In the book of Genesis God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac to him as a sign of devotion, and after getting Isaac to follow him to the top of a hill and tying him to an altar, an angel intervenes to stop Abraham from killing Isaac, Abraham notices a ram stuck in some bushes near by and sacrifices it instead.
My question to you is if God told you to sacrifice your own child to him, would you do it? What if God told you to sacrifice someone else's child to him? Would you do it?
I asked a co-worker this question. From what I gathered, you wouldn't have to prove your devotion let alone be asked to do this action because this event was before Jesus sacrificed his own life.
Do you know where the idea that God wouldn't ask someone to do this again comes from?
Edit: Also, that's arguably not even the worst thing God has asked someone to do, in first Samuel God commands Samuel to commit genocide against the Melekite tribe; "kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." I guess the question at this point is if you would kill your own kid as well as someone elses, would you organize the extermination of an entire people if God told you to? Or is this another thing that God would never ask a person to do nowadays?
My question to you is if God told you to sacrifice your own child to him, would you do it? What if God told you to sacrifice someone else's child to him? Would you do it?
We're talking sacrifice in the old sense of the word? Tie someone up and then kill them as an offering to a god or to God? Of course not. God would never ask that.
I asked a co-worker this question. From what I gathered, you wouldn't have to prove your devotion let alone be asked to do this action because this event was before Jesus sacrificed his own life.
That really doesn't answer the question however. All it does is attempt to provide an attempt to sidestep the question really. I've seen/heard a few debates between people like the head of the FFRF and a few people where they basically got cornered into having to admit to either doing it or at least considering it.
That really doesn't answer the question however. All it does is attempt to provide an attempt to sidestep the question really. I've seen/heard a few debates between people like the head of the FFRF and a few people where they basically got cornered into having to admit to either doing it or at least considering it.
The problem is the question is sort of like asking a mathematician, "What if someone were to prove that 2+2=5?"
You have God, who is good, demanding something that is not only contrary to both Jewish and Christian practices — specifically, you know, NOT sacrificing people — but obviously wrong.
That really doesn't answer the question however. All it does is attempt to provide an attempt to sidestep the question really. I've seen/heard a few debates between people like the head of the FFRF and a few people where they basically got cornered into having to admit to either doing it or at least considering it.
The problem is the question is sort of like asking a mathematician, "What if someone were to prove that 2+2=5?"
You have God, who is good, demanding something that is not only contrary to both Jewish and Christian practices — specifically, you know, NOT sacrificing people — but obviously wrong.
Not really. That's really just a strawman that tries to jump into the same realm that the previously person did. Namely perceiving only within the theological window that would, in such an interpretation, renders it moot. It's an answer of sort. But then there is a reason why in this debates there is almost ALWAYS the necessity of the person presenting to have a short back and forth on the nature of hypothetical so that the person in question has to actually answer the question instead of sidestepping it. This is particularly true since often this question involves divine command theory.
Edit: Which btw, might not even be the intent of the OP and not particularly apply mind you. I only mention as I tend to see that be the biggest reason these things even get brought up in the first place.
Not really. That's really just a strawman that tries to jump into the say realm that the previously person did.
Excuse me?
Namely perceiving only within the theological window that would, in such an interpretation, renders it moot.
No, you're missing what I'm saying here.
If you were to ask a mathematician, "What would you do if someone proved 2+2=5?", there's no answer that person can give. 2+2 cannot equal five. That's antithetical to the most rudimentary elements of mathematics and number theory. That is so contrary to what math is that to regard it as true would be rendering basic concepts like numbers and simple arithmatic meaningless.
Same thing with this scenario. You're saying God, who is defined as omnibenevolent and good, is commanding someone to sacrifice his own child, something that is totally contrary to God, not only because it's morally wrong but because both Judaism and Christianity tell us that God wouldn't command someone to commit human sacrifice. It is wrong, sacrilegious, and wrong because it is sacrilegious.
So there's no real answer one can give here, because what you're saying amounts to, "What if God gave a command that God would never give?" The only answer you can give is the question is nonsensical because God would not give the command you're saying God is giving, and therefore the scenario is flawed.
It's an answer of sort. But then there is a reason why in this debates there is almost ALWAYS the necessity of the person presenting to have a short back and forth on the nature of hypothetical so that the person in question has to actually answer the question instead of sidestepping it.
I mean, there's "not applicable." There's "null." There's "mu." But those are the only sensible answers one can give, because those are the answers you give when the question doesn't make sense.
For example, what would I do personally if I heard God tell me to tie my son to an altar and sacrifice him? I would seek psychiatric counseling for hearing voices that told me to commit horrible acts against my own child. I would do so specifically because I would know those voices definitely weren't coming from God. It could not be God, because God would not command such a thing.
"A strawman that tries to jump into the say realm"? Excuse me?
Typo. should read "same realm"
Same thing with God. You're saying God, who is defined as omnibenevolent and good, is commanding someone to sacrifice his own child, something that is totally contrary to God, not only because it's morally wrong but because both Judaism and Christianity tell us that God wouldn't command someone to commit human sacrifice. It is wrong, sacrilegious, and wrong because it is sacrilegious.
So there's no real answer one can give here, because what you're saying amounts to, "What if God gave a command that God would never give?"
No I know what you're saying. I also know there were and are Christians who would interpret that quite differently than you and that there Christian theological concepts that contradict your interpretation.
Well, I'm glad, but you seemed to reject that as an answer earlier. Are you still disagreeing that this is a valid response?
I also know there were and are Christians who would interpret that quite differently than you and that there Christian theological concepts that contract your interpretation.
My question to you is if God told you to sacrifice your own child to him, would you do it? What if God told you to sacrifice someone else's child to him? Would you do it?
We're talking sacrifice in the old sense of the word? Tie someone up and then kill them as an offering to a god or to God? Of course not. God would never ask that.
But God asked Abraham to do exactly that. I'll ask the question differently, if you were Abraham and God had just told you to sacrifice your son, would you do it like Abraham was about to?
I mean, do you want me to take a highlighter and go through a copy of the Bible or something?
The point is Genesis is pretty heavily mythologized. No, I don't believe Abraham was actually told by God to go sacrifice his son. This evidently was a story that was passed down, and people might have and might still approach this story with the belief that it is actually what happened, but I don't. That's antithetical to my understanding of God.
@Highroller You believe the Isaac and Abraham story isn't meant to be taken literally?
What do you mean by "taken literally"?
Because the literal point of the story is that one must be utterly devoted to God.
But if anything even related to child sacrifice is what you get from the story, then you're getting it wrong. Because God would never ask for child (or human) sacrifice.
Because, as Highroller pointed out, human sacrifice is a repeated no-no. In fact, iirc, many of the pagan religions that the Jews encountered were derided specifically because they supposedly performed human sacrifices.
But if anything even related to child sacrifice is what you get from the story, then you're getting it wrong. Because God would never ask for child (or human) sacrifice.
Wait, what are you talking about? The story is about how God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, his child. Abraham later sacrifices a ram instead. God then tells Abraham that because he would not withhold his child, he would make Abraham's descendants as numerous as the stars.
Of course the story is related to human sacrifice.
But if anything even related to child sacrifice is what you get from the story, then you're getting it wrong. Because God would never ask for child (or human) sacrifice.
Wait, what are you talking about? The story is about how God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, his child. Abraham later sacrifices a ram instead. God then tells Abraham that because he would not withhold his child, he would make Abraham's descendants as numerous as the stars.
Of course the story is related to human sacrifice.
Human sacrifice is in the details. But is not the relevant point to the story.
Unless I suppose you take "Abraham is even willing to sacrifice his own son, the most important 'thing' to him, to God" as being relevant beyond "Abraham is willing to give everything to God".
Edit-
Though, in hindsight, it's obvious I'm wrong.
Of course human sacrifice is relevant to the story. God, or the story-teller, considered human (especially the sacrifice of your own child) so incredibly momentous that it is the only way Abraham can truly prove his devotion to God.
Human sacrifice is in the details. But is not the relevant point to the story.
... You have got to be kidding me.
Quote from Genesis 22:1-19, Oremus Bible Browser »
After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, ‘Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ He said, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; he cut the wood for the burnt-offering, and set out and went to the place in the distance that God had shown him. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place far away. Then Abraham said to his young men, ‘Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you.’ Abraham took the wood of the burnt-offering and laid it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. Isaac said to his father Abraham, ‘Father!’ And he said, ‘Here I am, my son.’ He said, ‘The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?’ Abraham said, ‘God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son.’ So the two of them walked on together.
When they came to the place that God had shown him, Abraham built an altar there and laid the wood in order. He bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill his son. But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ He said, ‘Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.’ And Abraham looked up and saw a ram, caught in a thicket by its horns. Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt-offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place ‘The Lord will provide’; as it is said to this day, ‘On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.’
The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, ‘By myself I have sworn, says the Lord: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.’ So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham lived at Beer-sheba.
How are you arguing that human sacrifice is not relevant to this story?
Unless I suppose you take "Abraham is even willing to sacrifice his own son, the most important 'thing' to him, to God" as being relevant beyond "Abraham is willing to give everything to God".
That's what makes it relevant! It's the whole point of the story!
I mean, do you want me to take a highlighter and go through a copy of the Bible or something?
The point is Genesis is pretty heavily mythologized. No, I don't believe Abraham was actually told by God to go sacrifice his son. This evidently was a story that was passed down, and people might have and might still approach this story with the belief that it is actually what happened, but I don't. That's antithetical to my understanding of God.
I'm not a believer, but that a "loving" God would ask for a human sacrifice doesn't make sense to me either. Just curious where does your understanding of God come from?
Given the vast number of sects involved and Christians throughout history involved. The only obvious answer to this is for God to hold a press conference to set the record straight.
For example, what would I do personally if I heard God tell me to tie my son to an altar and sacrifice him? I would seek psychiatric counseling for hearing voices that told me to commit horrible acts against my own child. I would do so specifically because I would know those voices definitely weren't coming from God. It could not be God, because God would not command such a thing.
So then you don't believe God is the arbiter of morality but instead is held to some external standard?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My question to you is if God told you to sacrifice your own child to him, would you do it? What if God told you to sacrifice someone else's child to him? Would you do it?
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Edit: Also, that's arguably not even the worst thing God has asked someone to do, in first Samuel God commands Samuel to commit genocide against the Melekite tribe; "kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." I guess the question at this point is if you would kill your own kid as well as someone elses, would you organize the extermination of an entire people if God told you to? Or is this another thing that God would never ask a person to do nowadays?
Offering human sacrifices to the Lord is repeatedly considered evil in Torah.
That really doesn't answer the question however. All it does is attempt to provide an attempt to sidestep the question really. I've seen/heard a few debates between people like the head of the FFRF and a few people where they basically got cornered into having to admit to either doing it or at least considering it.
You have God, who is good, demanding something that is not only contrary to both Jewish and Christian practices — specifically, you know, NOT sacrificing people — but obviously wrong.
Not really. That's really just a strawman that tries to jump into the same realm that the previously person did. Namely perceiving only within the theological window that would, in such an interpretation, renders it moot. It's an answer of sort. But then there is a reason why in this debates there is almost ALWAYS the necessity of the person presenting to have a short back and forth on the nature of hypothetical so that the person in question has to actually answer the question instead of sidestepping it. This is particularly true since often this question involves divine command theory.
Edit: Which btw, might not even be the intent of the OP and not particularly apply mind you. I only mention as I tend to see that be the biggest reason these things even get brought up in the first place.
No, you're missing what I'm saying here.
If you were to ask a mathematician, "What would you do if someone proved 2+2=5?", there's no answer that person can give. 2+2 cannot equal five. That's antithetical to the most rudimentary elements of mathematics and number theory. That is so contrary to what math is that to regard it as true would be rendering basic concepts like numbers and simple arithmatic meaningless.
Same thing with this scenario. You're saying God, who is defined as omnibenevolent and good, is commanding someone to sacrifice his own child, something that is totally contrary to God, not only because it's morally wrong but because both Judaism and Christianity tell us that God wouldn't command someone to commit human sacrifice. It is wrong, sacrilegious, and wrong because it is sacrilegious.
So there's no real answer one can give here, because what you're saying amounts to, "What if God gave a command that God would never give?" The only answer you can give is the question is nonsensical because God would not give the command you're saying God is giving, and therefore the scenario is flawed.
I mean, there's "not applicable." There's "null." There's "mu." But those are the only sensible answers one can give, because those are the answers you give when the question doesn't make sense.
For example, what would I do personally if I heard God tell me to tie my son to an altar and sacrifice him? I would seek psychiatric counseling for hearing voices that told me to commit horrible acts against my own child. I would do so specifically because I would know those voices definitely weren't coming from God. It could not be God, because God would not command such a thing.
No I know what you're saying. I also know there were and are Christians who would interpret that quite differently than you and that there Christian theological concepts that contradict your interpretation.
Elaborate?
But God asked Abraham to do exactly that. I'll ask the question differently, if you were Abraham and God had just told you to sacrifice your son, would you do it like Abraham was about to?
No.
What parts of the bible do you believe are true?
The point is Genesis is pretty heavily mythologized. No, I don't believe Abraham was actually told by God to go sacrifice his son. This evidently was a story that was passed down, and people might have and might still approach this story with the belief that it is actually what happened, but I don't. That's antithetical to my understanding of God.
What do you mean by "taken literally"?
Because the literal point of the story is that one must be utterly devoted to God.
But if anything even related to child sacrifice is what you get from the story, then you're getting it wrong. Because God would never ask for child (or human) sacrifice.
Because, as Highroller pointed out, human sacrifice is a repeated no-no. In fact, iirc, many of the pagan religions that the Jews encountered were derided specifically because they supposedly performed human sacrifices.
Of course the story is related to human sacrifice.
Human sacrifice is in the details. But is not the relevant point to the story.
Unless I suppose you take "Abraham is even willing to sacrifice his own son, the most important 'thing' to him, to God" as being relevant beyond "Abraham is willing to give everything to God".
Edit-
Though, in hindsight, it's obvious I'm wrong.
Of course human sacrifice is relevant to the story. God, or the story-teller, considered human (especially the sacrifice of your own child) so incredibly momentous that it is the only way Abraham can truly prove his devotion to God.
How are you arguing that human sacrifice is not relevant to this story?
That's what makes it relevant! It's the whole point of the story!
I more or less realized how silly I was being after I responded to you.
I'm not a believer, but that a "loving" God would ask for a human sacrifice doesn't make sense to me either. Just curious where does your understanding of God come from?
So then you don't believe God is the arbiter of morality but instead is held to some external standard?