If people love those other kids that much, why not love the ones they bear themselves? Natural disasters we cant stop. Abortion we created ourselves. How sick.


And when the earth can no longer sustain the population and we have succeeded in killing ourselves off, will you still be arguing against terminating the growth of what were not yet babies?




> Why blame the church? What if everyone on here gave ten percent of their paychecks to missions? Don't you think we could help, instead of blaming the church? Our church gives to 17 missionaries, 19 projects, including hurricane relief, and Samaritan's purse every month. That's just our small, 200-people congregation. Think of how much the church does nationwide. Most just happen to do it behind the scenes.


The money to missionaries is to help convert the "heathens" from their own beliefs to those of your religion. Beyond the 10% you propose, what if all the churches sold off their real estate holdings, stopped building cathedrals &c.?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Actually, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Isaac trusted his own father. And has cliche as that sounds and as morbid as that sounds in this context, that's what it boiled down to. Abraham trusting that God REALLY was Good...and Isaac trusting that his father was REALLY Good.


That is the reading you choose, and of course I can't disprove it. All I can do is feel this story as if I were Isaac or Abraham. Of course their thinking was different then. The sacrifice of first-borns had long been a practice. All we can do is feel it with the hearts we have today, I as a father, you as a mother. 




> Because I'm a woman, the very thought of destroying my child's life is repulsive to me. And yet, somehow, men who still loved their children were willing to sacrifice them to unknown gods in Abraham's time. If this had been Sara being asked to do the sacrifice, I think she would have screamed her head off and told God off...Men, in my experience of observing them, have more ability of seperating the emotional from the mental discipline required for obedience.


Yes, it was men almost exclusively who carried out the Nazi activities. It was men who practiced the butchery in Rwanda and do so now in Darfur. So another of the lessons to be derived from the Abraham/Isaac story may be that we men are innately less humane than women. 

And how many women contributed to the writing of the Scriptures, the Q'uran, the Talmud, or the many councils that further refined the beliefs of Christianity?




> And why can't we know? One thing, the definition of the God we are referring to is that he is OMNISCIENT. All Seeing - he knows what we are going to do and he has a plan for us. From the first chapters in Genesis, you can see that God was planning for an alternative. There wasn't just one tree in the garden, there were 2 - Tree of Knowledge (eat of which and you will die) and the Tree of Life (eat of which and you will never die). Angels were put to gaurd that tree because we are stupid people who need to be prepared to see what he wants us to see. So why couldn't he plan, from the get go, to have an alternative there? That alternative fits with the entire theme of the Bible. Take it out, and that story makes no sense. The Ram is crucial to this story, and taking it out completely defeats its purpose. You can't discover the real meaning of a story without looking at the entire story and it seems that the ram is the piece that has not been taken into full consideration.


And that is because, to me, the essence of the story is that Abraham did not, could not know that a Ram would be provided in place of his son. I'm asking any of you - even allowing for Abraham's deep, deep faith in God - to imagine what you as a mother or a father would have experienced up to the moment when God stayed your hand *from the murder of your own child.*





> And that is what it all boils down to. The good that came to the world was the chance for life everlasting.


The chance? When? In the afterlife? Has anyone reported to you from there?

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> And when the earth can no longer sustain the population and we have succeeded in killing ourselves off, will you still be arguing against terminating the growth of what were not yet babies?
> 
> They are too babies, but we'll save that for another thread lest we get kicked off... Maybe the people that get killed in natural disasters die so that the new babies can take their place. That's usually how the life cycle works. People die, new ones take their place.
> 
> The money to missionaries is to help convert the "heathens" from their own beliefs to those of your religion. Beyond the 10% you propose, what if all the churches sold off their real estate holdings, stopped building cathedrals &c.?


We give them spiritual food as well as physical food. We think living forever with God is just as important as living a while here on earth. I'm saying 10% is just a little, but does a world of good (no pun intended  :Biggrin:  ) I think if we sold everything, we'd be the ones that need help... What if people sold a few of their stocks in Starbucks and gave that money to missions. You could feed a whole third world country with that amount. As for the cathedral, you'll have to talk to the pope about that. I'm not Roman Catholic, never have been, never will be.  :Smile:

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> We give them spiritual food as well as physical food.


Would you presume to tell them that they ought to eat only the same material food that you do? If not, why do you assume that your "spiritual food" is right for them?

Are they less than you? Less intelligent? Less possessed of their own souls? Or are their souls somehow inferior or misguided or from a God who is inferior to your own? Or from the same God but he gave them inferior souls?

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> Would you presume to tell them that they ought to eat only the same material food that you do? If not, why do you assume that your "spiritual food" is right for them?
> 
> Are they less than you? Less intelligent? Less possessed of their own souls? Or are their souls somehow inferior or misguided or from a God who is inferior to your own? Or from the same God but he gave them inferior souls?


We all need food. Duh. I dont care if its KFC or rice. We're just following the Great Commission, like God ordered. They have their own souls that are just as important, not inferior, that's why we're doing it. I'm not going to go out and save a dog, 'cause it doesn't have a soul. People do. And I don't want them to go to Hell. Nor do I want you to...

----------


## Whifflingpin

AngelEyes714: "Abraham is from an era where all the gods that the people believed in did require such sacrifice. It was a big part of the religion then."
Redzeppelin: "We know little of Abraham's historic time-period by the way - you are merely guessing "

----------


## Whifflingpin

PrinceMyshkin: "And do not forget Christ's despair on the cross: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?""

That's a side issue, but, to those who know it is actually a declaration of trust in God, not a cry of despair.

It is a quotation from psalm 42, which ends, as Jesus surely knew well, " O put thy trust in God : for I will yet give him thanks, which is the help of my countenance, and my God."

----------


## Whifflingpin

Redzeppelin: "Only acceptable to you because the vision of God it gives is not compatible with the kind of God many nonbelievers apparently want: one who grants only good for His followers, asks little in return by way of personal inconvenience and trial, "

You do not know what makes something acceptable to me, or why - so keep your patronizing comments for your pupils, please.

I do not believe what you believe about God, and I thank Him for that.

I believe that God does only grant good - period.

I also believe that God demands a great deal from his followers.

What He does not demand is that His followers act cruelly towards others, whether their sons or not. Children are God's gift, or rather his loan. They are God's gift to the world, but only on loan to the parents, who will have to account for their treatment of them. It would be right for a parent to sacrifice himself for his child, but it would be evil for a parent to exact such a sacrifice in return.

The being that demands mental or physical cruelty in the name of God is in fact God's subtle Adversary.

----------


## Pendragon

> <As well, we forget that the Bible says children are a gift from God: He is free (as terrible as this sounds to you and me both) to do as He wills with what He creates.>
> 
> And it seems god does indeed does as he wills with children. Each year, around 6 million children die thanks to malnutrition and disease related to malnutrition. Imagine the holocaust happening every year. And god apparently allows this to happen, thanks to natural occurrences, like failed crops, drought, etc. Imagine the wealth of the church. It alone could probably save every one of these children. But I guess god hasn't told the chuch leaders to do so.


Perhaps they overlooked it: 1 John 3 [17] But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? KJV.

Why do churches build such fancy places, when there are those in need? It is why I have no church building, (people come to my home), I take up no offerings, (anything given is of the person's free will), and why I send money to various charities. Don't pin any roses on me. At one time, I was probably less free with my giving than I am now. But I have walked through fire myself and someone helped us when we might have lost everything. I give back now, as I should have all along, not from time to time as I used to, but every time I can.

God Bless.

Pen.

----------


## RichardHresko

Angeleyes714 wrote:
"Maybe not so much testing as teaching. I don't know - there are many points in the Bible where God demands sacrifice - though this is the only one where requests human blood sacrifice (and keep in mind that he planned on replacing Isaac from the very beginning)."

I fear you misread my post. I said IF one read this story as one of testing it would be disgusting. My point was the same as yours -- this is NOT about testing, but about teaching, as my remarks about Augustine and Buddha indicate. On this I think we are on the same page.

However, I disagree about the significance of the ram.

----------


## AngelEyes714

> However, I disagree about the significance of the ram.


I'll grant you that.

Though even from a strictly literary point of view, the ram makes the story consistent with the rest of the Bible in my opinion  :Smile:

----------


## RichardHresko

Thank ewe! (Sorry, I couldn't resist. The devil made me do it  :Smile:  )

----------


## Quark

I think maybe we should post the original argument that started this. Kierkegaard believed that Abraham represents a paradox in that he is willing to sacrifice the one thing that he feels is important, and by faith in the absurd he knows he will get his son back. Abraham isn't hoping for an eternal afterlife or God's favor; he simply wants descendants. Abraham's highest ethical goal is the protection of Isaac, so it doesn't make sense that he would kill him. Therefore, Abraham must believe he is getting his son back. He trusts that he will get his son back because he has established a relationship between himself--the individual--and God--the absolute. This connection Kierkegaard calls "faith". Without this faith, Abraham would have sinned egregiously because Isaac was ethically the most important responsibility he had. The paradox, for Kierkegaard, isn't that Abraham loved Isaac passionately, and grudgingly brought himself to sacrifice him for the greater good. No, Kierkegaard's Abraham realizes the greater good is to protect Isaac, but he is willing to sacrifice him because he believes--on the power of the absurd--that God will give him a son.

Kierkegaard argued this on his nineteenth-century version of Litnet under the user name SorenExistentialistStud15. Later, the published version removed all of the original emoticons and crazy fonts, but still kept a long and repetitive third chapter. For more, see _Fear and Trembling_.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I think maybe we should post the original argument that started this. Kierkegaard believed that Abraham represents a paradox in that he is willing to sacrifice the one thing that he feels is important, and by faith in the absurd he knows he will get his son back. Abraham isn't hoping for an eternal afterlife or God's favor; he simply wants descendants. Abraham's highest ethical goal is the protection of Isaac, so it doesn't make sense that he would kill him. Therefore, Abraham must believe he is getting his son back. He trusts that he will get his son back because he has established a relationship between himself--the individual--and God--the absolute. This connection Kierkegaard calls "faith". Without this faith, Abraham would have sinned egregiously because Isaac was ethically the most important responsibility he had. The paradox, for Kierkegaard, isn't that Abraham loved Isaac passionately, and grudgingly brought himself to sacrifice him for the greater good. No, Kierkegaard's Abraham realizes the greater good is to protect Isaac, but he is willing to sacrifice him because he believes--on the power of the absurd--that God will give him a son.
> 
> Kierkegaard argued this on his nineteenth-century version of Litnet under the user name SorenExistentialistStud15. Later, the published version removed all of the original emoticons and crazy fonts, but still kept a long and repetitive third chapter. For more, see _Fear and Trembling_.


One can play ad infinitum at the game of reasoning out what God meant or what Abraham may have understood (it can be at times a noble game, a sort of theological three-dimensional chess) but surely we ought also to read the story as presented and if Scripture is taken to have eternal merit, we must also read it with the only minds of which we can be sure, those we have today. Sometimes what we have before us is what we have before us: in this case a father who is commanded to sacrifice his only son and with no take-it-to-the-bank assurance that anything but infanticide will ensue, goes ahead with it. 

Elsewhere, someone asserted that God would not ask that of any of us today. Whoever made that assertion did so either on the basis of some abstruse theological reasoning or on some personal faith against faith. Unless God has changed (grown up, I would rather say), I fail to see why he might not similarly subject any believer to the same test. _So I ask any of you who are believers, even knowing the Abraham/Isaac story & how it turns out, would you submit to the test?_

----------


## Quark

> One can play ad infinitum at the game of reasoning out what God meant or what Abraham may have understood (it can be at times a noble game, a sort of theological three-dimensional chess) but surely we ought also to read the story as presented and if Scripture is taken to have eternal merit, we must also read it with the only minds of which we can be sure, those we have today. Sometimes what we have before us is what we have before us: in this case a father who is commanded to sacrifice his only son and with no take-it-to-the-bank assurance that anything but infanticide will ensue, goes ahead with it.


I don't think Kierkegaard was randomly intuiting motives to God, nor was he completely showing what Abraham understood. The argument is based on the basic thoughts that Abraham must have had to make the story have any sense or meaning. This is entirely within the biblical context, and not a "three-dimensional chess" game--by which I can only think you mean idle speculation. And, as for the charge that Abraham is a murderer, I think you may be right within an ethical context. Like I paraphrased Kierkegaard an hour ago, Abraham's ethical duty is to Isaac. In faith, though, he abandons the ethical for his relationship with the absolute. And, he regains what he would lose through acting unethically by having faith. This, in fact, comes true. He regains Isaac--who he had sacrificed. In this process, Abraham is not a simple murderer because he has that connection with the absolute which absolves and rewards him for the ethical transgressions he makes. To say he had no "take-it-to-the-bank assurance" would be to ignore the textual evidence, and the reasonable argument by Kierkegaard.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You do not know what makes something acceptable to me, or why - so keep your patronizing comments for your pupils, please.


If my comments offended you, please accept my apology. It was not my intention to offend. The comment could have been couched in more appropriate terms.

Also, for one who seems to advocate for children, the admonition to patronize my students seems hypocritical.




> I do not believe what you believe about God, and I thank Him for that.


Well, either one or both of us is wrong. That's OK with me.




> I believe that God does only grant good - period.


God allows those He loves to be tested, to experience trials and pain. As it says in Hebrews: "My son, despise not thou the *chastening* of the Lord, nor faint when thou art *rebuked* of him: For whom the Lord loveth he *chasteneth*, and *scourgeth* every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure *chastening*, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father *chasteneth* not?" (12:5-7).

Last time I checked my dictionary, "chasten" meant "punish, as to correct." I think God grants things that are _ultimately_ for our good, but that some of what He grants is harsh and unpleasant.




> I also believe that God demands a great deal from his followers.


I agree and would expect such from any being offering eternal life.




> What He does not demand is that His followers act cruelly towards others, whether their sons or not. Children are God's gift, or rather his loan.


We are never to _harm_ others, but "hurting" them may be necessary (just as the pain I cause my child by punishing him will help him learn a valuable lesson).




> They are God's gift to the world, but only on loan to the parents, who will have to account for their treatment of them. It would be right for a parent to sacrifice himself for his child, but it would be evil for a parent to exact such a sacrifice in return.


Your first sentence is correct - but you don't "account" for obeying a command from He who created the child and gave it to you in the first place. Your second sentence I heartily agree with as well. But you're conveniently leaving out that a Supreme Being - an all-powerful, all-knowing being whom Abraham trusted implicitly - issued a command. Anybody familiar with the Bible should know that few people approached by God with one of His commands found the task sensible or agreeable (think of Jonah; think of Moses; they didn't want to do what God asked either). Sometimes when my child asks me for something, I say "no" only because I want to see if my child respects my "no" enough to accept it without argument. I fully intend to say "yes" - but since my child's _character_ is more important to me than his _immediate happiness_, I sometimes say "no" to begin with. God asked Abraham to do something that was frightening, but Abraham trusted God - that's the part people keep leaving out. He trusted Him - and that means that - unpleasant and downright terrifying or not - Abraham trusted in God's wisdom.




> The being that demands mental or physical cruelty in the name of God is in fact God's subtle Adversary.


You make the assumption that God asking for what is rightfully His to be returned to him as "cruelty." Some people might lay such a charge of "cruelty" on a parent who allows his child to go to jail for committing a crime instead of shielding the child - in which case does the parent show _love_ for the child? By "protecting" the child, or putting the child in considerable "pain"? Don't bother by telling my my analogy is faulty because Isaac had committed no crime - the comparison is more based on the idea of parental "cruetly" - that we sometimes look at decisions other parents make and question the "love" the parent has for the child. Sometimes we misunderstand such decisions.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<Why blame the church? What if everyone on here gave ten percent of their paychecks to missions? Don't you think we could help, instead of blaming the church? Our church gives to 17 missionaries, 19 projects, including hurricane relief, and Samaritan's purse every month. That's just our small, 200-people congregation. Think of how much the church does nationwide. Most just happen to do it behind the scenes.>

Did Jesus not say to the rich man that he would need to give away all his wealth to the poor if he wanted to follow him? No doubt, like many believers, you'll say you are not rich and thereby justify your ignoring the commandment of Jesus. Did you know that the average wage of a human being on planet earth is around 9,500 dollars per annum? How many believers arund the world earn more than that? Let's say that twice the average is rich. How many believers earning 19,000 dollars per year to do you know of? And how many of them have given up all their possessions, given them to the poor, and followed Jesus?

No. The onus is not on the unbeliever to relieve the world of its poor. You believers claim to follow a moral code, to follow the commandments of Jesus. Well follow them then. And do as he says.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Whifflingpin: I believe that God does only grant good - period. 
Redzepppelin: some of what He grants is harsh and unpleasant.

Well, either one or both of us is wrong. 

Whifflingpin: What He does not demand is that His followers act cruelly towards others, whether their sons or not. 
Redzeppelin: We are never to harm others, but "hurting" them may be necessary (just as the pain I cause my child by punishing him will help him learn a valuable lesson).

The lesson learned will be that force majeur is right.


Redzeppelin: Sometimes when my child asks me for something, I say "no" only because I want to see if my child respects my "no" enough to accept it without argument. I fully intend to say "yes" - but since my child's character is more important to me than his immediate happiness, I sometimes say "no" to begin with. 

Of course, I accept that I know nothing about the true relationship between yourself and your offspring, so I make no judgement on your actual parenting, but that, to me, is the attitude of a sadistic control freak. 


Whifflingpin: The being that demands mental or physical cruelty in the name of God is in fact God's subtle Adversary. 
Redzeppelin: You make the assumption that God asking for what is rightfully His to be returned to him as "cruelty." 

I have the opinion that tying someone to a rock and threatening to sacrifice him is an act of cruelty. Committing such an act in God's name is, in my opinion, blasphemous cruelty.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Whifflingpin: What He does not demand is that His followers act cruelly towards others, whether their sons or not. 
> Redzeppelin: We are never to harm others, but "hurting" them may be necessary (just as the pain I cause my child by punishing him will help him learn a valuable lesson).
> 
> The lesson learned will be that force majeur is right.
> 
> 
> Redzeppelin: Sometimes when my child asks me for something, I say "no" only because I want to see if my child respects my "no" enough to accept it without argument. I fully intend to say "yes" - but since my child's character is more important to me than his immediate happiness, I sometimes say "no" to begin with. 
> 
> Of course, I accept that I know nothing about the true relationship between yourself and your offspring, so I make no judgement on your actual parenting, but that, to me, is the attitude of a sadistic control freak. 
> ...


I can hardly tell you what a joy it is to encounter someone who is a professing Christian (as I believe you have said you are?) but who is capable of free and vital thinking!

----------


## RichardHresko

Quark remarked to PrinceMyshkin:
"The argument is based on the basic thoughts that Abraham must have had to make the story have any sense or meaning. "

I have a problem with the "must". While in order for the story to have meaning for the interpretation you (or Kierkegaard) wish to give it Abraham need think a particular way, this hardly requires Abraham to think/feel that way. I don't think there is anything in the text that supports your going so far as to say what Abraham "must" have felt/thought.

PrinceMyshkin in the post previous to Quark's, remarked:

"One can play ad infinitum at the game of reasoning out what God meant or what Abraham may have understood (it can be at times a noble game, a sort of theological three-dimensional chess) but surely we ought also to read the story as presented and if Scripture is taken to have eternal merit, we must also read it with the only minds of which we can be sure, those we have today."

With the reservation about whether a modern mind is in essence any different (a point previously mentioned) I concur with PrinceMyshkin.

----------


## RichardHresko

Previously Whifflingpin posted:
"Whifflingpin: I believe that God does only grant good - period. 
Redzepppelin: some of what He grants is harsh and unpleasant.

Well, either one or both of us is wrong. "

Not necessarily. Some things that are good may be harsh and unpleasant. Root canal comes to mind...

Likewise, some things that are pleasant and soft are bad. An ex-girlfriend of mine comes to mind...

----------


## Whifflingpin

"I can hardly tell you what a joy it is to encounter someone who is a professing Christian (as I believe you have said you are?) but who is capable of free and vital thinking!"

Well thanks, but I have not said I am a Christian, only that I was one, for long enough years to have understood Christian belief and practice. I still retain plenty of respect for Christian belief (as, no doubt, sometimes shows in my posts.) Equally, there are some beliefs that some Christians profess that I utterly disagree with (which may also show, occasionally.) 
Christianity is so widespread, and has been so for so long, that its followers come in all the kinds of humanity that could be imagined: wise, intelligent and humane, as well as mean spirited, bigoted and cruel. Most are the ordinary human mix. Most, I guess, take from their religion what suits them best.

The critical Christian belief that I do not share is that evil entered the world through man's sin. Without that belief, there is no need in my belief system for a Redeemer, and hence I do not believe that Jesus was other than a radical religious and moral thinker and teacher. Hence, though I approve of his teachings, I do not think that sufficient to call myself a Christian - Jesuist, maybe, if there were such a word.

More often I call myself a Mazdaist. At much the same time as Abraham was following his harsh God, Zarathustra was arguing that, in this world at least, good and evil came from two separate sources, a creator and a perverter. I admit to being lazy, but this idea seems so simple, compared to the mental contortions needed to show that evil is sent by the Divine Dentist for our own good.

Zarathustra seems to have had little sympathy for the trappings of religion, and none for the excesses of religion. Man serves God by thinking, speaking and doing good, and opposing evil. I think the message of Jesus' life is that the best way to oppose evil is by thinking, speaking and doing more good.

----------


## AngelEyes714

> Quark remarked to PrinceMyshkin:
> "The argument is based on the basic thoughts that Abraham must have had to make the story have any sense or meaning. "
> 
> I have a problem with the "must". While in order for the story to have meaning for the interpretation you (or Kierkegaard) wish to give it Abraham need think a particular way, this hardly requires Abraham to think/feel that way. I don't think there is anything in the text that supports your going so far as to say what Abraham "must" have felt/thought.
> 
> PrinceMyshkin in the post previous to Quark's, remarked:
> 
> "One can play ad infinitum at the game of reasoning out what God meant or what Abraham may have understood (it can be at times a noble game, a sort of theological three-dimensional chess) but surely we ought also to read the story as presented and if Scripture is taken to have eternal merit, we must also read it with the only minds of which we can be sure, those we have today."
> 
> With the reservation about whether a modern mind is in essence any different (a point previously mentioned) I concur with PrinceMyshkin.


I honestly think that the best way of interpreting this passage is to take in light of the rest of the scripture. What else do we know about God? Scripture claims that he is Good, Unchanging, despises Evil, all powerful, all knowing, all seeing.

So, to interpret God's character on this story alone is not going to work. That would be prejudice.

----------


## atiguhya padma

> I honestly think that the best way of interpreting this passage is to take in light of the rest of the scripture. What else do we know about God? Scripture claims that he is Good, Unchanging, despises Evil, all powerful, all knowing, all seeing.
> 
> So, to interpret God's character on this story alone is not going to work. That would be prejudice.


So the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was good, playing mind games with Abraham over the life and death of his son was good etc. An act is not made good because of the nature of the agent. Either the destruction of an immoral community is good or it isn't, no matter who is doing the destroying.

Think about what an unchanging god could mean. Does god change thoughts? Does god change acts? Does god change his mind? Supposing god has the most perfect thought, can god have another thought without changing? can his other thought be perfect too? will the two thoughts differ in any way? and if they do, can they then be compared in terms of how perfect they are? 

People throw around these ideas and concepts of god and god's nature and don't seem to realise what such concepts mean and how they entangle the issue.

----------


## Pendragon

> <Why blame the church? What if everyone on here gave ten percent of their paychecks to missions? Don't you think we could help, instead of blaming the church? Our church gives to 17 missionaries, 19 projects, including hurricane relief, and Samaritan's purse every month. That's just our small, 200-people congregation. Think of how much the church does nationwide. Most just happen to do it behind the scenes.>
> 
> Did Jesus not say to the rich man that he would need to give away all his wealth to the poor if he wanted to follow him? No doubt, like many believers, you'll say you are not rich and thereby justify your ignoring the commandment of Jesus. Did you know that the average wage of a human being on planet earth is around 9,500 dollars per annum? How many believers arund the world earn more than that? Let's say that twice the average is rich. How many believers earning 19,000 dollars per year to do you know of? And how many of them have given up all their possessions, given them to the poor, and followed Jesus?
> 
> No. The onus is not on the unbeliever to relieve the world of its poor. You believers claim to follow a moral code, to follow the commandments of Jesus. Well follow them then. And do as he says.


Well, AP, not exactly. Here are four scriptures that deal with Christians and giving to the poor, two of them an account of the rich young ruler:

4Ezra.2
[20] Do right to the widow, judge for the fatherless, give to the poor, defend the orphan, clothe the naked,
Matt.19
[21] Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Mark.10
[21] Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
Luke.19
[8] And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

I do not see the word "all" in there. But here is the thing with the rich young ruler. In the Law of Moses, which Ezra refers to in the first scripture I posted, there was an edict about supporting the poor. But it had a certain portion that you left for them. The Rich Man said he kept the law. Jesus never called him a liar. The point was he was unwilling to go beyond the law.

If he had given his portion for the year, the poor could starve and he still felt justified because he had paid his due. He never considered that he had far more than he needed and could help more people. Letter of the Law and no more. Jesus' lesson was that is selfish. 

I saw someone mention ten-percent, the amount of tithing. Yes, OK, but you enjoy many things while others die of hunger. Think of this: We think nothing of ordering a delivery pizza and tipping the driver. In some countries, that money would feed the family for a week. Not just good enough to get by, but go beyond, that is the message of the Rich Young Ruler.

God Bless

Pendragon

----------


## RichardHresko

AngelEyes714 remarked:
"I honestly think that the best way of interpreting this passage is to take in light of the rest of the scripture. What else do we know about God? Scripture claims that he is Good, Unchanging, despises Evil, all powerful, all knowing, all seeing."

The basic problem, as Atiguhya Padma points out, is that these terms are not unambiguous. What does it mean when we say God is "good"? I have a good car, and make a good chicken soup. Clearly God is not good in those sense. The same holds true about the other Biblical claims.

One can also argue whether the claims in the Bible are justifiable, given what is said about his actions.

I'm not sure that your approach will really yield insight. Worshipful attitude, yes, insight, I am not so sure.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> Did Jesus not say to the rich man that he would need to give away all his wealth to the poor if he wanted to follow him? No doubt, like many believers, you'll say you are not rich and thereby justify your ignoring the commandment of Jesus. Did you know that the average wage of a human being on planet earth is around 9,500 dollars per annum? How many believers arund the world earn more than that? Let's say that twice the average is rich. How many believers earning 19,000 dollars per year to do you know of? And how many of them have given up all their possessions, given them to the poor, and followed Jesus?
> 
> No. The onus is not on the unbeliever to relieve the world of its poor. You believers claim to follow a moral code, to follow the commandments of Jesus. Well follow them then. And do as he says.


The Bible also states that where your treasure is, there your heart shall also be... Jesus was questioning the young ruler's heart. His heart was with his money, and he did not want to be seperated from it. If we are not _willing_ to give all, then our heart is with the earth, not God. That is why God asks for only 10&#37; as tithe, not all of it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The lesson learned will be that force majeur is right.


You assumed "force" was a part of my answer. I indicated nothing in terms of "force."




> Of course, I accept that I know nothing about the true relationship between yourself and your offspring, so I make no judgement on your actual parenting, but that, to me, is the attitude of a sadistic control freak.


You're right about one thing here: you know *nothing* about my relationship with my children. As I've said before, viewing certain things from the outside without proper context means that certain episodes may appear very different than they actually seem. It is not "control" to teach children to accept the "no" of an authority figure. When children are little, their very lives may depend upon their unquestioning obedience; as they get older, of course that must change for the child must learn to reason, to understand, to critically examine.




> I have the opinion that tying someone to a rock and threatening to sacrifice him is an act of cruelty. Committing such an act in God's name is, in my opinion, blasphemous cruelty.



An opinion you've registered multiple times. OK. I'm getting the idea that there's nothing I can say that will mitigate this episode in your mind - but that's no surprise; things viewed from the "outside" often lack the proper context that makes them clear. The frame necessary to understand Abraham's decision is his relationship with God; but if one doesn't see God as the way the Bible describes Him, then many, many things in the Bible appear cruel, unjust and plain wrong. OK. I don't feel bad that I can't change your mind. I feel bad that your view of God is incorrect and that it causes you to see Him in such a negative light.

----------


## Pendragon

Proverbs 15: [1] A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

Words to live by, gentle folk...

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Whifflingpin

Proverbs 15: [1]

Thank you, Pen

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

The Devil, it is said, can quote Scripture, and I daresay he never does more damage to it than when he quotes it, word for word, just as it was written.

In this case we have the story of God calling upon an exemplar of faith in God to sacrifice his only son. Abraham carries out his assignment without any indication that he questions or resents it but just as he is about to plunge the ceremonial dagger into his son's heart, God stays his hand and provides an equally acceptable, alternative sacrifice.

Abraham has passed the test that was set for him - but has God? 

If God gave us not only our mortal lives but our humanity, I assume that one of the expectations we might have of him is that he not ask us to betray that humanity?

Many have responded that God actually meanthis or that, that Abraham must have known this or that, that Isaac having been God's gift to Abraham was God's to demand back, even at the cost of the terror Isaac may have felt as he saw his father leaning over him dagger in hand, poised above his chest. This is akin, I think, to finding some ingenious point of view by which it may be proved that a pretzel is actually a very straight line.

----------


## apples of gold

> The Devil, it is said, can quote Scripture, and I daresay he never does more damage to it than when he quotes it, word for word, just as it was written.
> 
> In this case we have the story of God calling upon an exemplar of faith in God to sacrifice his only son. Abraham carries out his assignment without any indication that he questions or resents it but just as he is about to plunge the ceremonial dagger into his son's heart, God stays his hand and provides an equally acceptable, alternative sacrifice.
> 
> Abraham has passed the test that was set for him - but has God? 
> 
> If God gave us not only our mortal lives but our humanity, I assume that one of the expectations we might have of him is that he not ask us to betray that humanity?
> 
> Many have responded that God actually meanthis or that, that Abraham must have known this or that, that Isaac having been God's gift to Abraham was God's to demand back, even at the cost of the terror Isaac may have felt as he saw his father leaning over him dagger in hand, poised above his chest. This is akin, I think, to finding some ingenious point of view by which it may be proved that a pretzel is actually a very straight line.



Your question is insightful. Has God passed the test? It indicates the depth to which you contemplate God. 

IMO, knowledge aside, within the capacity for faith is a connectedness of man to God, albeit mostly veiled. So much so, there might not be any distinction between the two: God's will, Abraham's will. 

And IMO, Abraham was struggling with the issue of sacrifice. The moment of sacrifice was indeed a moment of truth that human dilemma contains when the full impact of the issue is turned over to reason and the resolution is most clearly presented to the mind. Here is the moment of the most unquestioning faith that Abraham exhibited *before* (the) reason had revealed itself: Gen 22:5 to the servant "I and the boy .... will come back to you. Gen 22:8 "God himself will provide the lamb", he reassured Isaac. (the spiritual connection, the faith, can be there between man and man/son, human to human, as well). 

The lamb put in its appearance and it was then that Abraham realized what he had been struggling with in its entirety. I am persuaded of this because he later abolished these sacrifices. And to have gone against the established order to this degree must have been the reason the dilemma was so extreme. The connection of faith to/in his father seems to have been strong enough in Isaac for him to have overcome any debilitating fear. He did not resist at any point. He appeared to have grown up alright as well. He appears to have trusted Abraham as a sound parental figure enough to have later dealt with Abimelech in the same successful manner regarding the possible taking of his wife. 

It’s easy to get lost in the “shroud” of scripture when reading these stories. However, if one is able to consider the story with the possibility that it might be true, then one can read the entire story and put it into full context. One can see that the logic is there despite there being little appearance of wisdom; as there is in the story of Solomon whose ostensibly benign instructions to cut the baby in half resolved the problem for the two plaintiff mothers. (but how wise would it appear if both of them had put Solomon to the test?) (I’m suggesting here that Abraham’s love for Isaac not be doubted). Otherwise, Abraham’s actions would be seen as insane or hypocritical.  Human motives and reason don’t seem as incomprehensible when we understand the desperation that can go with facing the consequences of our decisions. (I mean the impending decision not to sacrifice). Human/child sacrifices were common practice during those times. As a leader without any other counsel living in a brutal, pagan society, Abraham needed the reassurance that the practice of these sacrifices was as contrary to humanity as he was inclined to believe. And God did provide this. God passed and Abraham proved to himself as well, worthy of being “Father of Nations”.

----------


## Pendragon

> The Devil, it is said, can quote Scripture, and I daresay he never does more damage to it than when he quotes it, word for word, just as it was written.


And that point I will concede, Jerry. Although twisting it does a good bit of damage as well. I recall St. Mark 7: [13] Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

It seems that it works both ways.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> And that point I will concede, Jerry. Although twisting it does a good bit of damage as well. I recall St. Mark 7: [13] Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
> 
> It seems that it works both ways.
> 
> God Bless
> 
> Pen


But please, if the reference to it working both ways, is meant for me, quote where I appear to have twisted 'God's" word out of shape to suit my point of view. 

Again, the acid test to me is:

1) Is your faith in God in any way deficient? or

2) Would your refusal to go through the motions of preparing to sacrifice your first-born be the highest evidence you could give of your humanity? (Which in my point of view is the holiest thing we possess, our reverence for life.)

----------


## RichardHresko

Prince Myshkin writes:
"Many have responded that God actually meanthis or that, that Abraham must have known this or that, that Isaac having been God's gift to Abraham was God's to demand back, even at the cost of the terror Isaac may have felt as he saw his father leaning over him dagger in hand, poised above his chest. This is akin, I think, to finding some ingenious point of view by which it may be proved that a pretzel is actually a very straight line."

I think PrinceMyshkin is not only correct, but points to an important point that is of value to those who do believe that the NT (or any Scripture) is in fact a Revelation of God: given that this is revelation, one should ask how does this information transform US, instead of trying to make the story fit our preconceptions of what God 'ought' to be like.

In the case of this story one might profitably accept that this is a challenge to our conceptions of what right and goodness are, rather than whether God is good or moral, etc.

----------


## atiguhya padma

To those who think that god can do what he likes with his creation think about this:

Suppose in the future we are visited by aliens that reveal to us that they are the ones who created us. They also prove that they our the greatest intellects in the Universe. They have secretly cared for our well-being for millennia, and for reasons unknown to us they now want to experiment on a few million of us in a most painfully cruel way. Do we say, well guys, you created us, we are yours to do what you want with?

----------


## RichardHresko

Atiguhya Padma writes:
"Suppose in the future we are visited by aliens that reveal to us that they are the ones who created us. They also prove that they our the greatest intellects in the Universe. They have secretly cared for our well-being for millennia, and for reasons unknown to us they now want to experiment on a few million of us in a most painfully cruel way. Do we say, well guys, you created us, we are yours to do what you want with?"

A reasonably simple answer, non-contradictory answer from a believer would be, "no." This is because of the unfortunately somewhat loose definitions of "create" and "God" used here. True creation, in the divine sense, is _ex nihilo_ "out of nothing." Whipping up some DNA and/or sending the Monolith a la 2001 does not count. Secondly, God (which is probably better thought of as a designation rather than a name) is not merely a designation of a being that brings another being into existence, or the most intelligent being.

For these reasons the _gedankenexperiment_ fails.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Atiguhya Padma writes:
> "Suppose in the future we are visited by aliens that reveal to us that they are the ones who created us. They also prove that they our the greatest intellects in the Universe. They have secretly cared for our well-being for millennia, and for reasons unknown to us they now want to experiment on a few million of us in a most painfully cruel way. Do we say, well guys, you created us, we are yours to do what you want with?"
> 
> A reasonably simple answer, non-contradictory answer from a believer would be, "no." This is because of the unfortunately somewhat loose definitions of "create" and "God" used here. True creation, in the divine sense, is _ex nihilo_ "out of nothing." Whipping up some DNA and/or sending the Monolith a la 2001 does not count. Secondly, God (which is probably better thought of as a designation rather than a name) is not merely a designation of a being that brings another being into existence, or the most intelligent being.
> 
> For these reasons the _gedankenexperiment_ fails.


Another way to think of God (the way I think of God) is as a synonym for the human intolerance for unanswered questions. And for human impatience. Rather than wait for an answer (that may NEVER come) we will accept any one that has a measure of plausiblity to it, preferably couched in poetry or grandeur - or scientific formulae.

----------


## Pendragon

> But please, if the reference to it working both ways, is meant for me, quote where I appear to have twisted 'God's" word out of shape to suit my point of view. 
> 
> Again, the acid test to me is:
> 
> 1) Is your faith in God in any way deficient? or
> 
> 2) Would your refusal to go through the motions of preparing to sacrifice your first-born be the highest evidence you could give of your humanity? (Which in my point of view is the holiest thing we possess, our reverence for life.)


I would have Jerry, except that I haven't noticed that you twist scripture out of shape at all. I was merely pointing out that there exist instances where people do. A good example would be something that was brought up in one of these threads about Protestants claiming "the mark of Cain" was to make him a person of color, justifying slavery. That caused a [i]lot[/] of damage, and some still believe that today. 

Fact is, Genesis does't say what the Mark of Cain was. No my friend, I have no quarrel with you. I might have asked, since you posted this:




> The Devil, it is said, can quote Scripture, and I daresay he never does more damage to it than when he quotes it, word for word, just as it was written.


right afer I had quoted a scripture if you were calling me The Devil. I didn't, because I trusted that you were not. I seek to keep peace here on this part of the forum, to help, not hinder.

God Bless, mon ami

Pen

----------


## RichardHresko

Prince Myshkin writes:
"Another way to think of God (the way I think of God) is as a synonym for the human intolerance for unanswered questions. And for human impatience. Rather than wait for an answer (that may NEVER come) we will accept any one that has a measure of plausiblity to it, preferably couched in poetry or grandeur - or scientific formulae."

I have no doubt that many people do use religion to soothe their discomfort with the fact that we do not know everything. 

Richard Feynmann once remarked that the difference between the scientific mind and the religious mind is that the former is comfortable with ambiguity and the latter abhors it.

All that being said, I believe what you have provided here is more of a sociological definition of God rather than an ontological one. That is, what 'God' means to society as opposed to what reality 'God' has. Nothing wrong with that, but I think the distinction should be noted.

----------


## Pendragon

> I have no doubt that many people do use religion to soothe their discomfort with the fact that we do not know everything. 
> 
> Richard Feynmann once remarked that the difference between the scientific mind and the religious mind is that the former is comfortable with ambiguity and the latter abhors it.


But is this really the way that things stand? If the scientific mind os truly comfortable with ambiguity (and I firmly agree that it is impossible that we know all there is to know), why does science then not say, "Fine, the existence of God is quite possible, your guess is as good as mine as to what form God may take, so go for it."? It is science that asks for proof of God. I, on the other hand, accept scientific discoveries, being convinced that we have never known everything, and that parts of the Bible were specific for the day and time, others attemps to describe in what they knew something that they had seen in a vison and had no idea what it was. I find wiggle room. God as a creator does not stop my views of scientific discovery. There still are things unexplained by either science or religion. We'll get there sometime or we're not meant to know, one or the other.

God Bless.

Pen

----------


## RichardHresko

> But is this really the way that things stand? If the scientific mind os truly comfortable with ambiguity (and I firmly agree that it is impossible that we know all there is to know), why does science then not say, "Fine, the existence of God is quite possible, your guess is as good as mine as to what form God may take, so go for it."? It is science that asks for proof of God. I, on the other hand, accept scientific discoveries, being convinced that we have never known everything, and that parts of the Bible were specific for the day and time, others attemps to describe in what they knew something that they had seen in a vison and had no idea what it was. I find wiggle room. God as a creator does not stop my views of scientific discovery. There still are things unexplained by either science or religion. We'll get there sometime or we're not meant to know, one or the other.
> 
> God Bless.
> 
> Pen


Feynmann, I feel, over-simplified, which he was known to do for dramatic effect. He was quite a character (and one of my heroes), as is revealed in his memoirs. And of course we can find close-minded scientists and open-minded religionists. But I think there is something to his description of the expectations, if you will, of someone exercising a scientific perspective and one that is religious (at least in those religions that require revelation).

Your remark that "why does science then not say, "Fine, the existence of God is quite possible, your guess is as good as mine as to what form God may take, so go for it."? " deserves a good answer. Science does not work that way, when it works well. We merely say, as the story about a confrontation between Napoleon and the writer of a book on celestial mechanics over the author's lack of mention of the Deity has it, that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. 

One thing that we should bear in mind is that science is designed to answer special questions. These questions involve how we can predict and model certain physical phenomena. Science makes no claim as to what reality truly is. It is outside the field. Whether something is real is an issue of philosophy, specifically metaphysics.

----------


## Orionsbelt

> One thing that we should bear in mind is that science is designed to answer special questions. These questions involve how we can predict and model certain physical phenomena. Science makes no claim as to what reality truly is. It is outside the field. Whether something is real is an issue of philosophy, specifically metaphysics.


Great questions great answer. If you will permit me... two other thoughts. Since God is described, or has been described on this board, as outside of nature ... super natural... Science has no tools to observe and test what is outside of nature. There is not supernatural spectroscopy widget... well on ghost busters maybe.. If as Spinoza proposes that God is nature then the scientist has to say there should be something to test... The question is what.. a religious person would say well everything... once again you must be able to test from outside the system.. and observe the results of changing variables... The problem is not being able to cast the problem in a way that can be observed and tested. In this light, then every experiment is a test on some aspect of the divine. You would want to compare it to something "not divine".


In addition science can only tell you the mechanics. We still don't really know what gravity "is". We only know how things move within the mathematical model. (PS the model may not yet be correct) This happens because of that.. etc. or our model predicts these changes in the physical properties... once you begin to speculate on why something has been implemented a certain way you are not able to know. Lets say for example it is possible to base life on some other chemical mechanics (not water and carbon).... (ignoring that we have no idea what that might actually mean). Why would one designer choose this system over another? more efficient, better gas mileage, best use of cosmic gases, budget restrictions.. ...the religious person is asking these very questions. Trying to reconcile these two methods of understanding in terms of one another is really pretty silly. It does however make for lively debate.

I don't think that the scientific mind is any less comfortable than the religious with ambiguity. The questions are just different. The conflict often arises because one is seen as discrediting the other for this reason or that.. this is politics and has nothing to do with either.

Live long an prosper... oh Abraham dilemma... see politics... just kidding...

----------


## Pendragon

> Great questions great answer. 
> 
> I don't think that the scientific mind is any less comfortable than the religious with ambiguity. The questions are just different. The conflict often arises because one is seen as discrediting the other for this reason or that.. this is politics and has nothing to do with either.
> 
> Live long an prosper... oh Abraham dilemma... see politics... just kidding...


Indeed it was a good answer, well mannered and well put. A gentleman's response. I bow, Richard.

Orion, I think you may hit the point. Conflict arises because of what appears to be discredit. In the case of Abraham, here, what is being seemingly discredited is the faith of a patriarch. Some have questioned his sainity. 

Bring the story forward into modern times and see how many of faithful Christians would still think Abraham acted by faith. You see it is easy to sit and pass judgement on that which is but a written record. But if you were to have to face it, what would you say then? 

Thus, I think we can see where the idea becomes repugnant. In his place, I would like to think that I trust God that much, but I fear I would be more of the mind of "No way." Perspective changes much. For Abraham, it was a done deal. For me, I couldn't do anything like that, because I would die for my kids.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Orionsbelt

I have always preferred to look on the poetic side of these things. They are in my opinion just stories. They work on multiple levels as all good stories do. Abraham lived in a very harsh environment. In his environment all was dependent on other people. Order and Rules for living were necessary to live with other people in this harsh land. Things were regulated by harsh laws and harsh punishment. It was necessary for survival. As with any other god a boone or gift is delivered or made available to mankind. The God of Abraham is the bringer of the law. He is the regulator of justice. He keeps the community protected and maintains order. Obedience was not optional. Promise was as rare as a drop of rain. So Abraham faces this day to deny his beliefs or deny his hope. He chooses to go forward with both. Not so hard. 

If you want weird think about cronus the titan son of Uranus and Gaia who consumes his children. Then think about his name... time.. the father who consumes all of his children.. weird at first ...or maybe not so weird. 

Would Abraham be put in jail today? sure he would... So would Saladin, Joeseph's brothers, King Richard and a host of others.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Pen: "In the case of Abraham, here, what is being seemingly discredited is the faith of a patriarch. "

His faith would not seem to be in question. Maybe his sanity, but in the context of his time, probably not.
For the reasons offered by Orionsbelt, one might not condemn Abraham (much he'd care about our judgement anyway) either for his religious beliefs or for his pure-blood racism - although one should remember that there were more enlightened options available in his time. 

What I do, however, reject utterly, is that the view of God offered in the story could justifiably be held in our own time. The belief, that is, that God would tempt a person to commit evil actions as a kind of test. Abraham might have believed it, the writer of the story clearly believed it - but it is a belief that the human race ought to have grown out of, and it is a nasty belief that the adherents of the religions of the Book have done too much to maintain.

----------


## apples of gold

> What I do, however, reject utterly, is that the view of God offered in the story could justifiably be held in our own time. The *belief, that is, that God would tempt a person to commit evil actions as a kind of test.*


Whiff, pardon my interjection here, I know you were addressing Pen, but where is this belief evidenced? Can you substantiate this by citing criminal court cases in which the lawyers are even using this as a defense: _"God tempted me to commit this crime to test my faith"_, let alone the accused being found innocent on that basis. Surely that would be insanity. And any sane person would join you in your opinion. 

If such a belief exists in the mind of anyone, where is the detriment to society for someone holding it? It would seem to me that religion is functioning within generally socially acceptable standards these days and has moved beyond the nastiness of Abraham's times, the crusades, etc. 

And I have to wonder how much of racism, present political motivation for war, the current human atrocities we are seeing today, is really owed to religious belief and should be attributed to dysfunctional personalities.

----------


## Pendragon

Oh there have been cases where people have cited Religious reasons for wrongdoing, the mess out at Waco pops to mind, but I concede no lawyer is going to use "God told me to do it." as a defense. The usual thing is to either go with religious persecution or insanity. I don't know that I could cite a single case where the first defense worked.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## apples of gold

I haven't heard of any either. 

I don't think we should include religious cult leaders in the mix when discussing the fine points of faith in terms of instances in the bible that seem to condone extreme and controversial behavior. I understand many of these cult leaders have been diagnosed as sociopaths and could easily have gotten involved in a political party if they had been able to persuade people that way. The fact that these personalities can memorize scripture doesn't invalidate the scripture or the faith. 

And further, we have to be careful about bringing in historical events like the crusades and other wars that apparently were perpetrated in the name of a biblical God because neither the leaders or the followers are around to study to determine their reasons and motivations. Using these as examples in refuting the validity of faith, is something that side of the debate has to move beyond as well.

----------


## atiguhya padma

I think science is not really that concerned with the exisence of god. Science tends to stick to those things that are measurable and quantifiable. On the other hand, many scientists who are concerned with religion, tend to claim that occurrences such as miracles, should be detectable in terns of energy displacement. We can measure the minute amounts of energy, and yet no-one has detected the ineterference of god upon the energy of the universe which might suggest something most of us probably already are aware of.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I haven't heard of any either. 
> 
> I don't think we should include religious cult leaders in the mix when discussing the fine points of faith in terms of instances in the bible that seem to condone extreme and controversial behavior. I understand many of these cult leaders have been diagnosed as sociopaths and could easily have gotten involved in a political party if they had been able to persuade people that way. The fact that these personalities can memorize scripture doesn't invalidate the scripture or the faith.


But one woman's "cult" is another woman's most rational or persuasive straight road to God or truth. Thos. Szasz: "It all depends on who pulls the definitional trigger." 




> And further, we have to be careful about bringing in historical events like the crusades and other wars that apparently were perpetrated in the name of a biblical God because neither the leaders or the followers are around to study to determine their reasons and motivations.


But the leaders of each side in the recent strife in Ireland and the continuing sectarian war in Iraq are very much still around, as besotted with their love for God as the most ancient tribal leaders ever were.

----------


## RichardHresko

We should be careful to distinguish between the actions of the followers and the veracity, or lack of same, of the core beliefs. EVERY movement has its corrupters, after all. 

I think that we will be able to derive more benefit from considering the text itself, and what it tells us of the character of the being referred to as God in it, and using that to determine whether or not this being qualifies as God by criteria that can be decided upon. An alternative is to consider the text as revelation and to use the text as a way to understand God. Which is the better approach would emerge from the plausibility of the arguments.

----------


## apples of gold

> We should be careful to distinguish between the actions of the followers and the veracity, or lack of same, of the core beliefs. EVERY movement has its corrupters, after all. 
> 
> I think that we will be able to derive more benefit from considering the text itself, and what it tells us of the character of the being referred to as God in it, and using that to determine whether or not this being qualifies as God by criteria that can be decided upon. An alternative is to consider the text as revelation and to use the text as a way to understand God. Which is the better approach would emerge from the plausibility of the arguments.


Well said RH.  And so continues the conundrum.

----------


## Pendragon

> I haven't heard of any either. 
> 
> I don't think we should include religious cult leaders in the mix when discussing the fine points of faith in terms of instances in the bible that seem to condone extreme and controversial behavior. I understand many of these cult leaders have been diagnosed as sociopaths and could easily have gotten involved in a political party if they had been able to persuade people that way. The fact that these personalities can memorize scripture doesn't invalidate the scripture or the faith. 
> 
> And further, we have to be careful about bringing in historical events like the crusades and other wars that apparently were perpetrated in the name of a biblical God because neither the leaders or the followers are around to study to determine their reasons and motivations. Using these as examples in refuting the validity of faith, is something that side of the debate has to move beyond as well.


Well, we are dangerously close to getting far away from our topic, but in the case I mentioned, Waco, the cult leader died in the final conflageration. However, there were members of the cult who were put on trail for their involvement. Is this not what we are doing here with Abraham, putting him on trail for his actions, questioning his motives? And going deeper, have we not even put God on trial, wondering why this sort of test would even be necessary? Looking back, I think Jewish tradition proclaims that Abraham waited 25 years between the time of the promise of a son by Sarah, which would be Isaac, and the time of his birth. Surely that would be proof enough of his faith to our thinking! God chose something a little more difficult. And we worry about that choice, and how it makes the Religious look, or how it makes God look. Perhaps we do not see through the same filter.

God bless.

Pen

----------


## apples of gold

I can understand what you say Pen.

I think that people who don't believe in God would read the bible with their own filter, it being one that causes them to struggle with the intent behind the testing of Abraham. And this particular scripture probably stands out as one of the best examples a non-believer could give for not believing in God. It is rather bizarre.

I'd like to be able to break down Abraham's rationale and put it into a context where the dilemma makes more sense. I'm going to think about it, re-read the entire thread and perhaps give it a go.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I can understand what you say Pen.
> 
> I think that people who don't believe in God would read the bible with their own filter, it being one that causes them to struggle with the intent behind the testing of Abraham. And this particular scripture probably stands out as one of the best examples a non-believer could give for not believing in God. It is rather bizarre.


Very well then, imagine the almost unimaginable: a man or woman who neither believes nor disbelieves but comes upon some pages from a book, containing the Abraham & Isaac story. What is she likely to conclude about a) Abraham and b) God?

I can already hear the cries of *"Context! Context"* but let's bear in mind that there are contexts within contexts. Among which is the article I cited several times on "The Bible & Christianity."

----------


## RichardHresko

PrinceMyshkin writes:
"Very well then, imagine the almost unimaginable: a man or woman who neither believes nor disbelieves but comes upon some pages from a book, containing the Abraham & Isaac story. What is she likely to conclude about a) Abraham and b) God?"

I think such a person would _properly_ conclude that she could say nothing about either, but perhaps something about the perspective of the person who wrote the piece.

----------


## Pendragon

> PrinceMyshkin writes:
> "Very well then, imagine the almost unimaginable: a man or woman who neither believes nor disbelieves but comes upon some pages from a book, containing the Abraham & Isaac story. What is she likely to conclude about a) Abraham and b) God?"
> 
> I think such a person would _properly_ conclude that she could say nothing about either, but perhaps something about the perspective of the person who wrote the piece.


And there we would come to a bit of a rub. The Jewish people were a lot like the Native Americans. My People, the Cherokee were fairly civilized, both farmed and hunted, lived in houses, and wore clothing made of cloth. Yet there was no written history. Everything was passed down through the storytellers, an oral tradition. Finally, Sequoyah invented an alphabet and Cherokee became a written language.


That is much the same in the case of Abraham. Oral tradition was passed down to be written much later. Tradition has it that Moses is the author of the first five books of the Bible. He would be telling his story as given to him by the storytellers, Psalms 145: [4] One generation shall praise thy works to another, and shall declare thy mighty acts.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## RichardHresko

Also, the books that eventually became the Pentateuch were probably the synthesis of at least three different versions. So perhaps, were the lady of PrinceMyshkin's experiment to be informed of this, she would rather conclude that all she could comment on would be the attitudes of the editors.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> PrinceMyshkin writes:
> "Very well then, imagine the almost unimaginable: a man or woman who neither believes nor disbelieves but comes upon some pages from a book, containing the Abraham & Isaac story. What is she likely to conclude about a) Abraham and b) God?"
> 
> I think such a person would _properly_ conclude that she could say nothing about either, but perhaps something about the perspective of the person who wrote the piece.


In which case might she not plausibly conclude that the composer of the story wanted to teach _Trust in God even if that trust goes violently against your most human impulses - and everything will be all right_?

She might then go on to wonder, what sort of first-hand personal experience might have taught the writer that? Or are there perhaps other pages lying around somewhere with similar stories, from which the writer learned or borrowed?

If (she might speculate further), if it was this 'God' who conveyed that to him, it is evident from this story that this is a God who does not disclose all all at once (the withheld detail of the ram that would be provided), then why assume that he has ever revealed his true purpose?

----------


## Pendragon

> In which case might she not plausibly conclude that the composer of the story wanted to teach _Trust in God even if that trust goes violently against your most human impulses - and everything will be all right_?
> 
> She might then go on to wonder, what sort of first-hand personal experience might have taught the writer that? Or are there perhaps other pages lying around somewhere with similar stories, from which the writer learned or borrowed?
> 
> If (she might speculate further), if it was this 'God' who conveyed that to him, it is evident from this story that this is a God who does not disclose all all at once (the withheld detail of the ram that would be provided), then why assume that he has ever revealed his true purpose?


Ah, Jerry, mon ami, I may indeed sound like the Devil's Advocate, but I believe in truth in all matters. If this detail is actually withheld, then how are we to interpet these lines, from the story of Abraham and Isaac, from Genesis 22: 

[7] And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
[8] And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Just a point. I am not trying to argue. As I said, I would die for my kids, and though I consider my faith in God strong, I would never pass this kind of test, or even think of attempting it. I know God heals, but I see to it that my children have good medical and dental care. I am under doctor's care myself. Some would say I have lost my faith. I say I use what God sends. If you drown thinking God will take care of you and have declined to get into two rescue boats and a helicopter, don't blame God because you were that foolish.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I say I use what God sends. If you drown thinking God will take care of you and have declined to get into two rescue boats and a helicopter, don't blame God because you were that foolish.
> 
> God Bless
> 
> Pen


But where were those rescue boats, that helicopter, I wonder, during the many years that the Nazis were systematically, efficiently pulling Jews from their homes, loading them into cattle cars, working to death those who had the strength to serve the German war-effort and sending the others to the "shower baths" and then the crematoria?

In what remote corner of the universe might he have been skulking or grieving - some would argue - at the inhumanity of man to man, man who had been created *in his image...* 

And how sad and shameful does it seem to me that good, honest and intelligent minds wil bring forth explanations that God had nothing to do with that, it was Satan, it was the "free will" that God had granted men, and that if he interfered here he would have to interfere everywhere?

What better does He have to do than to interfere, yes, everywhere. Everywhere genocide is still going on; everywhere a child is being abused or starving; everywhere a wife more usually or a husband is being emotionally reduced to the level of a simpering idiot...

----------


## RichardHresko

Prince Myshkin writes:
"If (she might speculate further), if it was this 'God' who conveyed that to him, it is evident from this story that this is a God who does not disclose all all at once (the withheld detail of the ram that would be provided), then why assume that he has ever revealed his true purpose?"

There are at least two problem points in here. The first is whether or not a belief in revelation is a belief that God has revealed his "true" purpose. What does "true" mean here? Complete? I don't think that anyone, even the most extreme fundamentalist, would insist that revelation need reveal absolutely everything. Once again, there is no reasonable basis for a claim that God, the one presented here or any other Deity, has a moral obligation to reveal all, period, let alone all at once. Or is "true" being opposed to "lie"? In that case, I don't think that there is any proof in this passage that God lied.

The second problem is that I think the question that our astute lady would ask is whether this God presented in the story could possibly be a true God, or is merely a character invented somewhere along the line. If she thinks 'yes' this raises the question of what it means for God to be good, and if the latter, she needs to look elsewhere for a possible candidate for God.

As painful as the _many_ genocides are, I think they have no bearing on God's existence or goodness. 

1) God did not create the sin. Sin is due to a failure of humans acting properly, that is in a way that enhances their humanity. (God cannot be enhanced or diminished and so therefore has no need to act.)
2) God has no moral obligation to his creation, and therefore can not act immorally with respect to it. What we _wish_ he would do does not create an obligation.

----------


## Pendragon

> But where were those rescue boats, that helicopter, I wonder, during the many years that the Nazis were systematically, efficiently pulling Jews from their homes, loading them into cattle cars, working to death those who had the strength to serve the German war-effort and sending the others to the "shower baths" and then the crematoria?
> 
> In what remote corner of the universe might he have been skulking or grieving - some would argue - at the inhumanity of man to man, man who had been created *in his image...* 
> 
> And how sad and shameful does it seem to me that good, honest and intelligent minds wil bring forth explanations that God had nothing to do with that, it was Satan, it was the "free will" that God had granted men, and that if he interfered here he would have to interfere everywhere?
> 
> What better does He have to do than to interfere, yes, everywhere. Everywhere genocide is still going on; everywhere a child is being abused or starving; everywhere a wife more usually or a husband is being emotionally reduced to the level of a simpering idiot...


Above all things, Jerry, I try hard not to lie. I will not tell you that God could not have prevented the Holocaust and didn't. I have seen the carnage, and know the unspeakable atrocities of the attempted Jewish Genocide. When I hear of other despots doing likewise, I get sick. I went to school with a serial killer. I've been in the hospitals with homicidal schizophrenics and faced death myself. I, who have preached since my 21st birthday, have an incurable illness that the medication barely keeps in check. Am I a simpering idiot? Perhaps. But if I can prevent one person from doing wrong to another, I have helped. It takes one at a time.

That's what people can't see. This world is going to hell in a hand basket, not a profanity, a fact. The paper is full everyday of murder, rape, robbery, drug busts. Somebody can make a difference, but it may be me, you, or the guy next door. One person at a time is progress. If I offend; apologies in advance.

Shalom and God bless

Pen

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Very well then, imagine the almost unimaginable: a man or woman who neither believes nor disbelieves but comes upon some pages from a book, containing the Abraham & Isaac story. What is she likely to conclude about a) Abraham and b) God?


Readers are not "blank slates" who approach a book with a fully objective mindset; as such, one thing to consider is the reader: why has s/he chosen to read this book? What motivation does s/he possess for making such a choice? What is his/her disposition towards the concept of God and a spiritual realm? It is not so easy to suggest a reader's response to a story as being some sort of "proof" as to the value of the story. A legitimate response might be similar to yours, Prince; for another reader, the response might be - "Hmm...that's an interesting story. I wonder what kind of God it is whom Abraham serves. I sure am happy that the story had a happy ending.... perhaps I should read some more to gain better understanding because God's request seems odd (to say the least)."




> I can already hear the cries of *"Context! Context"* but let's bear in mind that there are contexts within contexts. Among which is the article I cited several times on "The Bible & Christianity."


Abraham's experience with Isaac is but _one_ within a cohesive narrative; I could excerpt scenes from _Hamlet_ that make Hamlet look like a devil and a madman - but we know that that is not so from reading the _entire_ play.

----------


## Pendragon

Red,

Verum in pectus pectoris.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Thanks (I think?) - 

Veritas Lux Mea  :Smile:

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Ah, but there's another thing, Diamond. What if I should look ugly without being bad-- look ugly myself because I am making ugly things beautiful? What then?"

"I don't quite understand you, North Wind. You tell me what then."

"Well, I will tell you. If you see me with my face all black, don't be frightened. If you see me flapping wings like a bat's, as big as the whole sky, don't be frightened. If you hear me raging ten times worse than Mrs Bill, the blacksmith's wife--you must believe that I am doing my work. Nay, Diamond, if I change into a serpent or a tiger, you must not let go your hold on me, for my hand will never change in yours if you keep a good hold. If you keep a hold, you will know who I am all the time, even when you look at me and can't see me the least like the North Wind. I may look something awful. Do you understand?" 

George Macdonald - "At the Back of the North Wind"

----------


## Pendragon

> Thanks (I think?) - 
> 
> Veritas Lux Mea


Red,

Verum in pectus pectoris.

I'm having the same problem with your Latin that you are having with mine I suspect-- neither of us is an expert. I was trying to say "truth is in the heart" and you are saying something about "my truthfulness..." there I get lost on the meaning of "lux". 

Oh well. 

Rom.1
[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

Sometimes we must take our own bitter medicine, mon ami... all in good fun!

God Bless

Pen

----------


## RichardHresko

_Verum in pectus pectoris_ Perhaps, _Veritas in pectus pectoris habitat_ "Truth resides in my heart of hearts?" _Veritas lux mea (est)_ Truth is my light.

----------


## Pendragon

> _Verum in pectus pectoris_ Perhaps, _Veritas in pectus pectoris habitat_ "Truth resides in my heart of hearts?" _Veritas lux mea (est)_ Truth is my light.


Thank you, Rich. As I said, I am far from an expert in Latin. I thought about it last night and realised I had used the wrong word "Verum" should have been "Veritas", what was that old line, _in vino veritas_, "in the wine is truth"? But I am very shakey in the language.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## RichardHresko

You aren't doing so badly. "verum" is the adverbial form of "truth" and thus needs a verb. Recall that before the Carolingian Renaissance some priests batized infants "In nomine patriae et filia..." which means "in the name of the country and the daughter". It was the question of the validity of such baptisms that in fact revived Latin in the 9th Century.

I guess the moral is be glad of the Latin you know but watch out when you pour water on babies...

----------


## Redzeppelin

> _Verum in pectus pectoris_ Perhaps, _Veritas in pectus pectoris habitat_ "Truth resides in my heart of hearts?" _Veritas lux mea (est)_ Truth is my light.



Thanks, Richard.

I essentially figured yours out Pen. But I didn't trust my "translation" because I couldn't find the exact phrase on-line so I went word-by-word.

----------


## mike thomas

The exercise was a pointless one: God already knew the outcome. Free will or no free will, God is said to know all these things before they are even thought of. It follows therefore, that God already knew that he already knew that he already knew .......

Regards

----------


## RichardHresko

> The exercise was a pointless one: God already knew the outcome. Free will or no free will, God is said to know all these things before they are even thought of. It follows therefore, that God already knew that he already knew that he already knew .......
> 
> Regards


It would be pointless if the question is one of what God knows. That is not the same thing as the action being pointless. If the question here is one of how one is to react to what one perceives as the call of God, then this is by no means a pointless exercise. If this story is taken as relating what are our obligations to God, once again there is a point to the story.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The exercise was a pointless one: God already knew the outcome. Free will or no free will, God is said to know all these things before they are even thought of. It follows therefore, that God already knew that he already knew that he already knew .......
> 
> Regards



God knows all that exists to be known; that that _does not yet exist_ to be known, cannot be known.

----------


## RichardHresko

> God knows all that exists to be known; that that _does not yet exist_ to be known, cannot be known.


The difficulty with this position is that it implies that God is _within_ time, since you imply that there is something that "does not yet exist" for God.

----------


## Pendragon

> The difficulty with this position is that it implies that God is _within_ time, since you imply that there is something that "does not yet exist" for God.


And in this case, Red, I am going to have to side with Richard. I have said before and will say again, that for God to exist at all as we conceive Him means you cannot put God into time. 

Isaiah 46: 
[9] Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
[10] Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Does that or does that not say God knows things that haven't yet happened? This places Him outside of time, for if He were in time, He could not know unless it had happened. He could fortell, prophecy go forth, but absolute knowledge, no. It has already happened for God, He has seen it and knows it will take place. 

God Bless

Pen

----------


## atiguhya padma

I don't see why, if there is a god, he needs to be outside time to know the future. The physicist Julian Barbour sees time as a block, like a block of cheese. Any slice of the block is the present. What lies before the slice is the past. What lies after is the future. The block exists as a whole. If this conception of time is correct, then at any given slice, knowledge of the whole block is logically possible.

If there is a god that knows everything that has and that will happen, then this seems to me to be tantamount to Calvinism. Everything you do is already written in a blueprint. The notion that this blueprint can change according to god's grace or interventions is a red herring, as god will have known about the interventions from the beginning.

----------


## RichardHresko

> I don't see why, if there is a god, he needs to be outside time to know the future. The physicist Julian Barbour sees time as a block, like a block of cheese. Any slice of the block is the present. What lies before the slice is the past. What lies after is the future. The block exists as a whole. If this conception of time is correct, then at any given slice, knowledge of the whole block is logically possible.
> 
> If there is a god that knows everything that has and that will happen, then this seems to me to be tantamount to Calvinism. Everything you do is already written in a blueprint. The notion that this blueprint can change according to god's grace or interventions is a red herring, as god will have known about the interventions from the beginning.


You are right that God does not have to exist outside of time to know the future, but I would argue that God needs to be outside of time in order to be God. One basic way to make this argument is to start by saying that God, in order to be God, has to be perfect (otherwise we are describing superman, and not God). If God is perfect, then any change that occurred for God would make him something other than perfect, and he would cease to be God. Therefore God does not change. Time exists only for things that can change. Therefore time does not exist for God. Thus God exists outside of time.

This point of view is derived from Aquinas (who in turn derived parts from Aristotle and Avicenna). To make it an "official" religious texts post, the Aquinas material can be found in _Summa Theologiae_ Part Ia, Q. 10, response 2. Aristotle on the nature of time: _Physics_ 218b21 f.

In bringing up Calvin you are indeed hitting on one of the greatest problems in Xtian theology: predestination. Calvin inherited this problem from Augustine, who used predestination as part of his weapons against the Pelagians. 

The problem is not really so much that God is omniscient, but rather that one has to receive grace in order to have the faith that one needs in order to have salvation. Thus, rather disturbingly for many people, your own salvation depends on neither what you do, nor on your faith, but rather on whether God has given you grace to have faith.

----------


## Virgil

> In bringing up Calvin you are indeed hitting on one of the greatest problems in Xtian theology: predestination. Calvin inherited this problem from Augustine, who used predestination as part of his weapons against the Pelagians. 
> 
> The problem is not really so much that God is omniscient, but rather that one has to receive grace in order to have the faith that one needs in order to have salvation. Thus, rather disturbingly for many people, your own salvation depends on neither what you do, nor on your faith, but rather on whether God has given you grace to have faith.


I'm hardly an expert, but that I believe is in dispute between Christians, Richard. That sounds like a rephrasing of St. Augustine and later picked up by Calvin. But the Roman Catholic church desputes that. Certainly Calvinist subscribe to that but I'm not sure about other protestant sects. The implication of such a point of view is that there is no free will.

----------


## RichardHresko

> I'm hardly an expert, but that I believe is in dispute between Christians, Richard. That sounds like a rephrasing of St. Augustine and later picked up by Calvin. But the Roman Catholic church desputes that. Certainly Calvinist subscribe to that but I'm not sure about other protestant sects. The implication of such a point of view is that there is no free will.


You are right, Virgil, that the matter is in dispute, and right again when you add that Catholics reject predestination. Also you are right that Calvin borrowed from Augustine.

Augustine wants to argue that there is still free will in spite of predestination. The argument, if I understand it properly, is that predestination refers to God's choosing to grant or withhold grace. Free will is unaffected because God does not coerce anyone to accept the gift. Aquinas argues that God's omniscience and omnipotence does not interfere with our free will since God is not an outside coercive power, but is rather acts internally. Free will is compromised only by outside forces by this view.

----------


## Pendragon

I do not see that God knowing everything prevents free choice. There have been times in History when something was known in advance, but to stop it from happening would have produced worse concequences. A choice had to be made and it was not easy to make. Here I am thinking of WWII and the Bombing of London. To allow the Axis Powers to know their code had been broken would have lost the Allied Forces an advantage they could not loose. Churchill had to make a horrible decision which broke the big man's heart and soul. The London Blitz happened.

God knows the choice man will make and will not force him to make the other though it breaks His heart. God could force people to worship Him, but that would be a thing that isn't good. He wants the free will worship. Or none. Hot or cold, but not lukewarm.

Revelations 3: 

[15] I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
[16] So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The difficulty with this position is that it implies that God is _within_ time, since you imply that there is something that "does not yet exist" for God.


I do not believe so; if God exists in the eternal present, then my "future" decisions do not exist in a future to be known because there is no future for God: all is now. I believe God knows the beginning from the end historically and He may know of my ultimate fate - but He cannot know what does not exist to be known - i.e. my personal decisions. I think His perfectly intimate knowledge of me allows God to "know" how I am predispositioned to respond, but I do not believe He knows what I've yet to decide because the future does not exist to be known.

And, of course, there's always the chance that I'm terribly wrong. I refer you to two books by Dr. Richard Rice that I am horrifically mis-paraphrasing: _The Openness of God_ and _God's Foreknowlege and Man's Freewill_. If you decide to read them, I'd be interested in your responses - you and Pen both.

----------


## Virgil

> I do not see that God knowing everything prevents free choice. There have been times in History when something was known in advance, but to stop it from happening would have produced worse concequences. A choice had to be made and it was not easy to make. Here I am thinking of WWII and the Bombing of London. To allow the Axis Powers to know their code had been broken would have lost the Allied Forces an advantage they could not loose. Churchill had to make a horrible decision which broke the big man's heart and soul. The London Blitz happened.
> 
> God knows the choice man will make and will not force him to make the other though it breaks His heart. God could force people to worship Him, but that would be a thing that isn't good. He wants the free will worship. Or none. Hot or cold, but not lukewarm.
> 
> Revelations 3: 
> 
> [15] I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
> [16] So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
> 
> ...


Pen I wasn't referring to God knowing everything in advance as precluding free will. What I was referring to is that if God grants grace in a prredestined fashion then free will is meaningless. I think most Christians believe, in contrast to the Calvanists, that people earn their right to grace. That is free will.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Richard Hresko said:

<If God is perfect, then any change that occurred for God would make him something other than perfect>

But this then means that god is confined to a single act, a single thought. Change occurs through thought and action, so god surely cannot change one thought for another. Neither can he move from one act to another. Furthermore, he cannot act at all, or think at all. For in order for a godly act to occur, there has to be change from one state to another. In order for a godly thought to occur, god's mind has to move from one state to another, and so on. God cannot do anything in this universe without being subject to change.




> I do not believe so; if God exists in the eternal present, then my "future" decisions do not exist in a future to be known because there is no future for God: all is now. I believe God knows the beginning from the end historically and He may know of my ultimate fate - but He cannot know what does not exist to be known - i.e. my personal decisions. I think His perfectly intimate knowledge of me allows God to "know" how I am predispositioned to respond, but I do not believe He knows what I've yet to decide because the future does not exist to be known.
> 
> And, of course, there's always the chance that I'm terribly wrong. I refer you to two books by Dr. Richard Rice that I am horrifically mis-paraphrasing: _The Openness of God_ and _God's Foreknowlege and Man's Freewill_. If you decide to read them, I'd be interested in your responses - you and Pen both.



If all is now, then your future decisions are recorded in the eternal now. You don't make decisions. You fulfil the path to the future. Freewill doesn't make sense. Decision making isn't akin to freewill.

----------


## RichardHresko

> I do not believe so; if God exists in the eternal present, then my "future" decisions do not exist in a future to be known because there is no future for God: all is now. I believe God knows the beginning from the end historically and He may know of my ultimate fate - but He cannot know what does not exist to be known - i.e. my personal decisions. I think His perfectly intimate knowledge of me allows God to "know" how I am predispositioned to respond, but I do not believe He knows what I've yet to decide because the future does not exist to be known.
> 
> And, of course, there's always the chance that I'm terribly wrong. I refer you to two books by Dr. Richard Rice that I am horrifically mis-paraphrasing: _The Openness of God_ and _God's Foreknowlege and Man's Freewill_. If you decide to read them, I'd be interested in your responses - you and Pen both.


The key question here is from what perspective events in the future can be said not to exist? From ours, certainly. But if God is outside of time then the future (from our perspective) is part of his eternal now.




> If all is now, then your future decisions are recorded in the eternal now. You don't make decisions. You fulfil the path to the future. Freewill doesn't make sense. Decision making isn't akin to freewill.


This is indeed the great problem for theologians. I will suggest that fulfilling your path is not mutually exclusive to free will. Especially if we allow for the possibility that God works from within us enabling us to be who we are. This is different from God compelling us to be some way.

----------


## Pendragon

> I do not believe so; if God exists in the eternal present, then my "future" decisions do not exist in a future to be known because there is no future for God: all is now. I believe God knows the beginning from the end historically and He may know of my ultimate fate - but He cannot know what does not exist to be known - i.e. my personal decisions. I think His perfectly intimate knowledge of me allows God to "know" how I am predispositioned to respond, but I do not believe He knows what I've yet to decide because the future does not exist to be known.
> 
> And, of course, there's always the chance that I'm terribly wrong. I refer you to two books by Dr. Richard Rice that I am horrifically mis-paraphrasing: _The Openness of God_ and _God's Foreknowlege and Man's Freewill_. If you decide to read them, I'd be interested in your responses - you and Pen both.


Well, Red. since you choose to throw me into this, I will do as Jesus once did. Explain to me these scriptures, and then I will entertain the assumption that God doesn't know what you have yet to decide.

St. John 6:

[70] Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
[71] He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

This was long before Judas betrayed him, for the Bible records it entered into his heart at the Last Supper.

----------


## atiguhya padma

> Well, Red. since you choose to throw me into this, I will do as Jesus once did. Explain to me these scriptures, and then I will entertain the assumption that God doesn't know what you have yet to decide.
> 
> St. John 6:
> 
> [70] Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
> [71] He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
> 
> This was long before Judas betrayed him, for the Bible records it entered into his heart at the Last Supper.


Yes. And Judas had no choice in the matter. He was condemned the moment Jesus dipped his bread in the broth.

----------


## mcvv09

Abrahams dillema carries the argument of ethics or faith. Under his pen name, Kierkegaard pretends to oppose Hegel's allignment of faith. However, in reality I think he sided with Hegel. Basically, Abraham's decision was one of utter amazement.

----------


## Nightshade

I have a question, what does the bible say _exactly_ about the story. And is it identical to the jewish account?
This is going back a few pages now but back to the whole tying up his son to kill him as far as I recall Abraham had a dream and it scared him and it was the son that told him the meaning and himself got the rope so that he wouldnt flinch.

It was about faith and trust... someone said that Abraham hadnt questioned God but he did when he asked God to show him some great mircale (so that his heart might truly be convinced) and God told him to chop up a pigeo and place a quarter on each hill and then it came back to life.

----------


## AngelEyes714

According to the NIV, KJV (old and new), and the NLT (as far as Christian Bible is concerned), Isaac knew nothing of the dream.

And the Bible says nothing about Abraham questioning the command. He took his son, and on the way his son even asked, here's the rope and the wood, but there is no lamb. And Abraham told him that God would provide.

So there would be no defense in the Christian Bible for what you are suggesting, Nightshade.

I don't know what the Hebrew torah would actually say...

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If all is now, then your future decisions are recorded in the eternal now. You don't make decisions. You fulfil the path to the future. Freewill doesn't make sense. Decision making isn't akin to freewill.


I'm very liable to put both feet in my mouth here because I start to lose my equilibrium when I start discussing time. I do not know how to conceptualize my entire life appearing in its complete length in the vision of God. As such, it might be stupid for me to defend that which may confuse me. But humanity MUST have freewill if the love of God is to mean anything, because the great cosmic war being played out here on earth is Satan's charge that God is not good - that people serve Him via fear of retribution or mercenary reasons (i.e. He bribes them with blessings); the idea that we do not have the choice to freely choose totally plays into Satan's charge ("See? God isn't love - He randomly picks His favorites"). Since the rest of the witnessing universe cannot read human hearts, and since it is God's character on trial, and since character is under question and others must speak in defense (i.e. the "character witness") it is our freely chosen decision to follow God that destroys Satan's charge and vindicates God's character - not to Satan or God, but to the other created beings of the universe. We MUST be able to choose - otherwise many things Paul said become merely lip-service.




> The key question here is from what perspective events in the future can be said not to exist? From ours, certainly. But if God is outside of time then the future (from our perspective) is part of his eternal now.


Right - but He didn't "know" them before they happened because such a configuration of time doesn't exist for Him.




> Well, Red. since you choose to throw me into this, I will do as Jesus once did. Explain to me these scriptures, and then I will entertain the assumption that God doesn't know what you have yet to decide.
> 
> St. John 6:
> 
> [70] Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
> [71] He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
> 
> This was long before Judas betrayed him, for the Bible records it entered into his heart at the Last Supper.


Hi Pen - I'm not sure how I "threw" you into anything here. 

I think I made it clear that God's intimate knowledge of His creations (surpassing the knowledge of a computer programmer's knowledge of the program he wrote) would mean that God's _anticipation_ of my choices and behavior is perfect - but knowledge? God has exhaustive knowledge of what exists - and may perfectly anticipate that which could exist - but He does not know that which does not exist to be known. God's perfect anticipation explains the ID of Judas as the betrayer (God's intimate knowledge of Judas' heart made it clear what his spiritual "trajectory" would be, just as He knew that Peter would survive his failures) - just as God knew that any action of His upon the heart of Pharoh in Exodus would "harden" his heart - hence the problematic phrase "God hardened Pharoh's heart."

----------


## Scheherazade

*R e m i n d e r

This thread is about 'Abraham's Dilemma.

Any off-topic posts or posts which fail to show respect towards others' beliefs/opinions will be deleted without any further notice.*

----------


## Nightshade

> According to the NIV, KJV (old and new), and the NLT (as far as Christian Bible is concerned), Isaac knew nothing of the dream.
> 
> And the Bible says nothing about Abraham questioning the command. He took his son, and on the way his son even asked, here's the rope and the wood, but there is no lamb. And Abraham told him that God would provide.
> 
> So there would be no defense in the Christian Bible for what you are suggesting, Nightshade.
> 
> I don't know what the Hebrew torah would actually say...



Ok it took me a while to find but I was right...in the Quaranic version of the story (37:102-37:112) it is Ishmael and not Issac that is to be sacrificed as it is his only son at the time and Ishmael was the older son. Abraham had the dream asked his son what he thought and the son says if God says do it do it. And then when Ishmael had id head on the chopping board Abraham was told to stop because this was the fullfilment of the vision and that they both passed with flying colours. And that they had been tried and found worthy of future tasks...it goes on to say that after this he ( abraham ) was given good tidings of a second son Issac.

----------


## Pendragon

To answer Red and stay on subject, Scheherazade, Abraham's choice was already known by God and so a ram was provided. To call God all-knowing and then think you can hide something from Him by not making up your mind yet, I cannot see. Others may feel free to believe what they may. Red asked me as well as Richard how to explain how God could know what had not yet been decided by an individual. He knows the hearts of men and their thoughts. Abraham makes an excellent example.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## RichardHresko

> Richard Hresko said:
> 
> <If God is perfect, then any change that occurred for God would make him something other than perfect>
> 
> But this then means that god is confined to a single act, a single thought. Change occurs through thought and action, so god surely cannot change one thought for another. Neither can he move from one act to another. Furthermore, he cannot act at all, or think at all. For in order for a godly act to occur, there has to be change from one state to another. In order for a godly thought to occur, god's mind has to move from one state to another, and so on. God cannot do anything in this universe without being subject to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all is now, then your future decisions are recorded in the eternal now. You don't make decisions. You fulfil the path to the future. Freewill doesn't make sense. Decision making isn't akin to freewill.



While it is true that thought and action can cause change, it need not do so. And God's thoughts and acts, though perceived by us as a series of revelations and acts in time, are not done by him sequentially.

----------


## Demian

I was always astounded by the assertion in Genesis that God felt grief in his heart over the creation of man (this verse just before the flood). This notion of regret when applied to God is very interesting when you bring time into it. In this sense, what would God have done if Abraham had chosen to spare his son? The notion of regret seems to imply a sense of waiting on man, of not knowing fully the outcome of the events about to unfold. There are many instances in the Prophets and Torah in which God relents either because of repentence or because of a prophet's request (though God has the final say).

----------


## Pendragon

Numbers 23: [19] God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

I will note here that we are in danger of getting off topic again. The point is God _knew_ Abraham would not change his mind. God spoke indeed of repenting that He ever made man, but you will note that man still exists. He did not just wipe man out as might have been expected if He was feed up with man. Punishment came, not total distruction.

----------


## atiguhya padma

> While it is true that thought and action can cause change, it need not do so. And God's thoughts and acts, though perceived by us as a series of revelations and acts in time, are not done by him sequentially.


Thought is change. Action is change. Explain to me how it is possible to think or act without change occurring.

----------


## Pendragon

> Thought is change. Action is change. Explain to me how it is possible to think or act without change occurring.


An excellent point. 

RichardHresko writes: <While it is true that thought and action can cause change, it need not do so.>

Taking Abraham, our subject as an example, how could it not? If Abraham says to God in Genesis 22 "Behold here I am." and then thinks, "What am I doing? This is madness! I am _not doing this!_" Would this not cause change? To think and act causes change both because we do something and because the rules are that action causes an equal and opposite reaction. Would God have blessed Abraham for the questioning as he did for the actions he did without question?

God Bless

Pen

----------


## RichardHresko

> Thought is change. Action is change. Explain to me how it is possible to think or act without change occurring.


According to the Aristotle's _Metaphysics_ the First Cause, by virtue of being the first caused is an unmoved mover. See Metaphysics XII.6 for some of the details. In essence God's thoughts and actions cause chenage in _others_ but not in God himself.




> An excellent point. 
> 
> RichardHresko writes: <While it is true that thought and action can cause change, it need not do so.>
> 
> Taking Abraham, our subject as an example, how could it not? If Abraham says to God in Genesis 22 "Behold here I am." and then thinks, "What am I doing? This is madness! I am _not doing this!_" Would this not cause change? To think and act causes change both because we do something and because the rules are that action causes an equal and opposite reaction. Would God have blessed Abraham for the questioning as he did for the actions he did without question?
> 
> God Bless
> 
> Pen


I was not clear. When I said that God's thoughts and actions did not cause change, I meant in _himself_. Clearly, his thoughts and actions cause the very existence and maintenance of the universe and prevent it from falling into nothingness (according to Aquinas). However, from God's perspective (very awkward here for me to use that phrase) his thoughts and actions are eternal. From a human standpoint they unfold in time.

----------


## Pendragon

> I was not clear. When I said that God's thoughts and actions did not cause change, I meant in _himself_. Clearly, his thoughts and actions cause the very existence and maintenance of the universe and prevent it from falling into nothingness (according to Aquinas). However, from God's perspective (very awkward here for me to use that phrase) his thoughts and actions are eternal. From a human standpoint they unfold in time.


Thank you for the explaination. On that note, Aquinis aside, I do not believe God thinks or acts in anyway that man could truely comprehend. 

Isaiah 55:

[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
[9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
[10] For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
[11] So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

When He spoke to Abraham, He had a definate purpose in it. And take 

Romans 9: [15] For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

This would bring us to the question of why Abraham in the first place? Wasn't there a lot of other people? And Lot down in Sodom and Gomorrah, wasn't there even more of his own children there? We cannot think like God, which I believe David Hume once said.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Demian

I could never adhere to the primary cause idea as being fully developed. Plato had a problem with the idea of God being immobile and only comprehending His own comprehension. I think it is more logical to say that God is the only One with absolute freedom. This kind of freedom can not truly be expressed by words since we have no experience to compare it to.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I was always astounded by the assertion in Genesis that God felt grief in his heart over the creation of man (this verse just before the flood). This notion of regret when applied to God is very interesting when you bring time into it. In this sense, what would God have done if Abraham had chosen to spare his son? The notion of regret seems to imply a sense of waiting on man, of not knowing fully the outcome of the events about to unfold. There are many instances in the Prophets and Torah in which God relents either because of repentence or because of a prophet's request (though God has the final say).


Imagine the subsequent change in our understanding and worship of God if instead, the story had recounted how Abraham, even before laying Isaac out on the altar or at the very latest as he raised the sacrificial dagger, had broken down in tears and said:

"I cannot do it, Lord! As deep as is my faith that you intend this for a good end, I cannot do this to my one and only blessed son..."

And if God had then responded: "I am glad to hear that, Abraham, my son, for I gave you a human heart, not a Godly one, and I desired you to use it with the love you have for your son as the love I have for you."

----------


## RichardHresko

> Thank you for the explaination. On that note, Aquinis aside, I do not believe God thinks or acts in anyway that man could truely comprehend. 
> 
> Isaiah 55:
> 
> [8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
> [9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
> [10] For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
> [11] So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
> 
> ...


And this ties in again to the notions of grace and predestination. In choosing a certain people and certain individuals God has bestowed grace without merit. The downside is that he witholds from others (as per Esau and Jacob). Thus, from a human human standpoint God is inequitable but not unfair.




> I could never adhere to the primary cause idea as being fully developed. Plato had a problem with the idea of God being immobile and only comprehending His own comprehension. I think it is more logical to say that God is the only One with absolute freedom. This kind of freedom can not truly be expressed by words since we have no experience to compare it to.


It is true that God is the only one without limits, and thus in that sense absolutely free. This however does not, of course, mean that humans are not free.

One can make strong arguments for the First Cause, such as that it solves the problem of an infinite regression of causes. It is certainly a viable possibility, though not the only possibility.




> Imagine the subsequent change in our understanding and worship of God if instead, the story had recounted how Abraham, even before laying Isaac out on the altar or at the very latest as he raised the sacrificial dagger, had broken down in tears and said:
> 
> "I cannot do it, Lord! As deep as is my faith that you intend this for a good end, I cannot do this to my one and only blessed son..."
> 
> And if God had then responded: "I am glad to hear that, Abraham, my son, for I gave you a human heart, not a Godly one, and I desired you to use it with the love you have for your son as the love I have for you."


The problem here, I think, is that had God accepted that he would have pointed mankind in the wrong direction for happiness. This is because he would have been sending people the message that true happiness can be found in perishable things. This alternate version of God would have been far crueler than the one presented in Genesis, I think.

----------


## atiguhya padma

> According to the Aristotle's _Metaphysics_ the First Cause, by virtue of being the first caused is an unmoved mover. See Metaphysics XII.6 for some of the details. In essence God's thoughts and actions cause chenage in _others_ but not in God himself.
> 
> 
> 
> I was not clear. When I said that God's thoughts and actions did not cause change, I meant in _himself_. Clearly, his thoughts and actions cause the very existence and maintenance of the universe and prevent it from falling into nothingness (according to Aquinas). However, from God's perspective (very awkward here for me to use that phrase) his thoughts and actions are eternal. From a human standpoint they unfold in time.


An unmoved mover makes no sense to me. I cannot see how thought can be changless, for one thought leads to another, one notion is replaced by another. In order to have changeless thought, you need static conditions, a single thought that cannot grow or revise or expand in any way whatsoever. I asked you to explain how that was possible and all you came back with was
<In essence God's thoughts and actions cause chenage in _others_ but not in God himself.> Is this supposed to be an explanation?




> I could never adhere to the primary cause idea as being fully developed. Plato had a problem with the idea of God being immobile and only comprehending His own comprehension. I think it is more logical to say that God is the only One with absolute freedom. This kind of freedom can not truly be expressed by words since we have no experience to compare it to.


Surely a freedom that cannot be expressed by words, is also a concept of freedom that cannot be imagined. A concept that can neither be imagined nor expressed is something I would call nonsense.

----------


## RichardHresko

[QUOTE=atiguhya padma;445730]An unmoved mover makes no sense to me. I cannot see how thought can be changless, for one thought leads to another, one notion is replaced by another. In order to have changeless thought, you need static conditions, a single thought that cannot grow or revise or expand in any way whatsoever. I asked you to explain how that was possible and all you came back with was
<In essence God's thoughts and actions cause chenage in _others_ but not in God himself.> Is this supposed to be an explanation?[end of quote here]

Change can only occur for something that can experience change. If something can experience change, then it is not fully whatever it can be. If it is not fully what it can be then it is not something of which it can said to be the essence of Being (since it is no longer pure being, but being and potential). But God, in order to be God, must be only actualized being. Therefore, God, if he exists, can not change.

Since God is outside time, because he is changeless, His thoughts do not occur in a sequential fashion, and do not proceeed from one to the next. To think otherwise is to anthropomorphize God.

"<In essence God's thoughts and actions cause chenage in _others_ but not in God himself.> Is this supposed to be an explanation?"

It was a clarification, since there was apparently some confusion over whether I meant that God's thoughts and actions changed _nothing_ or only did not change _himself_.

----------


## Demian

Surely a freedom that cannot be expressed by words, is also a concept of freedom that cannot be imagined. A concept that can neither be imagined nor expressed is something I would call nonsense.[/QUOTE]

I would clarify this only by saying that we could imagine it by comparing it to life on the 12th dimension in which length, width, depth and time are no longer restricive aspects of existence. We are infinitely more complex than a unicellular organism, but have we ever tried to hold an intelligent conversation with one? So what would freedom mean to that organism as opposed to our own concept of it?

----------


## atiguhya padma

> Surely a freedom that cannot be expressed by words, is also a concept of freedom that cannot be imagined. A concept that can neither be imagined nor expressed is something I would call nonsense.


I would clarify this only by saying that we could imagine it by comparing it to life on the 12th dimension in which length, width, depth and time are no longer restricive aspects of existence. We are infinitely more complex than a unicellular organism, but have we ever tried to hold an intelligent conversation with one? So what would freedom mean to that organism as opposed to our own concept of it?[/QUOTE]

Unless you are a mathematician or physicist, I would suggest that imagining life in the 12th dimension is at best so vague its not worth talking about. 

Anyone who tried to hold a conversation with a unicellular organism should be certified. 

Now, let us take your analogy further: we are asked to believe that the personal lives of us comparable unicellular organisms are of great interest to the supposed creator of the universe. Without wanting to upset anyone, I have to say that this all sounds like gobbledygook to me. Would you be interested in the personal day to day life of an amoeba?

[QUOTE=RichardHresko;446030]


> An unmoved mover makes no sense to me. I cannot see how thought can be changless, for one thought leads to another, one notion is replaced by another. In order to have changeless thought, you need static conditions, a single thought that cannot grow or revise or expand in any way whatsoever. I asked you to explain how that was possible and all you came back with was
> <In essence God's thoughts and actions cause chenage in _others_ but not in God himself.> Is this supposed to be an explanation?[end of quote here]
> 
> Change can only occur for something that can experience change. If something can experience change, then it is not fully whatever it can be. If it is not fully what it can be then it is not something of which it can said to be the essence of Being (since it is no longer pure being, but being and potential). But God, in order to be God, must be only actualized being. Therefore, God, if he exists, can not change.
> 
> Since God is outside time, because he is changeless, His thoughts do not occur in a sequential fashion, and do not proceeed from one to the next. To think otherwise is to anthropomorphize God.
> 
> "<In essence God's thoughts and actions cause chenage in _others_ but not in God himself.> Is this supposed to be an explanation?"
> 
> It was a clarification, since there was apparently some confusion over whether I meant that God's thoughts and actions changed _nothing_ or only did not change _himself_.


Well thanks for clarifying that.

Thought is a process. It requires change. As you say, change can only occur for something that can experience change. Despite the claims for god's omnipotence, it seems he or she cannot experience change. Therefore he or she cannot undergo the process of thought. Ditto for action. If we are to talk about thought and action, we must stick to the features of thought and action that everybody is aware of. We can't introduce some extra nature to thought and action, such that we can easily shrug off the problem of god's immutabilty. It just doesn't wash.

----------


## RichardHresko

[QUOTE=atiguhya padma;446362]




> Well thanks for clarifying that.
> 
> Thought is a process. It requires change. As you say, change can only occur for something that can experience change. Despite the claims for god's omnipotence, it seems he or she cannot experience change. Therefore he or she cannot undergo the process of thought. Ditto for action. If we are to talk about thought and action, we must stick to the features of thought and action that everybody is aware of. We can't introduce some extra nature to thought and action, such that we can easily shrug off the problem of god's immutabilty. It just doesn't wash.


There is no conflict between God's not changing and his omnipotence because God causes change without himself being changed. The difficulty with the analysis presented is that there is an inherent contradiction: we can not discuss what thought and action mean for _God_ while at the same time "stick to the features of thought and action that everybody is aware of." Your observation that assigning different modes of being to God not washing reflects this basic contradiction. This is why it is necessary to approach the subject from a metaphysical perspective, understanding what attributes would be appropriate for a "God" and then proceeding from there. It is inevitable if one assumes that God has to be like everything else that it "just doesn't wash."

----------


## atiguhya padma

[QUOTE=RichardHresko;446403]


> There is no conflict between God's not changing and his omnipotence because God causes change without himself being changed. The difficulty with the analysis presented is that there is an inherent contradiction: we can not discuss what thought and action mean for _God_ while at the same time "stick to the features of thought and action that everybody is aware of." Your observation that assigning different modes of being to God not washing reflects this basic contradiction. This is why it is necessary to approach the subject from a metaphysical perspective, understanding what attributes would be appropriate for a "God" and then proceeding from there. It is inevitable if one assumes that God has to be like everything else that it "just doesn't wash."


In other words, god cannot think and neither can god act, if by those two verbs we mean what everyone takes them to mean.

----------


## Pendragon

[QUOTE=atiguhya padma;446802]


> In other words, god cannot think and neither can god act, if by those two verbs we mean what everyone takes them to mean.


While I am wondering how Abraham's dilemma managed to turn into a discussion of whether or not God can think and act, and beginning to wonder about thread lockup, AP those words mean exactly what everyone takes them to mean. It is just that we do not easily understand God's thoughts and actions, for we see things from the viewpoint of now and the foreseeable future. God by definition sees things past, present, and to the end of time. His actions then, taken today, may not take full effect until years later.

It's a bit like computer programming. You run your program and get an error on say, line 85. A debugging check determines there is nothing wrong in the code up to that point. So why are you getting an error? Well, down on line 225 a single { is one space out of line. When the program reaches that point, it throws the error out on line 85. 

God can see that there will be a future event that will cause trouble if this past even isn't taken care of or vise-versa. So He thinks and acts to prevent it, in His way. 

You may know how some programmers fix code to the point that only they can debug it if something happens, giving them job security? God doesn't have to do that, He could do what ever crossed His mind, but he knows and acts accordingly.

Thus the ram supplied for Abraham. A point others may have missed. Where did the ram come from? If a ram were caught by the horns in a thicket, wouldn't any hunter tell you it would have made enough racket that Abraham would have noticed? So why did he not, until God told him to cease and desist? Could it be God just then placed the ram there? Would this not be an instance of thinking and acting on God's part?

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Granny5

Pen, that's the best explaination I've ever read. Thanks!

----------


## Pendragon

> Pen, that's the best explaination I've ever read. Thanks!


Quite welcome, but God gives the inspiration. I have computer programing skills and know how frustrated I used to get and think, "I wish I could see this whole thing on the screen, begining to end, then I'd know where I went wrong!" That's when it struck me that God can do that. Another example I use is Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. God never stopped them from going into the fire, but He made them fireproof!

God Bless

Pen

----------


## atiguhya padma

Pen,

Thanks for your reply. However, I feel it doesn't address the problem. The problem is that action requires movement from one position to another. This means change. Thought requires movement too. This also means change. If god cannot change, then he can neither act or think. My point has been that an act is something that has been done, it is an event requiring time. Actors operate within time, as do thinkers. The writing of my thoughts on this subject in this posting requires me to be in time. It requires me to act and to think and without being in time I can do neither. If I were dead, I would not be in time, but I also would not be able to act or to think. Your example of a computer programmer will not do what you want it to, for a computer programmer is very familiar with time, as is the code he uses. There are no examples you could use of anything that utlises action or thought that is not itself subject to time.

Sorry for diverting this topic, maybe this discussion could go on elsewhere.

----------


## Pendragon

> Pen,
> 
> Thanks for your reply. However, I feel it doesn't address the problem. The problem is that action requires movement from one position to another. This means change. Thought requires movement too. This also means change. If god cannot change, then he can neither act or think. My point has been that an act is something that has been done, it is an event requiring time. Actors operate within time, as do thinkers. The writing of my thoughts on this subject in this posting requires me to be in time. It requires me to act and to think and without being in time I can do neither. If I were dead, I would not be in time, but I also would not be able to act or to think. Your example of a computer programmer will not do what you want it to, for a computer programmer is very familiar with time, as is the code he uses. There are no examples you could use of anything that utlises action or thought that is not itself subject to time.
> 
> Sorry for diverting this topic, maybe this discussion could go on elsewhere.


As always, AP, I am willing to hear your side. There are times, mon ami, when I wish I were as dedicated to my own purpose as you seem to be to yours. Quarelling is useless, and I respect you too much to not listen and tell you you have made me think in ways I might never have done had we never crossed paths. One thing is certain: truth is out there. Sometimes I wonder if everyone must find it for themselves alone, for I see little true full agreement among men. We all take pieces and parts from one another. But I don't think any two people completely agree on everything.

God Bless, mon ami

Dale

----------


## RichardHresko

[QUOTE=atiguhya padma;446802]


> In other words, god cannot think and neither can god act, if by those two verbs we mean what everyone takes them to mean.


More accurately, any attempt to understand God's activity by comparison to human activity is done so by analogy (Aquinas) and so therefore can not be said to be fully accurate. It would be truer to say that God's acting and thinking are not constrained by the limitations that exist for temporal beings such as humans. This includes, but is not limited to, the idea that God is not required by his nature to think in a sequential fashion.

----------


## atiguhya padma

[QUOTE=RichardHresko;448386]


> More accurately, any attempt to understand God's activity by comparison to human activity is done so by analogy (Aquinas) and so therefore can not be said to be fully accurate. It would be truer to say that God's acting and thinking are not constrained by the limitations that exist for temporal beings such as humans. This includes, but is not limited to, the idea that God is not required by his nature to think in a sequential fashion.



I would say activity is activity. We all know what we mean by activity and it is defined in such a way that god cannot be active without being physical. So rather than not being fully accurate, our analogies, if they involve the concept of action, cannot be in any way accurate. It would be truer to say that action and thought cannot exist for anything outside time (although that seems a nonsense phrase to me, as being cannot exist in a non-temporal state as far as I am aware, and certainly the world of things cannot exist in non-temporality, so we are left to conclude that god cannot exist).

----------


## Pendragon

I would say it depends on how you view time. Is time linear, or is time co-existent? If time is linear, then you progress along the line and nothing could exist for which all time was the same. But if all time is co-existent, which we see the light from stars that may not even be there now, due to the time it takes the light to reach us, then a being could exist who existed in all of time at once, which would be God. That is my view, and I have never be afraid of being told I am wrong, or that my view sounds foolish. There are many things which this view of time would explain, what people call "ghosts", for example, could be a ripple in time. You are not seeing a ghost, but the past or perhaps the future. Thus God would know the end from the beginning, since God would exist in all time, all time being the same to Him being what makes time of no effect to God.

God Bless



Pen

----------


## RichardHresko

[QUOTE=atiguhya padma;457127]


> I would say activity is activity. We all know what we mean by activity and it is defined in such a way that god cannot be active without being physical. So rather than not being fully accurate, our analogies, if they involve the concept of action, cannot be in any way accurate. It would be truer to say that action and thought cannot exist for anything outside time (although that seems a nonsense phrase to me, as being cannot exist in a non-temporal state as far as I am aware, and certainly the world of things cannot exist in non-temporality, so we are left to conclude that god cannot exist).


I think you have put your finger on the key issue her. God cannot exist if he is constrained to act in a way consistent with beings limited with time. From that we may either conclude that he either has some other means of existence or does not exist at all. We all know what activity means for a being who acts within time, as you say. But if God were so constrained he would not be God since it would be possible for him to change. You are correct that we can not be aware (sensibly, at any rate, though we can intelligibly) of being existing in a non-temporal state. We are of course aware of beings that are non-temporal by use of our intellect. Numbers are a classic example of this. The claim that thinking must be sequential regardless of the nature of the being can only be defended if one can show that no other form of rational being other than a temporally-tied one exists.

One possible way to consider the nature of a God outside time is given by Boethius in his _Consolation of Philosophy_. In that book he offers a way to conceptualize God's eternal nature by describing God's existence as an eternal now. By this, I mean that for God all events occur simultaneously. This conception allows us to square his omniscience with our free will, and so on.

It is not correct to say that reason by analogy is necessarily not accurate at all. There are limitations, to be sure, and some analogies fail completely, but that cannot be determined _a priori_.

----------


## RichardHresko

Must activity imply physicality, Atiguhya maintains?

I would argue no, since, if we accept that there is such a thing as free will, we would almost necessarily would have to reject determinism, and in particular materialistic determinism. Free will causes activity in the material world without itself being material.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Pen + RichardHresko,

Firstly, I think light travelling from a dead star says nothing about time being co-existent. When we know the star isn't there, and we know its image is, this is all consistent with our understanding of linear time in our universe. If this phenomenon suggested that the star still existed somewhere, then you might have a case. But it doesn't.

Secondly, it is not a matter of god being constrained to act in the way we do. The matter is that god cannot act in the way we do. He is constrained by our constraints. So you are left with a desire to defend god's omnipotence by saying that he is not constrained by linear time because he is outside time whilst admitting that because he cannot be constrained by linear time, and therefore cannot operate in linear time, he is therefore not omnipotent.

Thirdly, the problem of freewill. Freewill is an illusion. We are beings that are formed by our environment. Either our decisions have psychological determinacy or they have genetic or biological determinacy. It is our minds that convince us that we make free decisions (and so it should, it is in our own interests to believe it). I cannot imagine what a free decision would be like. All our decisions have the accumulation of experience influencing them; they have the pressures of time and place influencing them; they have social pressures influencing them. I cannot see any room for free decisions. The nearest we get to making free decisions is when we manifest spontaneous, erratic, uncoordinated and irrational behaviour. But even then we are influenced by some kind of history, whether biological, psychological or social. So I cannot see where freewill can operate. Neither do I think that freewill, if it existed, would be non-material. Nothing can exist in this universe other than matter. This was the problem in the first place. god cannot operate in the universe because he would be constrained by time and space. If god can't then neither can some form of non-material freewill I'm afraid.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Pen + RichardHresko,
> 
> Firstly, I think light travelling from a dead star says nothing about time being co-existent. When we know the star isn't there, and we know its image is, this is all consistent with our understanding of linear time in our universe. If this phenomenon suggested that the star still existed somewhere, then you might have a case. But it doesn't.
> 
> Secondly, it is not a matter of god being constrained to act in the way we do. The matter is that god cannot act in the way we do. He is constrained by our constraints. So you are left with a desire to defend god's omnipotence by saying that he is not constrained by linear time because he is outside time whilst admitting that because he cannot be constrained by linear time, and therefore cannot operate in linear time, he is therefore not omnipotent.
> 
> Thirdly, the problem of freewill. Freewill is an illusion. We are beings that are formed by our environment. Either our decisions have psychological determinacy or they have genetic or biological determinacy. It is our minds that convince us that we make free decisions (and so it should, it is in our own interests to believe it). I cannot imagine what a free decision would be like. All our decisions have the accumulation of experience influencing them; they have the pressures of time and place influencing them; they have social pressures influencing them. I cannot see any room for free decisions. The nearest we get to making free decisions is when we manifest spontaneous, erratic, uncoordinated and irrational behaviour. But even then we are influenced by some kind of history, whether biological, psychological or social. So I cannot see where freewill can operate. Neither do I think that freewill, if it existed, would be non-material. Nothing can exist in this universe other than matter. This was the problem in the first place. god cannot operate in the universe because he would be constrained by time and space. If god can't then neither can some form of non-material freewill I'm afraid.


I have no comment on the first point.

The second point contains some problems. First, if there is a God who has created the world _ex nihilo_ and does so by his will and not by necessity (I mention this to distinguish the argument here from pure neo-Platonism), then it is hard to see that such a being would be constrained by the constraints of his creatures. Secondly, to state that he is not constrained by linear time does not mean that he cannot act within linear time, as Boethius pointed out in _Consolation of Philosophy_ and as I mentioned in my previous post on the subject. Therefore your conclusion does not follow until you can bridge the gaps on these two issues.

The third point has a fallacy built into it, and also an assumption. The fallacy is that if there is an influence then the will is not totally free and therefore it is not free at all. No one claims nor needs to claim that free will must be exercised in a vacuum. This is a straw man argument.

The assumption you make is that the world consists solely of material objects. There is nothing wrong with having this assumption, but it is certainly not a settled matter.

----------


## Pendragon

Ap, mon ami, I do have a comment on the first point. I didn't say the star was no longer there, but that it _may_ no longer be there. I have no problems with God's existence period. With me, every scientific point is further proof of design in the universe, not chance. But I am willing to allow others to believe as they see fit, while other question how someone like myself who is obviously intelligent can believe as I do. I am a person who has studied wildlife and plants in ways many scientists would and do. I know they change over time and that change takes less time than one would suppose, for I am only 47, and the climate here has changed drastically, and I watch the animals and plants start doing things different. Call it evolution and I won't argue, for it is that indeed. 

But in many a chemical reaction, there is a chemical that while it will not wind up as part of the result, must be there to _trigger_ the result. We call this a catalyst. I call the catalyst behind the universe and evolution God. Without the trigger, nothing happens. And knowing you will disagree, AP, I accept your disagreement in advance. We remain as dear friends, the point being that you take one path and I another, but we remain human, and able to hike a trail and enjoy nature regardless of how we think it got here.

And now this thread had best get back to Abraham some way or other. A point would be why it names Isaac as his "only son". He was the father if Ishmael as well...

----------


## RichardHresko

Let's couple what we have been saying about the Nature of God to the Abraham story. I'll pose what I feel are the salient questions and my own responses to them. This is not intended to limit the discussion or to put down a definitive answer, but only to clarify my positions.

1. Was God 'playing a game' with Abraham?
No. God experienced Abraham in the now of Abraham's moment. That god also expereinced as the present the rest of time is part of His omniscience and does not in any way detract from this encounter.

2. What was the purpose of the 'test'?
We have to consider both in terms of Abraham and for us. For Abraham it was the acknowledgement that all comes from God as a gift and everyting is owed to him. And also that faith and love will lead him to trust God. For us the point of the story includes what Abraham displayed and also the reminder that nothing in the material world can make us truly happy since it will all pass away. True happiness is to love this world through God, meaning that we use his creation to grow in loving of He who created. Too deep an attachment causes us misery, and is sin (Augustine, Confessions, Book IV).

3. Should Abraham had said 'no'?
No. Because if he had he would have valued a creation that will die eventually over eternal happiness.

4. Did God have the right to ask for the sacrifice?
Yes. Since all comes from him, all belongs to him. He has no obligation to his creation. The fact that he loves his creation is evidence of his grace and not a sign that he is indebted or obligated to it. This reminds me of a line of Mark Twain's (not notorious as a theologian) "The world owes you nothing. It was here first." Since God existed before the world...

----------


## atiguhya padma

RichardHresko,

Regarding your above point 3. Any father that would regard his own eternal happiness above the life of his son is something less than a father in my eyes. 

being a creator does not give you instant authority over your creation. I can see no moral right for a creator to do what he will with his creation. Supposing a proof is developed that shows that there is no god. From thence forward all parents become creators. Do they have a moral right to do what they will with their creations?

Your point about god and abraham's experienc of time doesn't make any sense to me. An omniscient god who knows the outcome of an event he has schemed up is just playing a game if he claims to be testing his subject. The game seems to be designed to teach Abraham something, for god it is a foregone conclusion, he knows what the outcome will be. For Abraham, if he is clever, he will know what the outcome will be too, for he knows what god can and cannot do under the traditional definitions of his attributes. So Abraham is either ignorant or going through the motions.

If the atheist is right, and there is no god, then any contemporary or future Abrahams need to be locked up and given medication. There is no significant reason why we should believe in god. We have no accepted evidence of his existence and plenty of evidence that would contradict his perfect book. So we are left deciding the fate of Abraham's mental diagnosis on whether we can believe something that most rational thinking people would consider outrageous: that there is a personal god that takes an interest on a daily basis in those that believe in him (and some would claim those that don't).

Regarding freewill: you should read Benjamin Libet's scientific paper Do We Have Freewill? where he shows that his experiments prove that the brain makes decisions before we are consciously aware of them.

----------


## RichardHresko

> RichardHresko,
> 
> Regarding your above point 3. Any father that would regard his own eternal happiness above the life of his son is something less than a father in my eyes. 
> 
> being a creator does not give you instant authority over your creation. I can see no moral right for a creator to do what he will with his creation. Supposing a proof is developed that shows that there is no god. From thence forward all parents become creators. Do they have a moral right to do what they will with their creations?
> 
> Your point about god and abraham's experienc of time doesn't make any sense to me. An omniscient god who knows the outcome of an event he has schemed up is just playing a game if he claims to be testing his subject. The game seems to be designed to teach Abraham something, for god it is a foregone conclusion, he knows what the outcome will be. For Abraham, if he is clever, he will know what the outcome will be too, for he knows what god can and cannot do under the traditional definitions of his attributes. So Abraham is either ignorant or going through the motions.
> 
> If the atheist is right, and there is no god, then any contemporary or future Abrahams need to be locked up and given medication. There is no significant reason why we should believe in god. We have no accepted evidence of his existence and plenty of evidence that would contradict his perfect book. So we are left deciding the fate of Abraham's mental diagnosis on whether we can believe something that most rational thinking people would consider outrageous: that there is a personal god that takes an interest on a daily basis in those that believe in him (and some would claim those that don't).
> ...


The difficulty with your position on Abraham's quality as a parent is that it fails to take into account two things: Abraham's love for Isaac can not ultimately save Isaac from death, and that Isaac's eternal happiness is not affected in this matter.

God's omniscience does not force Abraham into any action since his omniscience derives from his eternality. Consider this, if you see a cat playing with a bit of string you have immediate knowledge of the cat's action. Your immediate _knowledge_ of the cat's action does not cause the cat to act in the way it does, and is not a puppeteer's game. God's eternal being is such that all moments in time are 'now' for him. The difficulty with your position is that you are assuming that God experiences _within_ time and has foreknowledge. This is not the proper way to consider the situation.

Your third point has two problems as well. The first is that a moral responsibility comes into being when there is an obligation of one party towards the other. God is not obligated to his creation for anything, hence there is no responsibility. This is at the basis of the doctrine of grace, in which God bestows any blessings freely, that is, he is not obliged to do so, no matter what our works may be. So yes, being the creator DOES give God authority. The second problem is a confusion over what precisely is meant by 'creator.' Parents are NOT the creators of their children, since they did not bring them into being _ex nihilo_. They merely procreated the children. Given the confusion the remainder of the argument fails.

I have not read Libet's paper. Please post a citation. The following response is directed at your presentation of Libet's results. Let's assume, for sake of argument, that he has proven that one comes to a decision before one is conscious of having made the decision. What impact does this have on free will? You are conflating 'free will' with 'conscious will' without justification.

I would argue that philosophically speaking the jury is out on the existence of God. The case has not been proven either way.

That the Bible should not be taken literally is certainly not a new position, and addresses the 'problem' of contradictory accounts in the text. Consult Ambrose's sermons, or Augustine (e.g. _Confessions_ Books V and VI). Certainly I agree with you that a fundamentalist position on the factual truth of the Bible in all its particulars is untenable, but that is neither here nor there in this argument.

----------


## atiguhya padma

> The difficulty with your position on Abraham's quality as a parent is that it fails to take into account two things: Abraham's love for Isaac can not ultimately save Isaac from death, and that Isaac's eternal happiness is not affected in this matter.
> 
> God's omniscience does not force Abraham into any action since his omniscience derives from his eternality. Consider this, if you see a cat playing with a bit of string you have immediate knowledge of the cat's action. Your immediate _knowledge_ of the cat's action does not cause the cat to act in the way it does, and is not a puppeteer's game. God's eternal being is such that all moments in time are 'now' for him. The difficulty with your position is that you are assuming that God experiences _within_ time and has foreknowledge. This is not the proper way to consider the situation.
> 
> Your third point has two problems as well. The first is that a moral responsibility comes into being when there is an obligation of one party towards the other. God is not obligated to his creation for anything, hence there is no responsibility. This is at the basis of the doctrine of grace, in which God bestows any blessings freely, that is, he is not obliged to do so, no matter what our works may be. So yes, being the creator DOES give God authority. The second problem is a confusion over what precisely is meant by 'creator.' Parents are NOT the creators of their children, since they did not bring them into being _ex nihilo_. They merely procreated the children. Given the confusion the remainder of the argument fails.
> 
> 
> I have not read Libet's paper. Please post a citation. The following response is directed at your presentation of Libet's results. Let's assume, for sake of argument, that he has proven that one comes to a decision before one is conscious of having made the decision. What impact does this have on free will? You are conflating 'free will' with 'conscious will' without justification.
> 
> ...


Abraham shows no concern for Isaac's life. He cannot know anything about Isaac'c eternal happiness

A cat playing with a string is not equivalent to the Abraham and Isaac story. You would need to say that I had provided the string for the cat to play with, if it is to be similar to the Abraham story. In which case it is then largely a question of puppetering. God's role in the Abraham story is that of a gamemaster, playing out some fantasy with his players.

Creation ex-nihilo is meaningless. Postulating god as an existent is not an answer to the question where the world came from. Besides, the Big Bang theory plays the same game: before the big bang there was neither time nor space and therefore, the big bang is creation from nothing (without the need to postulate something ludicrous like god). If there is a god, then I think he is obligated to his creation. He would have created the universe and life for a reason, whilst we provide something towards that reason, then he is obligated towards us. Besides, we cannot talk about divine morality because we can only talk about human morality. So it is meaningless to bring up some logical argument based on observations of human morality and then claim that this applies to divine morality. Furthermore, all talk about deities is meaningless too, as we cannot possibly know anything about them.

I would say that philosophy has wasted far too much time talking about a concept which will never have any evidence to support it. That is why 20th century luminaries like A J Ayer and Wittgenstein couldn't be bothered to discuss such primitive notions as god anymore.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Abraham shows no concern for Isaac's life. He cannot know anything about Isaac'c eternal happiness
> 
> A cat playing with a string is not equivalent to the Abraham and Isaac story. You would need to say that I had provided the string for the cat to play with, if it is to be similar to the Abraham story. In which case it is then largely a question of puppetering. God's role in the Abraham story is that of a gamemaster, playing out some fantasy with his players.
> 
> Creation ex-nihilo is meaningless. Postulating god as an existent is not an answer to the question where the world came from. Besides, the Big Bang theory plays the same game: before the big bang there was neither time nor space and therefore, the big bang is creation from nothing (without the need to postulate something ludicrous like god). If there is a god, then I think he is obligated to his creation. He would have created the universe and life for a reason, whilst we provide something towards that reason, then he is obligated towards us. Besides, we cannot talk about divine morality because we can only talk about human morality. So it is meaningless to bring up some logical argument based on observations of human morality and then claim that this applies to divine morality. Furthermore, all talk about deities is meaningless too, as we cannot possibly know anything about them.
> 
> I would say that philosophy has wasted far too much time talking about a concept which will never have any evidence to support it. That is why 20th century luminaries like A J Ayer and Wittgenstein couldn't be bothered to discuss such primitive notions as god anymore.


Abraham would have reflected that Isaac's eternal happiness, like everyone else's, depends on the understanding that this life, by its very nature, is less good than the life to come. See, for example, _Confessions_ Book IV. The error in your comment is the assumption that this life has supreme value. At minimum one could say the question is open, and thus have avoided a doctrinnaire statement.

The point of the cat with a string story is that merely witnessing an event does not, in itself, mean that one forces the event to occur. Since God exists in an eternal now he witnesses all events as in the present, and no more forces anyone to act than any other witness. That he can interact in what is for him an eternal now with a temporally constrained creature is not precluded, and is not puppeteering.

Creatio ex nihilo is a perfectly respectable position. Big bang is not the same thing since the universe is not created from nothing in that theory, but from a singularity of infinite density. 

Merely declaring terms "meaningless" (when they, in fact, do have a meaning, whether you feel the object set of real things contains what is designated by the term or not) and concepts as "ludicrous" with nothing other than your opinion to back them is hardly in the spirit of an exchange of ideas and reasoned positions. You should retract such statements.

You have not offered any reason why God should be bound by what you would like the universe to be like.

What we can and cannot know about the nature of God has a long literature. It is probably an ill-advised position to dismiss it out-of-hand without having taken the effort to acquaint oneself with it. You could begin with Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Avicenna, Ockham, and Averroes. That will get you, with some major gaps, to the 15th Century.

Ayer was predominantly interested in epistemology, not metaphysics. Wittgenstein is far more complicated than that, and it would take a whole other thread and forum to deal with him. 

I look forward to the reference to the article you mentioned earlier.

----------


## atiguhya padma

I have done more than read most of the philosophers you mention, I have in fact studied them as part of my degree, so don't give me that holier than thou rubbish, as if you are some kind of authority. you assume you know more than me. As usual, you are speaking nonsense.

God is a concept. You go around speaking about god as if we are talking about something that is real. The onus is therefore on you to provide the proof. But no doubt you will continue to talk about divine morality as if you know something. You forgot to also mention Descartes, although he was merely a paraphraser of Anselm, both of whom were talking nonsense, using rhetoric to try and logically prove god's existence. They failed. As you will. So I eagerly await your proof of god's existence. Maybe you should read Wittgenstein and dust those cobwebs from your mind. Living with medieval and early modern philosophers is rather a sad place to be. I suggest you update yourself a little, otherwise you might get lost in irrelevant modes of thought.

----------


## RichardHresko

> I have done more than read most of the philosophers you mention, I have in fact studied them as part of my degree, so don't give me that holier than thou rubbish, as if you are some kind of authority. you assume you know more than me. As usual, you are speaking nonsense.
> 
> God is a concept. You go around speaking about god as if we are talking about something that is real. The onus is therefore on you to provide the proof. But no doubt you will continue to talk about divine morality as if you know something. You forgot to also mention Descartes, although he was merely a paraphraser of Anselm, both of whom were talking nonsense, using rhetoric to try and logically prove god's existence. They failed. As you will. So I eagerly await your proof of god's existence. Maybe you should read Wittgenstein and dust those cobwebs from your mind. Living with medieval and early modern philosophers is rather a sad place to be. I suggest you update yourself a little, otherwise you might get lost in irrelevant modes of thought.


I will note that my position is that the philosophical case on God's existence is unproven in either direction. This was stated clearly in an earlier post. In all of these discussions I have taken the tack that if God were real he would have to have certain attributes, and based my comments on them. So obviously, given the structure of the argument, I must proceed as though he were real.

That being said, for reasons that should be obvious given the tone of your remarks to me, I will no longer respond to your posts.

----------


## Thinkerr

The proof of God would most likely be shown in the form of "miracles". Many, many people over the ages have, or at least claim to have, seen miraculous sights or incidents. There are reports of people being saved from certainly lethal circumstances as if by angels, or the hand of God. For instance I have a friend who I was hiking with in the Rockies. We were going a long a track high above a river, when a boulder he had jumped on for fun came loose and fell away over a sheer cliff. He fell almost straight down a 300ft cliff, but hit the side twice, flipping over in the air as he fell. I scrambled back down the trail as fast as I could back down to the river's level, and what do I find but him sitting on the bank soaked but with no more damage than a skinned knee!
If that doesn't prove there aren't miracles still today I don't know what will!

----------


## atiguhya padma

The body is incredibly elastic. It is also very fragile. How you recover, if you do, from a fall, depends very much on your bodily reactions prior to hitting the ground. If you tense up, you are going to break bones. If you manage to remain supple, the chances are you will recover. The chances are far better of recovering from a 300 ft fall from a mountain, than there being a god. Imagine how phenomenal the chances are that there is a god. The calculation, if it can be made, would use figures that are astronomical. Hume put paid to the miracles argument over 200 years ago.

I knew someone who fell off a mountain, a similar distance, and landed on his back on a rock. He was a climber who went out without ropes. He broke a number of bones in his body, had a collapsed lung, and several internal injuries, but didn't break his back. Months later, he got off his bed and walked out of the hospital. He didn't go around saying it was a miracle, and would have scoffed at the idea. Have you ever seen Touching the Void? Some would say the survival of that climber was a miracle. But what they really mean is, it was fortunate or lucky. There is a slim chance that the atoms that make up my keyboard could all fall through my table through some form of osmosis. There is a mathematical chance of that happening. If it did happen, I would be shocked, but I would not call it a miracle.

----------


## Thinkerr

I agree with the fact that there is a chance that even when a person has hit the ground from 300ft up they will get out with only minor injuries. But after hitting the cliff on the way down, there would at least be gashes where the skin or clothing touched the cliff. All that he had was a skinned knee. Also the chances of only minor injuries and no broken bones are very low.

----------


## RichardHresko

For an event to be miraculous there generally has to be more than merely improbability involved. Many would consider that there must be some purpose for the event in terms of displaying either God's favor, or intention. Thus, Abraham's finding the ram in the story in Genesis around which this particular thread is based would be considered miraculous, though the entanglement of a ram in a bush may not be so unusual in and of itself.

Thus an improbable event, no matter how striking, may not be miraculous, while a common event may be.

This also raises the question of understanding. As Augustine noted in _On free choice of the will_ faith must precede understanding, even in secular matters.

----------


## atiguhya padma

> I agree with the fact that there is a chance that even when a person has hit the ground from 300ft up they will get out with only minor injuries. But after hitting the cliff on the way down, there would at least be gashes where the skin or clothing touched the cliff. All that he had was a skinned knee. Also the chances of only minor injuries and no broken bones are very low.


Low maybe, but much higher than the possibility it was a miracle, and very very much higher than the possibility there is a god who created a miracle

----------


## atiguhya padma

Miracles don't happen whether they are preceded by faith or not.

----------


## kari

This is an interesting topic. I always find it amazing when I hear people talk about "proof" of God's existence. You know right in the asking, or calculating, that they truly don't really understand what God is about. You can't prove or disprove Him, simply because that is how it was intended. If God could be proved, then what would be the point of faith?

You need to read scriptures, do a bit of praying. And if in the end you decide God isn't there, that is your choice. That doesn't mean that another's faith is false...that they don't "see".

----------


## RichardHresko

Faith must precede understanding, regardless of the nature of the material one seeks to understand. How does one even know who one's parents are, unless one has faith in either the parents or the process of DNA testing (coupled with faith that people are telling one the right information about the test, and so on)? Minus the DNA part, that was Augustine's point in Book I of _Confessions_.

Kari makes an excellent point that to a large extent, believing is seeing. Kari also is right in pointing out that the clarity of one's vision is dependent on the depth of reflection one does, whether one calls it meditation, contemplation, thinking or prayer. Black and white, "yes there is, no there isn't" judgments about complex issues are a warning that one is not looking deeply enough. As H. L. Mencken once noted, "For every complicated problem there is a simple, obvious solution that is invariably wrong."

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> This is an interesting topic. I always find it amazing when I hear people talk about "proof" of God's existence. You know right in the asking, or calculating, that they truly don't really understand what God is about.


In the same spirit, you know as soon as someone speaks of someone else's lack of understanding, that she means that _her_ understandingis the only true and correct one. 




> You can't prove or disprove Him, simply because that is how it was intended.


Intended? But by whom? By the God of whom one reads in the anthology of writings that have been codified as a "Holy Book"? Codified by councils of fallible men acting according to what they believed was Divine inspiration. 




> If God could be proved, then what would be the point of faith?


Indeed, what _is_ the point of faith? One requires it of one's children because, presumably, they cannot understand the reason behind this or that thing that they are commanded or forbidden to do, but eventually one must allow them to form their own judgments, even to make their own mistakes and to learn from them. But when will we - acting as if we were 'God's' agents - relieve ourselves of the necessity to follow ancient parental commandments and begin instead to learn from our own mistakes, e.g. the Inquisition, the Crusades, the religious wars?

----------


## Whifflingpin

"e.g. the Inquisition, the Crusades, the religious wars?"

Is there an equivalent of Godwin's Law to end discussions in this forum when these three are irrelevantly dragged in to a thread?

----------


## kari

Princemyshkin:
All I meant was, interesting for people to be saying there's no proof of God. But yes, in scriptures, where most find reference of Him, it explains that He was not intended to be proven. It is based on faith. And I was not by any means saying that what I said is the right way. If you read my post, I don't say what I believe at all. I just explain, that through the Bible- God was not intended to be literally, visually, in the flesh seen by everyone. Belief in Him is on faith. So when people do try to say there is no proof, doesn't make sense. Because if God is true, and true to what the Bible explains, you can't prove Him anyways. And I think there are plenty of people that learn from their mistakes, that consider themselves Christian, and read the Bible. Like I said, it is not all about literal, face value. You have to look deeper. To "see" God in your life, and to understand the messages in scripture. But this is all my own opinions! 
RichardHresko: Of course you need to have somewhat of an understanding to have faith in something. That would be a bit impossible to have faith in God if you have never even heard of him.
Kari

----------


## RichardHresko

> In the same spirit, you know as soon as someone speaks of someone else's lack of understanding, that she means that _her_ understandingis the only true and correct one. 
> 
> 
> 
> Intended? But by whom? By the God of whom one reads in the anthology of writings that have been codified as a "Holy Book"? Codified by councils of fallible men acting according to what they believed was Divine inspiration. 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, what _is_ the point of faith? One requires it of one's children because, presumably, they cannot understand the reason behind this or that thing that they are commanded or forbidden to do, but eventually one must allow them to form their own judgments, even to make their own mistakes and to learn from them. But when will we - acting as if we were 'God's' agents - relieve ourselves of the necessity to follow ancient parental commandments and begin instead to learn from our own mistakes, e.g. the Inquisition, the Crusades, the religious wars?


It does not follow that if one points out a lack of understanding in someone that one is immediately asserting that one's own understanding is the "only true and correct one." That's a false dichotomy. One need not claim a monopoly on truth to recognize that Pol Pot "lacked understanding." 

Faith, like it or not, is a prerequisite for _any_ form of understanding. As was pointed out earlier we must have some faith in our own ability to perceive, as well as in others to tell us the truth otherwise there is no possibility of obtaining any knowledge at all. Radical skepticism is a losing proposition epistemologically because if carried through to its logical conclusion one would be unable to use language to communicate at all.




> Princemyshkin:
> 
> RichardHresko: Of course you need to have somewhat of an understanding to have faith in something. That would be a bit impossible to have faith in God if you have never even heard of him.
> Kari


True, but in order to have that understanding needed in order to have the faith you must have faith that the understanding you are presented with is true.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"But yes, in scriptures, where most find reference of Him, it explains that He was not intended to be proven. It is based on faith."

Really? Where? There is certainly the phrase "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test." But there are also many instances in which the existence and power of God are offered up for proof - the contest between Yahweh pp Elijah and Baal pp priests is a good Old Testament example. Jesus' miracles as described in John's Gospel are a good New Testament example. I say John's description, because he explicitly calls them "signs" i.e. "evidence."

I suspect that the idea that God is unprovable first became popular in the nineteenth century. (Please note, I did not say "was first mooted in the niniteenth century")

----------


## RichardHresko

The question of the provability of God's existence, or at least the provability of the existence of a Judeo-Christian God on philosophical grounds was probably first broached by St. Anselm is his _Proslogion_ in the 11th Century.

----------


## Pendragon

And in the meanwhile, the subject of Abraham's Delimma having been cast to the wind in favor of other topics, I move that the thread be closed, as the rules state. We are so far off the topic that no one is even mentioning Abraham, the delimma of his decission, or anything like it. What seems to be the topic is whether or not God exists or miricles take place. Close this thread and start another to discuss those subjects if you have lost intrest in Abraham. Move to close thread, Logos.

----------


## RichardHresko

A key issue in the reading of "Abraham's Dilemma" is, as has been demonstrated by this thread, the approach one takes to reading Scripture. Augustine, is _de doctrina christiana_ Book I, makes the point that the first and foremost rule to bear in mind is that nothing in the Bible should be construed as violating the double law of love: to love God with one's heart, mind and soul, and to love one's neighbor as oneself.

In considering other readings what have we observed that has given us value?

----------


## Pendragon

I take a very serious approach to the reading of scripture, else I would not be an ordained Minister. There is always value in learning from anyone who has anything to share, and I've never met a person I who left me without sharing something. Nevertheless, the subject is Abraham's Delimma, and we have been off topic for some time. By the rules, the thread should close. If we wish to discuss other writings or other topics, new threads should be opened with stated purpose. Move to close thread, Richard, as per rules.

----------


## Wintermute

Didn't God give Abraham a goat to sacrifice instead of Isaac? How is it considered sacrifice if its not your animal that you're killing? I never did understand the idea of sacrifice--it really does seem counter-productive.

----------


## RichardHresko

> I take a very serious approach to the reading of scripture, else I would not be an ordained Minister. There is always value in learning from anyone who has anything to share, and I've never met a person I who left me without sharing something. Nevertheless, the subject is Abraham's Delimma, and we have been off topic for some time. By the rules, the thread should close. If we wish to discuss other writings or other topics, new threads should be opened with stated purpose. Move to close thread, Richard, as per rules.


My intent in mentioning Augustine's take on reading and interpreting Scripture was meant to be a general remark about the various ways this particular passage has been treated, and certainly was not meant as a criticism. I felt that bringing to light a guideline offered by perhaps the greatest shaper of Christian doctrine after St. Paul would help us regain focus.

Given Augustine's advice, how best can we interpret the actions of both God and Abraham in this passage in light of the two-fold commandment of love?

----------


## RichardHresko

> Didn't God give Abraham a goat to sacrifice instead of Isaac? How is it considered sacrifice if its not your animal that you're killing? I never did understand the idea of sacrifice--it really does seem counter-productive.


That is a profound question.

One possible answer, among others, is that it is impossible to offer anything that is truly ours to God, since all we have is given to us by God. 

The one excpetion to that may be our will, which God has made free. Leaving aside the question of how we have hobbled our free will by sin (original or otherwise), perhaps the only thing we can offer to God is ultimately our will, of which a sacrifice is a sign.

As I have said, there are other possible interpretations here.

----------


## Pendragon

Well, then, being back on subject, yes, beside Augustines interpretation on the subject of Abrahams sacrifice dilemma, I would say there are as many interpretations as there are theologians. The difficulty of getting people to agree can be seen in the vast amount of churches that still claim to all be Christian, while disagreeing on almost everything. Even the Catholic Church with the succession of infallible Popes; often one Pope would change what a prior Pope had issued as a Papal Bull.

Yet the problem is simple enough: Did Abraham act on free will or not? Did he actually have a choice, i.e., could he have said, Are you off it? No way! I believe he could have, and chose not to do so, but acted in the belief that God knew what He was doing. 

Another may say, Of course he didnt have any choice. Free will is something we dont have. Everything is already decided as to how it will work. OK. Believe that way. 

Another may say, Since God cannot exist, the whole thing is a moot question. OK. You can believe that way. 

End of argument, no one is going to change how they believe. Fractured churches tells us that. So Abrahams dilemma is solved, it is only a dilemma to those who make it one.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Well, then, being back on subject, yes, beside Augustines interpretation on the subject of Abrahams sacrifice dilemma, I would say there are as many interpretations as there are theologians. The difficulty of getting people to agree can be seen in the vast amount of churches that still claim to all be Christian, while disagreeing on almost everything. Even the Catholic Church with the succession of infallible Popes; often one Pope would change what a prior Pope had issued as a Papal Bull.
> 
> Yet the problem is simple enough: Did Abraham act on free will or not? Did he actually have a choice, i.e., could he have said, Are you off it? No way! I believe he could have, and chose not to do so, but acted in the belief that God knew what He was doing. 
> 
> Another may say, Of course he didnt have any choice. Free will is something we dont have. Everything is already decided as to how it will work. OK. Believe that way. 
> 
> Another may say, Since God cannot exist, the whole thing is a moot question. OK. You can believe that way. 
> 
> End of argument, no one is going to change how they believe. Fractured churches tells us that. So Abrahams dilemma is solved, it is only a dilemma to those who make it one.


The point is perhaps not so much to have people to agree as to encourage study. Augustine also points out in _de doctrina christiana_ Book I that a) God deliberately creates difficult passages to, among other things, inflame our desire to know Him, and b) to keep us from being bored. So consensus is hardly required for this exercise to be of value.

Secondly, I think that this also points out to the need for careful study of not only the Bible but the learned commentaries over the centuries. While there are many opinions few would argue that all are of equal weight. While there are points of disagreement even between scholars, the overall consistency is remarkable. An entirely ahistorical approach is more likely to lead to fracture (and most probably serious error) than one rooted in orthodoxy, given the benefit of literally centuries of careful prayer, meditation and thought that have molded orthodox thought. Even Luther and Calvin recognized the importance of the Church fathers, especially Augustine.

Thirdly, to clear a misconception about papal infallibility: Papal infallibility is the doctrine that the pope can not err in the pronouncement of a matter of faith crucial to the salvation of souls in such a way that those who follow his teaching are damned. This has nothing whatsoever with the subjects of the vast majority of papal bulls. The question of whether the bulls themselves are contradictory is beyond the scope of this thread.

To return to the value of continuing the discussion, as Augustine pointed out, the purpose of studying scripture and thinking about it is love.

----------


## Pendragon

> Thirdly, to clear a misconception about papal infallibility: Papal infallibility is the doctrine that the pope can not err in the pronouncement of a matter of faith crucial to the salvation of souls in such a way that those who follow his teaching are damned. This has nothing whatsoever with the subjects of the vast majority of papal bulls. The question of whether the bulls themselves are contradictory is beyond the scope of this thread.
> 
> To return to the value of continuing the discussion, as Augustine pointed out, the purpose of studying scripture and thinking about it is love.


I assure you, Richard, that I am well aware of the editcts of the Catholic Church, having read _The Ante-Nicene Fathers, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers._ This is a lot of information to absorb, and took a large amount of time, but I felt it worth the time, and the effort it took to get the volumes, on loan from a larger library. 

I wonder about this one verse, since you insist on continuing the discussion, even though off topic:

Rom.1
[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Are we to accept Augustine as the authority on the Bible or who?

And to quote Jon Walker "Why do you have to understand it for it to be the truth?"

What we seem to be doing is trying to figure out the mindset of Abraham, whether or not he did right, because we don't understand how he could make such a decision. Why not just accept Hebrews 11: 

[17] By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
[18] Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
[19] Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

If we are a medical examiner working a murder, and we find that the victim has been shot with a bullet that has somehow managed to vanish, we don't change our cause of death because we cannot understand how the bullet vanished. The victim was shot. That's factual truth. Maybe there's power burns or something. Maybe we can prove nothing else could have made the hole. Because we don't understand doesn't mean we drop the case and forget it. Maybe we will never understand how it was managed. We have to go with what we have and know-- bullet wound, death.

God Bless

Dale

----------


## Wintermute

Hi Pen,

*"If we are a medical examiner working a murder, and we find that the victim has been shot with a bullet that has somehow managed to vanish, we don't change our cause of death because we cannot understand how the bullet vanished. "*
By 'vanished' do you mean in the paranormal sense? Because if that's what you mean, I would need to beg you for evidence that such a thing has indeed happened before you could use it as an example to illustrate your point. Or, do you mean that a human came along and removed the bullet before the body was examined by the medical person? If so, I would agree with you. 

*"Why not just accept Hebrews 11:. . ."*
Well, to me it doesen't make any sense. That's why I can't just accept it.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Rom.1
> [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> Are we to accept Augustine as the authority on the Bible or who?
> 
> And to quote Jon Walker "Why do you have to understand it for it to be the truth?"
> 
> What we seem to be doing is trying to figure out the mindset of Abraham, whether or not he did right, because we don't understand how he could make such a decision. Why not just accept Hebrews 11: 
> 
> ...


Augustine is an authority, though not the only one. While his thought is not infallible it would behoove us to give it careful attention. Especially since so much of Christian tradition in the West, Protestant and Catholic, is derived from his thought. (Eastern Orthodox tradition, on the other hand, has developed beautifully without him.) Ideally we should use our conscience to interpret the Bible. That being said, we should, in good faith, make use of tradition and the work of great minds to help us. This is analogous to driving or any other work: ultimately we need to use our judgment, but we base that judgment on our experience formed by training.

Certainly one aspect of this discussion has been the mindset of Abraham. Another has been the mindset of God. A third is what purpose does the story of Abraham have for us? What lessons can we learn from it? While obedience is clearly a point of the story, I am convinced that there is more going than just that.

----------


## Pendragon

> Hi Pen,
> 
> *"If we are a medical examiner working a murder, and we find that the victim has been shot with a bullet that has somehow managed to vanish, we don't change our cause of death because we cannot understand how the bullet vanished. "*
> By 'vanished' do you mean in the paranormal sense? Because if that's what you mean, I would need to beg you for evidence that such a thing has indeed happened before you could use it as an example to illustrate your point. Or, do you mean that a human came along and removed the bullet before the body was examined by the medical person? If so, I would agree with you. 
> 
> *"Why not just accept Hebrews 11:. . ."*
> Well, to me it doesen't make any sense. That's why I can't just accept it.


What I mean is, the bullet should be there, the wound couldn't have been caused by anything else, and yet a thourough autopsy can find no trace of the bullet. As you say, generally, this means someone removed it in some manner. In one case I recall, the medical examiner himself removed bullets, because this famous case had to be pinned on one man, and there were more than one bullet in his body, both wrong caliber. It is generally known now that this guy only threatened to shoot and in the hail of fire by the victim's bodygaurds, the victim was hit twice by his own gaurds. This wasn't going to work, so revisions were made. There is no "magic" bullets, ice or anything else will not work. So the disapperace of the bullet would be a removal or pass-through.

Who says it has to make sense? We try to explain everything, but we aren't going to be able to.

----------


## Pendragon

> Certainly one aspect of this discussion has been the mindset of Abraham. Another has been the mindset of God. A third is what purpose does the story of Abraham have for us? What lessons can we learn from it? While obedience is clearly a point of the story, I am convinced that there is more going than just that.


 OK. I will say this, and then I will leave you people alone.

Isa.55
[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
[9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

For man to think he can understand the mindset of any being with the power of God is foolish.

----------


## Granny5

> OK. I will say this, and then I will leave you people alone.
> 
> Isa.55
> [8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
> [9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
> 
> For man to think he can understand the mindset of any being with the power of God is foolish.


Pen, I think you've made the most valid point. Thank you.

----------


## Wintermute

*"For man to think he can understand the mindset of any being with the power of God is foolish."*

Hi Pen,

So asking why God would need Abraham to prove his faith by killing his son is foolish? Or even asking why God made Abraham's wife change her name to Sarah, is foolish? For that matter, trying to understand why God would flood a world killing so many children and babies and animals is foolish? I disagree.

If we can't possibly understand the mindset of God, how do we know it is really benevolant? How do we know it was really the one that created the universe?

It seems awfully convenient to simply say we're too dumb to understand just because something doesn't fit our perception of what's going on in the universe.

I really do hope you're wrong Pen, because I want to understand. Perhaps it is folly, but I will continue to try.

----------


## Sweets America

That might sound stupid, but I agree with both Pendragon and Wintermute!

----------


## Wintermute

Hey Sweets,

I hear ya! The older I get, the less certain I become. The fact that the universe (and possiby God) exist at all is an amazing thing. But many of these, to my mind, human constructs like sacrificing living things, floods, crucifictions, faith without evidence, etc. are not attributes I would want my God to have. Naturally, being agnostic, I could be wrong. Christian fundamentilsts could be right on the button. Perhaps God actually spoke to Abrham and told him to make his wife change her name, and to kick his slave girl out, and to sacrifice his son to prove his faith....seems unlikely, but the universe its self is unlikely.

Love your avatars, btw 8-)

----------


## Pendragon

> *"For man to think he can understand the mindset of any being with the power of God is foolish."*
> 
> Hi Pen,
> 
> So asking why God would need Abraham to prove his faith by killing his son is foolish? Or even asking why God made Abraham's wife change her name to Sarah, is foolish? For that matter, trying to understand why God would flood a world killing so many children and babies and animals is foolish? I disagree.
> 
> If we can't possibly understand the mindset of God, how do we know it is really benevolant? How do we know it was really the one that created the universe?
> 
> It seems awfully convenient to simply say we're too dumb to understand just because something doesn't fit our perception of what's going on in the universe.
> ...


Not asking why, Winter. I question the things you mention myself. Questioning is never foolish. Expecting to understand every answer or that there even is an answer for everything is what I find foolish. I heard a scientist on The National Geographic channel speaking of the wonders of the insect world. He said, paraphrased: "Even if you were a science fiction writer you could not come up with anything as amazing as these things." Very close to verbatim. 

See, we have to marvel at the most simple things, even bacteria and viruses could keep us glued to microscopes for decades. Then we have a being like a God, described as able to speak and it must happen. Everywhere and nowhere at once. To whom time itself has neither effect nor meaning. And we expect to understand that being, when we are still trying to figure out how to stop the common cold. We can ask the questions, and even should, perhaps, but I don't think humanity can grasp the true concept of God. That's why many postulate there is none. We can't measure or explain it, so it isn't there. Or maybe we just don't understand and haven't the guts just to say so.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Virgil

> Not asking why, Winter. I question the things you mention myself. Questioning is never foolish. Expecting to understand every answer or that there even is an answer for everything is what I find foolish. I heard a scientist on The National Geographic channel speaking of the wonders of the insect world. He said, paraphrased: "Even if you were a science fiction writer you could not come up with anything as amazing as these things." Very close to verbatim. 
> 
> See, we have to marvel at the most simple things, even bacteria and viruses could keep us glued to microscopes for decades. Then we have a being like a God, described as able to speak and it must happen. Everywhere and nowhere at once. To whom time itself has neither effect nor meaning. And we expect to understand that being, when we are still trying to figure out how to stop the common cold. We can ask the questions, and even should, perhaps, but I don't think humanity can grasp the true concept of God. That's why many postulate there is none. We can't measure or explain it, so it isn't there. Or maybe we just don't understand and haven't the guts just to say so.
> 
> God Bless
> 
> Pen


That is so perfectly said Pen.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Sweets America

> Hey Sweets,
> 
> I hear ya! The older I get, the less certain I become. The fact that the universe (and possiby God) exist at all is an amazing thing. But many of these, to my mind, human constructs like sacrificing living things, floods, crucifictions, faith without evidence, etc. are not attributes I would want my God to have. Naturally, being agnostic, I could be wrong. Christian fundamentilsts could be right on the button. Perhaps God actually spoke to Abrham and told him to make his wife change her name, and to kick his slave girl out, and to sacrifice his son to prove his faith....seems unlikely, but the universe its self is unlikely.
> 
> Love your avatars, btw 8-)


Hi Wintermute!
Yes, those questions about God are amazing and can make us feel dizzy. For my part, I could not really discuss it because I have no knowledge in religious matters. 
But, my opinion is that it is not really important to me to know if God exists or not. What I like is questionning things. We might never know the answers, and to me the questions are the most important because they make us think about everything from different perspectives. I cannot say I believe in God, neither can I say that I don't. I'm in the middle, I'm wondering. Since I don't know. It's not a matter of proof, because I'm sure certain things just cannot be proven, as human beings might not have all the tools. 
I don't wish to enclose myself with the believers or with the non believers. Though, I admire it sometimes when people have a very deep faith and when this faith helps them in their everyday life. That is quite beautiful. I think that is just not the way I am. I prefer distancing myself from everything. I constantly have a question mark sitting over my head, and I'm happy this way.  :Smile:  I won't laugh at people who believe in everything which is written in the Bible, because...why not? I won't laugh either at those who don't believe in anything, because maybe they are right. Now maybe the real truth (if there is one) is something no one had ever thought about. And maybe the truth is so much beyond our understanding that we are just not able to think it. Nothing seems unlikely to me. Everything is possible.

Oh, by the way, I'm happy you love my avatars.  :Tongue:  They are my sweet dogs. My main avatar cracks me up everytime I look at it because my dog looks so bossy and arrogant!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Wintermute

Hi Pen and Virgil and Sweets,

Sweets said, "Nothing seems unlikely to me. Everything is possible."

I couldn't agree more Sweets. I usually say anything is possible, nothing is certain--which is pretty much the same thing. That silly Matrix movie really messed with my head, lol.

It's the certainty of many that bothers me. I would be willing to bet large sums that the folks that flew the planes into the wtc were certain of their fate. Similarly, many of my christian friends are certain that the only way to salvation is to accept, without question (100% certainty), that Christ died for our sins. Well, I'm unable to do this--I've tried. So, these same friends (and I just spoke with one this morning), are absolutely certain that I'm doomed to an eternity in a place called Hell. I think this is rather harsh, and I'm just unwilling to accept a God that would be like this. Perhaps it's so, I'm definately not certain, and I may be on a one way journey to hades.

On the other hand, anything is possible. By my logic, nothing should exist. No energy, no matter, no God. Yet here we are, on a little chunk of rock and water, zinging through space in the corner of a relatively common galaxy discussing what may be going on in the fantastic universe. Ya gotta love it! Something really amazing must be going on. I just don't think it cares if we eat meat on Fridays.

----------


## weepingforloman

Of course, you realize that the "no meat on Fridays" thing was primarily an economy-based decision by the papacy, and that almost no Catholics (except the hard-liners of sixty and up) still abide by it? 
Secondly, faith without question is impossible: anyone who claims it is in self-delusion. Christ Himself asked "Why have You forsaken me?" We are ALWAYS allowed to ask questions. The real dilemma is: will you accept this, despite some difficulties, and trust God, or will you not?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Hi Wintermute!
> Yes, those questions about God are amazing and can make us feel dizzy. For my part, I could not really discuss it because I have no knowledge in religious matters. 
> But, my opinion is that it is not really important to me to know if God exists or not. What I like is questionning things. We might never know the answers, and to me the questions are the most important because they make us think about everything from different perspectives. I cannot say I believe in God, neither can I say that I don't. I'm in the middle, I'm wondering. Since I don't know. It's not a matter of proof, because I'm sure certain things just cannot be proven, as human beings might not have all the tools. 
> I don't wish to enclose myself with the believers or with the non believers. Though, I admire it sometimes when people have a very deep faith and when this faith helps them in their everyday life. That is quite beautiful. I think that is just not the way I am. I prefer distancing myself from everything. I constantly have a question mark sitting over my head, and I'm happy this way.  I won't laugh at people who believe in everything which is written in the Bible, because...why not? I won't laugh either at those who don't believe in anything, because maybe they are right. Now maybe the real truth (if there is one) is something no one had ever thought about. And maybe the truth is so much beyond our understanding that we are just not able to think it. Nothing seems unlikely to me. Everything is possible.


Wonderful response! I sometimes think that the real division in mankind is not between the believers and the disbelievers like myself, each of which is at times equally dogmatic and arrogant, but between those who _know_ one way or the other and those - like yourself - who wonder and search or wait for an answer.

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong... I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me." Feynman, Richard, quoted in Gleick, Genius: The life & Science of Richard Feynman, p. 438
"A map will only get you to where others have already been." J. Newman

----------


## Sweets America

> Hi Pen and Virgil and Sweets,
> 
> Sweets said, "Nothing seems unlikely to me. Everything is possible."
> 
> I couldn't agree more Sweets. I usually say anything is possible, nothing is certain--which is pretty much the same thing. That silly Matrix movie really messed with my head, lol.
> 
> It's the certainty of many that bothers me. I would be willing to bet large sums that the folks that flew the planes into the wtc were certain of their fate. Similarly, many of my christian friends are certain that the only way to salvation is to accept, without question (100% certainty), that Christ died for our sins. Well, I'm unable to do this--I've tried. So, these same friends (and I just spoke with one this morning), are absolutely certain that I'm doomed to an eternity in a place called Hell. I think this is rather harsh, and I'm just unwilling to accept a God that would be like this. Perhaps it's so, I'm definately not certain, and I may be on a one way journey to hades.
> 
> On the other hand, anything is possible. By my logic, nothing should exist. No energy, no matter, no God. Yet here we are, on a little chunk of rock and water, zinging through space in the corner of a relatively common galaxy discussing what may be going on in the fantastic universe. Ya gotta love it! Something really amazing must be going on. I just don't think it cares if we eat meat on Fridays.


I agree with 'everything is possible and nothing is certain'. This is strange that I say I agree with something while I just said I prefered asking questions than agreeing, but anyway. :Tongue:  
I'm not sure that the certainty of people bothers me. Because maybe all those people are right, who knows? Yes, kamikazes are certainly sure of their fate. But maybe what they believe is true, who knows? What is not fair is the fact that they kill so many people because of that, even if they must think they are doing the right thing. They must not be bad persons, it's just that they are absolutely certain that they have found the truth, and they leave no room to doubt, and they are absolutely convinced that their action is good.
I see what you mean about not accepting a God who is like this, who would send you to hell. But well, as you imply, maybe God is actually like this. Why should God be all good, after all?

Jer, that is quite interesting, what you say about the way people could be divided. LOL, I love that you quote yourself!!! :FRlol:  

And, to weepingforloman, I'd like to add that I'm not sure faith without questions is impossible. I do think there are people who believe without a doubt.

----------


## Pendragon

"A map will only get you to where others have already been." J. Newman

True. Ecclesiastes 1:

[9] The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
[10] Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
[11] There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Every question we can come up with, somebody has already asked, got frustrated with, and flung aside. We just go to the pile, pick up a crumpled paper, and start the argument over again until we wear out the paper, then somebody writes down the same argument on a new sheet. Oh it may be better phrased or researched, but it is the same one, "refurbished", I think is the word Twain used. 

Eventually we just toss it back in the pile. Why? Somebody found another one to argue about...

----------


## RichardHresko

A valuable counterweight to "everything is possible and nothing is certain" is the theory of gambling ascribed to Harry the Horse by Damon Runyon, "The battle goes not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift -- but that is the way to bet!" A position that one requires absolute certainty is one that is doomed to paralysis.

Further, it prevents one from seeing what is workable.

One may well ask what is the purpose of seemingly endless discussion and revisiting some arguments again and again. 

What is the purpose of praying more than once?

I would suggest that the two points are not far apart. 

One discusses things for both oneself (to deepen one's own thoughts on a point) and for others, to give them an alternative to consider. We are never the same person (if we are fortunate) when we revisit anything. 

Just as prayer is not about making requests, and not about mouthing words of praise, but rather about bringing about a considtion of openness and communion. That we can use rosaries, the Jesus prayer, Om, and so on to help focus our souls on this act of communion with that which we value illustrates (not proves) that revisiting has its uses.

There is an expression in Latin that many monks have taken as their life's path: "laborare et orare" -- work and prayer. Ideally, I feel, ALL our work, here as well as elsewhere should be a prayer, one devoted to that which we feel draws us to our best. 

Better than that I have not the imagination to want. Less than that I will not (for myself) accept.

----------


## Pendragon

You misunderstand, Rich. I didn't say that time spent revisiting the same things was valueless. I said we shouldn't always expect that we can figure out an answer. Some sheets do not go back into the pile. Why? Someone finally manages to figure out that answer. For every answer that we do manage to settle, it produces more for the "slush pile". 

A case in point. When it was determined that the earth revoled around the sun, not vice versa, this answered several questions that man had blindly been stabbing at for years. But it also raised questions. What keeps the Earth in place? Does it always remain in the same distance? Are there other "Earths"? Is there life on other planets? 

Some of these were answered. Some may never be. We may never reach the closest other star to know whether there is life on a planet there? It seems unlikely in our Solar System, but there are perhaps millions of suns out there. 
The likelyhood goes up for another earth-like planet elsewhere.

Questions and postulations and answers. That' s life.

----------

