Posts
Genesis 21
Sarah gets her way in the first part of chapter 21. I believe this is a fairly rare occurrence in which the woman is shown (positively) in a dominate position. Of course, it's because God wanted it that way.
Abraham takes Isaac for walk.
I vaguely remember the story of Abraham and Isaac from Sunday school. To actually read it was ... disturbing.
ReplyDeleteAnyone heard the theory that in the original version of the story, Abraham *did* sacrifice Isaac?
ReplyDeleteHere's the logic:
-The sudden intrusion (vv. 11-15) of the "angel of the LORD" character. This section is bracketed with matches verses about the angel calling out. (The second speech would originally have been by God.)
-This is an E text, which almost always avoids the name YHWH (LORD) until the burning bush incident.
-Ends "And Abraham went back to his boys", no mention of Isaac.
-Isaac *never again* appears in the E text!
This would raise the question of where Jacob & Esau came from in the E tradition. I didn't say it was a perfect theory.
I remember as a child having a shiver go down my spine when I first read the line (22:8) where it said "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering." So subtle, so disturbing, so heart wrenching.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to believe that it took me nearly a decade to really realize just how disturbing the whole scene was.
Disturbing to our sensibilities, but child sacrifice was common enough there at that time. If this was a test, it was not so much a test for Abraham to prove to God that he could be as murderous as the pagans around him, but to prove to Abraham himself that he could actually trust God. Abraham demonstrated his faith by saying that God would provide a lamb for the sacrifice. God came through for him. In Hebrews 11 it says that in faith Abraham considered God able to raise Isaac from the dead and dis so figuratively by sparing Isaac and substituting the lamb for the sacrifice. This story is a foreshadowing of the future time that God provided a sacrificial lamb for the whole world -- Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
ReplyDeletei agree that this story is just sick. basically god is insecure and makes an outrageous request, which sadly abraham abides. even more sadly is that so many folks who believe this stuff point at this story as a triumph of faith.
ReplyDeletethis is the story that fuels the unresolvable conversations between theists and nontheists.
Dear readers i have been trying to catch up and give some feedback on posts, but with around 47 every day i am quite behind.
ReplyDeleteYou read this part of the story 22:3-19 and you think what kind of psycho is Abraham. This is his son and he is going to kill him. This is murder. But with those feelings do you ever think about God and his sacrifice for us. It is kinda interesting that here you have Abraham taking the wood in verse 6 and laid it upon Isaac his son. John 19:17. Christ had to carry his wood as well. And when they get to the place there is no mention of Isaac fighting with his father verse 9. Isaac is bound and that is all that is said. Verse 10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. That is obedience it's also evidence that Abraham feared God. We have an accuser which accuses us before God day and night (Revelation 12:10). Also (John 5:45). God knew that Abraham feared Him, yet the accuser would not know, and this is that sign that Abraham does fear God and would silence that accuser. This is something that we all can learn from. The best evidence of our fearing God is our being willing to serve and honour Him with that which is dearest to us, and to part with all to Him or for Him.
Now this is what i would like you to think about. The feelings you have about Abraham being obedient and going to go through this act of sacrificing his son, yet God stops him. He would not allow Abraham to go through with sacrificing his son. Yet God would His own for us. From allot of the posts i can see that allot of people don't even believe that that God of Abraham and Isaac exists. I just pray that you will stick with this reading goal for the year, and we become good friends, but more than that with a sincere heart ask God that if He is real that He will reveal Himself to you. If i am wrong and He does not exists, the most you will get back is nothing. But maybe the thought that if He does exists He's not interested in you. However i can tell you that He is most interested in you.
I will try to post back more as i see things.
IIRC Jewish tradition has Sarah being told that Isaac has been sacrificed and hence her death at that point in the narrative. Note she is buried at Hebron and her supposed tomb (which is also the supposed tomb of several other major figures) is still a holy place for Jews and for Muslims.
ReplyDeleteNahor is Abraham's brother and Milcah, Nahor's wife, is their niece, daughter of their brother Haran and sister of Lot. Jewish tradition also has Sarah not being Abraham's half sister but rather niece, sister of Milcah and mentioned under the name Iscah.
Regarding Abraham and Isaac, this episode brings to a climax God's ongoing interaction with Abraham, resulting in an important divine oath. The conditional promises of 12:1–3 are now unconditionally guaranteed as a result of Abraham's preparedness to sacrifice his son. Put to the test, Abraham displays remarkable trust in God, especially when the death of Isaac would appear to contradict all that God had promised to Abraham. The passage conveys two truths for its original audience: (1) it shows the kind of faith that Abraham had, and commends it for Israel; and (2) it shows that “substitution” is a part of the “atoning sacrifices” that God will direct Israel to offer. This further enables the people of Israel to see their very existence, even in the desert, as part of God's plan, which they must embrace. James 2:21–22 says that by Abraham's works here, his faith (from Gen. 15:6) was “completed,” i.e., brought to its full and proper expression.
ReplyDeletePoint 1) God didn't command that Abraham kill Isaac. He commanded him to "offer him as a sacrifice". Not the same thing.
ReplyDeletePoint 2) Abraham himself didn't think that God meant that he should actually kill Isaac.
See verses 5 and 8 - why say "we will return"? Why state that the lamb will be provided?
But Abraham was just trying to keep Isaac from panicking and running away! (as I've seen said before)
Perhaps, but there's no indication from the text that this is so.
And why didn't Isaac run away, if he was so fearful, when Abraham got the stuff and all was ready and the lamb was still not there?
Point 3) Abraham also believed that, even if the sacrifice were to go all the way thru to Isaac's death, God would resurrect Isaac. B/c he was a man of faith.
Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten {son;}
11:18 {it was he} to whom it was said, "IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED."
11:19 He considered that God is able to raise {people} even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.
Point 4) See Hebrews 11:19 - this sacrifice of a ram instead of a sinful human to atone for sin foreshadows the Mosaic Law to come, and each are foremost a type of the final and complete sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Interestingly, Abraham refers to a "lamb" that God will provide. Yet mere minutes later, God provides - not a lamb, but a ram. What of the lamb? It is yet another type of Christ, the spotless Passover Lamb, the Lamb of God, still to come in the future, in whom faith is expressed by Abraham the first Hebrew. God thus had a vested interest in taking a human to the brink of death yet substituting another in his place.
Point 5) As James 1 and 2 tells us, God was testing Abraham's faith in the fire of adversity. Would he trust God, that which is eternal and authoritative, or what he saw, which is temporal and seems authoritative and "normal"?
Point 6) God has the right to kill anyone or command that anyone be killed at any time.
People die every second of every day. Man is fallen and sinful, and the penalty for sin is death - Romans 3:23 and following through the end of chapter 5. It is only thru God's forbearance and mercy that I or any other person draw the next breath. And the next, and the next. And of course, it is only thru His mercy in Christ's death and resurrection that eternal Hell is not everyone's final destination.
Murder is defined as the unjustified taking of human life.
Yet, as every man, woman, and child is sinful and bears the guilt of the sin of Adam, all are subject to the death penalty. This includes Isaac. This also includes the various peoples of Canaan, whom God commanded the OT Hebrews to put to death after hundreds of years of giving them time to repent of their perversions. This includes the millions of babies that die every year in the womb (re: Sam Harris' correct and yet wrongheaded and amazingly morally blind assertion that God is the greatest living abortionist). God is fully justified in putting anyone to death at any time thru any manner or agency He chooses.
Thus, even if God did not intervene before Abraham's knife swept downward, He would be fully justified. So those of you who are ripping up God for this, I'd like to know your moral authority for doing so.
Peace,
Rhology
Leaving aside the obvious horror of the Isaac story, I could have sworn I have heard a similar story about Hagar and Ishmael in a different context. I remember something about a woman and her baby wandering lost in a forest and nearly dying until someone heard her crying (it might have been a person or an angel who heard her). I know that when I heard this story it was not about Hagar and Ishmael. I know a lot of these stories get repeated throughout different cultures, so does anyone know which version I'm thinking of?
ReplyDelete@zee: I couldn't agree more that the difference between the theistic and non-theistic views of this story is profound and unresolvable!
ReplyDeleteWhen I used to read this story as a Christian it had intense meaning for me. I looked up to Abraham as a hero and a giant of faith and hoped I had that kind of faith in God. The visceral repulsion of the idea of sacrificing one's own child only made Abraham's feat of obedience all the more praiseworthy. I interpreted this to be the reason God chose Abraham and his descendants as his people. This story also said to me that God would eliminate our need for such sacrifices (wages of our sin against him) by providing his own sacrificial lamb in kind, i.e. his son.
When I read this story now I am appalled! It frightens me that my mind could have conceived of anything good in Abraham's faith here. Seriously, I feel violated that my mind was hijacked by ideas like that. As a father, I feel a profound disconnect with the character of Abraham here, because to me any deity that would suggest such a thing as the murder of one's own child is not a loving God worthy of praise. All the hand-waving interpretations I used to subscribe to about how God's intention was never that. . ., Abraham never really intended to. . ., this was just God's way of demonstrating. . . blah, blah, blah seem ridiculous to me now.
Stepping back from personal reactions: As Jim points out, child sacrifices were common in this region in the time of early Israel. Historians know that close neighbors like the Philistines definitely practiced it and there is strong evidence that the Israelites may have practiced it early on and then abandoned it. I've heard several events from the Torah, including this one, interpreted as etiology stories for the ceasing of child sacrifice. Others are the circumcision requirement and the strange incident in Exodus where God tries to kill Moses (yeah, he does, we'll get to it) and Moses is saved by a foreskin. Do you think the Abraham/Isaac story works this way?
@Rhology
ReplyDeletePoint 1: Word used is עֹלָה Strongs H5930 “A whole burnt offering, a sacrifice in which the whole is burned.” How could one offer a living creature, in which the whole is burned, without killing them?
Point 2: You said “Perhaps, but there's no indication from the text that this is so.” There is more truth in that statement than I think you realize. The text is too ambiguous to make a valid argument either way. If Abraham thought there would be a Lamb, then why didn't he wait for one? Why did he put his son on the alter? If you try to understand the text in the cultural framework of the time, it makes a bit more sense. His son was his only blood heir, and genealogy was BIG deal for the ancient Hebrew. Therefore if God really wanted to test his faith he would ask Abraham to kill what was one of the most important things in his life. Do I like the idea of playing 'chicken' with God? No, but I understand why it was told that way. It seems like the writers were anthropomorphizing God a bit (insecurity, requiring more faith). Didn't Abraham already chopped off the end of the males genitalia?
Point 3: Hebrews was written later, by different writers. In Genesis no one has been raised from the dead yet. Why would he think God has this property?
Point 4: Interesting point, Abraham thought it would be lamb, instead turned out to be ram. I wonder what the significance is.
Point 5: Obviously, God was testing him. The absurdity is when you try to answer why? If God is amazing enough to create this universe we cannot comprehend, does He really need to test us to puff up his ego? Does He not know us since before we were in the womb?
Point 6: This is exactly the point, why would you worship such a God? A God commanding genital mutilation and the killing of your own son. This does not sound like an omni-benevolent God to me. It sounds like the mean, genocidal God of the old testament.
The bible states quite plainly “Thou shalt not kill” רָצַח H7523.
What is moral authority? Are you saying all morality roots in God? There are a lot of problems that come with divine command theory's of ethics.
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteI'll respond to you in the numbered order.
1) By OFFERING him. Doesn't mean you finish the job.
Let me break in here and say that my confidence in this point is lower than in my other points, so... :-D
2) How long was he supposed to wait? He was commanded to do sthg, so he did it. It's not as if time makes a diff to God. And yes, he and Isaac were already circumcised.
3) B/c he had faith, as Hebrews says.
4) Yes ram in place of lamb is interesting. But I did explain it. :-)
5) What precisely is absurd about the answer why? I'd appreciate a logical stepwise process to get to that conclusion; "absurd" is a serious charge.
Who said God was doing this testing to puff up His ego? Please either cite Scripture and/or give your argument.
Yes, He does know us from before we were formed in the womb. What connection does that have?
6) I worship such a God b/c He is worthy of worship, b/c He created us. I don't get to judge Him. Nobody has any moral basis on which to judge Him.
(You walked right into my trap, haha.)
I don't claim God is "omnibenevolent", FYI.
I'd be interested in knowing how you know that "being mean" is morally objectionable. Just b/c you think so? Who are you?
And "thou shalt not kill":
--It's "murder", not "kill".
--I already explained this - go back and read my comment again, please.
--The problems with DCT are perceived, not real. I encourage you to read what I mean by that.
Peace,
Rhology
The point of historical context that others have brought up—the prevalence of child sacrifice in the area—is worth dwelling on a bit. Both in a literary sense and a personal sense, this passage seems to me to be oriented quite directly at contrasting a Jewish (and ultimately Christian) view of the practice of child sacrifice with those of their neighbors, and accordingly, their God with their neighbors' gods. This God tells Abraham to give him his son as a sacrifice—something that would have been normal in that time—at a location near to one of the prime sites of child sacrifice practiced at the time of Abraham. Then he emphatically rejects said sacrifice, in a fairly dramatic scene, and tells Abraham to sacrifice a ram instead. Abraham (and Jewish and Christian hearers and readers of the narrative) learns that their God is not like other gods. He does not want child sacrifice; he will provide a substitute instead.
ReplyDeleteGiven the frequency—indeed, the normality—of child sacrifice at the time the event happened, and for that matter when the text was written, that was a pretty strong narrative statement about the character of this God the Israelites were being called to worship.
A related note on the issue of monotheism: it seems pretty clear to me that the modernist conception of monotheism as, essentially, one-God & no-other-powerful-spirits is out of touch with the Biblical view. From Moses to Paul, there's a very clear, if continually developing, view among the prophetic and apostolic leadership of the primacy of God over other gods and the existence of other gods. Paul describes idol-worship as demon-worship, and the prophets regularly assume that other gods really do exist.
Their monotheism was oriented on the idea that there is one true God whose authority, power, and place in history supercedes, precedes, and prevails over all others—not that the others don't exist. It's nothing like the Pantheon, in which Zeus is at best somewhat more powerful than the other gods and therefore capable of ruling them; rather, it's a picture of God being supremely more powerful than any other gods. Culturally, that view develops slowly in Jewish believers. Their prophets have it fairly clear from the getgo, but the people never fully commit to that view until post-exilic Judaism begans to take form in the wake of the reforms of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the surrounding prophets.
That framework is worth keeping in mind: much of Scriptural narrative is reporting, and thus descriptive rather than prescriptive. It tells what happened, and doesn't always offer comments on whether those things were good or bad. The fact that Israel clearly doesn't practice monotheism in a regular sense until ~400BC doesn't necessarily mean that the concept wasn't well-formed until then; it means that it wasn't in vogue until then, and those are substantially different things.
Bruce, this is a really interesting project, and at least so far, I've really enjoyed the comments and discussion. I hope the conversation can remain this civil throughout the year. It's one of the few places I've seen Christians and atheists discussing the Bible without significant animus, and that's a good thing!
I agree that the differences between the theistic and non-theistic readings of this material are irreconcilable. I can't jump through the moral hoops and origami-like twists of logic to arrive at the conclusion that this story represents anything other than an insecure god worried about obedience above all else.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteI can't jump through the moral hoops and origami-like twists of logic to arrive at the conclusion that this story represents anything other than an insecure god worried about obedience above all else.
Let me ask you to run a mental exercise, then.
First, ad arguendo decide you're going to accept the Christian presuppositions and framework of understanding, and apply it to this passage. God is not insecure; He is testing Abraham and wants to make him holy and increase his faith in God. He is foreshadowing the substitutionary atonement of the coming Messiah. He is demonstrating His ownership and sovereignty over all things, including human lives (let alone the lives of SINFUL humans, who are rebels against His rule and law).
Second, you can safely remove your Christian spectacles now. :-) Now ask yourself on what basis you, given your own worldview, know that:
a) logic exists and is a good way to discover truth
b) it is objectively morally objectionable to do anything.
Note that "I think it's morally objectionable b/c it is displeasing to me does not fulfill the requirements - that's not objective. Human empathy doesn't either. Societal preference/agreement doesn't either.
Maybe that will help you get it.
Peace,
Rhology
@ Brian "All the hand-waving interpretations I used to subscribe to about how God's intention was never that. . ., Abraham never really intended to. . ., this was just God's way of demonstrating. . . blah, blah, blah seem ridiculous to me now."
ReplyDeleteAmen to that
I was truly frightened by this story as a child and as a mother it is, well words have been used above and I have no furhter synonyms to provide. It is interesting to me how we all seem to have a visceral reaction to this story as if it were actually historical as opposed to some of the others. This type of story is so powerful in the bible because of its impact on our psyche. We can think of ways that Lot's daughters were representative of nations or Cain's offering was cultural backlash against the powerful agricultural societies but killing (or offering to kill) your only (not counting Ishmael apparently) child is so reprehensible to us that we are slammed against a wall: Atheist/Christian/Muslim alike. Some of us need to justify it theologically, some of us dismiss it as horrifying but none of us skim by this passage with no reaction at all.
I think this is a good thing: consider a society that had no feelings about child sacrifice; if it was a cautionary tale to stop ancient peoples from performing this ritual then it has served its purpose.
@David
ReplyDeleteThe "insecure god" you mention must be Satan, and his obedience would be for you to be disobedient to God.
And yes obedience to the God that "calleth those things which be not as though they were" Romans 4:17 is something we should strive to do. In the Christian context, God created everything, He wrote the rules, man obeys them. Simple right? I have a tough time. I think we all have.
@Chris Krycho I agree with you when you say "It's one of the few places I've seen Christians and atheists discussing the Bible without significant animus, and that's a good thing!" I agree, this is very good to see and i enjoy reading the posts.
From my own heart to others don't take my posts as being negative or in a nasty voice. I know it's easy to do because my words don't have my emotion behind them, but remember this
Titus 3:2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.
Keep up the good posts.
I can't help but have noticed some of the moral disgust toward some of the actions in the Biblical narrative by the atheists here, which is strange considering 1) you have no basis for that moral disgust, and 2) you (secular humanists in general I mean) get mad when the "moral majority" points out moral failings.
ReplyDeleteThat's the thing about the Bible, it doesn't sugar coat the deal. It shows humanity in all its disgusting detail and shows how a holy God deals with our sinful rebellion.
@momof atheists
ReplyDeleteCan i expect to read about you demonstrating at a anti-abortion event? It's not ok for God to request from man something that God can restore, but man can kill a child and never be able to restore it to life again.
You get pissy @ the Almighty for requesting this, have you been or others pissy @ man for the same act and following through on it?
Yes look on this and be horrified. Then look at this present age. Will people look back to this age and see how wicked we were for allowing abortion?
@Rhology:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your response, but I disagree with a point in your second paragraph. I agree that logic is a good way to discover truth, and is an important part of the structure of science.
"b) it is objectively morally objectionable to do anything.". This I disagree with.
From my perspective Christians feel that the basis for morality must be something absolute. An external yardstick with which human behavior can be measured. Without such an external morality - morals become relativistic and hence 'sinful'. The fear of god's punishment provides the impetus to adhere to the supernatural lawbook.
I don't think that morality is as mysterious or elusive as you suggest. Day to day decisions are usually a simple matter of kindness, respect of others and not deliberately causing harm. An occasional extreme ethical dilemma might pop up a few times in ones life, but that's rare.
You speak of 'objective' morality, but I would argue that no such animal exists. Humanistic morality evolves from our own experiences, as I believe it should. Unless a god has been thirsty, hungry, or in pain how is it he/she/it can assign morality to creatures that can feel those things?
Humans sense of what is and isn't moral has evolved over our history and that's a good thing. Slavery was once commonly accepted and considered a moral - or at least not an immoral practice. Over the years we've come to understand that slavery IS immoral.
Morality that is humanisitic will always be the better path, to my eyes, seeing as how it is we humans that have to live with it.
Well since we're going down the abortion whirlpool, I have to admit that I am looking forward to reading the entire Bible to see where it says anything at all about abortion. I've always been fairly familiar with but have never found anything on the topic at all, and no anti-abortion person has ever been able to give me a passage that talks about it. I guess time will tell.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I will assume that anyone who doesn't like abortion will willingly donate as much of their own body for the survival of others as possible. It's really fantastic to know that blood will be available for me if I ever need a transfusion, and even that money and food will be available for me if I am ever starving.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteI understand what you're saying, but I think it only takes a few well-asked questions to demonstrate that, outside of a Christian framework, any foundation for morality you think you have is actually a mess, incoherent, and self-referentially subjective. God in His commands, which flow out of His character as their basis, explains and grounds an objective morality which we do not judge. Rather, we submit to it.
So yes, the basis for morality must be absolute b/c if not, there is no reason to prefer one morality over another. Tell me why I should prefer to talk to you rather than kill you. Don't appeal to society - society changes, you wouldn't accept society's opinion if it disagreed with you anyway, and you haven't done an exhaustive survey. Don't say empathy - maybe I prefer to empathise with you by killing you. So, what is it?
You provide a good test case - what is morally objectionable about acting out of fear of God's punishment? Be specific and explain how you know what you say.
Why should we act with, as you said, "kindness, respect of others and not deliberately causing harm"? ISTM this is "David Command Theory". Why prefer you over God, though?
Peace,
Rhology
@David You say "Unless a god has been thirsty, hungry, or in pain how is it he/she/it can assign morality to creatures that can feel those things?"
ReplyDeleteIt's good that you mention that in Hebrews 5:1-11 we read
1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; 10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. 11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
Christ suffered just like you and i, even more worse suffering than i pray you will ever experience. So He is able to lay out morality.
"Humans sense of what is and isn't moral has evolved over our history and that's a good thing. Slavery was once commonly accepted and considered a moral - or at least not an immoral practice. Over the years we've come to understand that slavery IS immoral."
I think you are mistaken evolved morality, to rebellion from God's moral standard. Yes they had slavery yet please be mindful of how God instructs them to care for their slaves. We have slavery today. Anyone have a mortgage or a credit card? You are a slave to it. Anyone have an addiction to something? Again slave to it. John 8:31-37 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 ¶They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
There are many people that struggle with things, they know it's killing them and leaving them empty and at times miserable. The Christian knows it as sin and how it will destroy a person.
You said also:
"Morality that is humanisitic will always be the better path, to my eyes, seeing as how it is we humans that have to live with it."
I don't see it that way. Because morality that is humanistic will continue to change... the only humans that have to "live with it" are the ones that decide that morality. That morality may say that other humans are not worthy to live and kill them off. It has happened before and still happens today. And that "humanistic" morality has no value to anyone but those that agree with that morality. Why the dislike for God's morality? Anything specific that you don't like?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Chris: Thanks for the great background! I love following the evolution of monotheism and the framework you mentioned is good to keep in mind in approaching these documents. I know the prophets contain a lot of meat with respect to the changing view of the deity but I've never read them carefully for that purpose, so I'm looking forward to getting there.
ReplyDelete@momofatheists: I certainly agree that our collective visceral response to the story is a positive thing - a testament to humanism I think.
I will enthusiastically echo the praise of civil discussion. The value of this kind of project is in understanding each other and not in trying to change minds, and I think the comments have mostly been in that spirit.
For my part, I would never seek to separate a person from their faith. My atheism is a joyful and carefully-considered atheism that was preceded by a secular view of ethics and purpose and a positive naturalistic view of the world. I can imagine that to lose faith without such a precedent could be traumatic and hence the cruelty of a purposeful attack on someone's faith. That's where I'm coming from. I also think one great reason for secular people to read the Bible is to understand the foundation of the religious worldview that predominates in our society (I believe many of us are from the U.S.), so the Christian interpretations here are of immense value.
Point 3: Hebrews was written later, by different writers. In Genesis no one has been raised from the dead yet. Why would he think God has this property?
ReplyDeleteIt does seem impossible for Christians to discuss any bit of the OT without bringing Jesus into it.
I can't help but have noticed some of the moral disgust toward some of the actions in the Biblical narrative by the atheists here, which is strange considering 1) you have no basis for that moral disgust, and 2) you (secular humanists in general I mean) get mad when the "moral majority" points out moral failings.
The trope that atheists are immoral is false. That's all I'll say. Can we get the conversation back to the Bible? This is going to get ugly fast, and it was going sooo nice.
The trope that atheists are immoral is false
ReplyDeleteIf you read it again, you'll notice that neither bossmanham nor I have said that.
@betterthanesdras yes as a Christian and others here can point their view. "Christians" don't have a monopoly on morality or good or what is right vs. wrong. As in to say, because we are Christians, we are the only ones that can say what is right and wrong, good or bad. And we are the only ones that can be good and morally correct. No that is totally not true. However we use the Bible to test morality and right/wrong and to judge if it lines up to God's standard. Find that common ground and then converse with a person or people on the areas we don't agree.
ReplyDeleteAs for morals and religion, one of my favorite quotes.
ReplyDelete"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg
@bananacat1
ReplyDeleteKeep the iron to my back on this one. We won't read the word abortion in scripture, however we will read about child sacrafice allot (pass through the fire. This is not fire walking by the way) 2 Kings 16:3, 2 Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Exekiel 16:21. And it is something that God does not take to kind to.
Ping me if you have questions.
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteDid Weinberg explain how he knows what good and evil are?
Do you know?
If not, that quote is meaningless and empty.
Back to the point about whether human sacrifice was an accepted part of the culture of the time, and jumping ahead a little, in Judges, Jephtha vows, in return for a military victory, to sacrifice the first living thing that greets him upon his return home. Which turns out to be his daughter. He's horrified, but does it anyway. God does not intervene, no ram shows up at the last minute. If human sacrifice were unacceptable, you would think the story would conclude with another last-minute reprieve, but it doesn't. I know we'll be getting to this section later, but I think it's relevant now.
ReplyDeleteA modern comparison: Remember Andrea Yates? She thought god was commanding her to kill her children, and she drowned all five of them. (Again, no intervention from above to stop this.) Yet we do not consider her godly or inspired, we consider her insane. We recoil at the horror of what she did, yet somehow the ancient story is supposed to be inspirational, not horrifying.
God does not intervene, no ram shows up at the last minute. If human sacrifice were unacceptable, you would think the story would conclude with another last-minute reprieve, but it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteDoes God always intervene? Or is it rather that it's notable (in the Bible) when He intervenes b/c such intervention is rare?
Plenty of things are recorded in Judges, let alone the entire Bible, that God does not commend. Let's get our heads on straight here, OK?
Gen. 22:2 has always fascinated me. God tells Abraham to "take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou lovest." Given that Ishmael is off in the wilderness, "take now thy son" should suffice to indicate that God is talking about Isaac. Yet he goes on - not just "take thy son," but "thine only son," "Isaac," "whom thou lovest." I've never been able to decide if God thinks Abraham is an idiot; thinks Abraham will try to do an end-run around God by sacrificing Ishmael or "adopting" a surrogate son/burnt offering; or just wants to twist the knife in the whole "I'm asking you to char your kid in my name" point.
ReplyDeleteIn any of these cases, Abraham doesn't strike me as acting out of some enormous faith that this God really *won't* ask him to sacrifice his kid (why not, when all the other local gods do?) rather than acting out of a horrible sense that there simply is no other option. Which, fwiw, is mirrored in Jesus's plea-bargaining in Gethsemane.
Rhology:
ReplyDelete"Tell me why I should prefer to talk to you rather than kill you.". I think that if you become a murderer it would not be in your own self-interest. Many people, Christian and otherwise would act to protect themselves from people who would act in such a way. I'd say that you shouldn't kill me because, aside from being a really bad day for me! - it will also be injurious to you. And I WILL appeal to society. Killing others is injurious to society. If you feel it should be legal to kill others as opposed to talking to them your free to lobby society for a change in the rules. Societies do change and evolve as does our definition of moral and ethical behavior.
Christians have such a pessimistic view of 'self'. We humans are depraved and
need an external source for our morality, because we are incapable of forming our own rules. I disagree. I think we are quite capable of determining the rules of ethical behavior in our society. I trust my intelligence and decision making capacity to examine the effects of differing behavior and determine what is moral. If society disagrees I, too, can lobby for a change of rules. I can argue my case and let the free market of ideas decide.
Religious morality is dangerous, to my mind, because we are not allowed to participate in the formulation of the moral code - even in principle. That is tyranny. It is an insult to human capability, intelligence and kindness.
I'd say to you Rho, that you are not inherently evil - you are inherently human, clearly possessing intelligence, kindness and positive potential. Trust yourself.
Sidebar - and don't take this as a combative questions, I'm truly puzzled. If you don't trust society or mankind or even yourself to decide what is or isn't moral behavior - how do you trust yourself to decide on what religion is true, if god exists, etc? If humans are so flawed that human moral decisions are suspect - aren't decisions regarding god, religion and your interpretation of that religion also suspect?
Hi David,
ReplyDeletePlease allow me to continue to ask the questions I promised I'd be asking. :-)
I think that if you become a murderer it would not be in your own self-interest.
This is not a statement of morality. Of normativity.
Besides, who says that following self-interest is necessarily moral? Many ppl think that selfishness is IMmoral.
And I WILL appeal to society
You can until society decides that you aren't really human. That's happened over and over throughout human history.
For your own good in this debate - don't do that.
Killing others is injurious to society.
1) This begs the question. "Doing this bad thing is bad b/c it's bad!"
2) What if society decides that it's NOT injurious to execute skeptics? By definition, I guess it wouldn't be injurious anymore, right?
Christians have such a pessimistic view of 'self'.
We're just imitating Jesus. :-D
We humans are depraved and need an external source for our morality, because we are incapable of forming our own rules.
These are actually 2 unrelated things. Either can exist independently of the other.
I think we are quite capable of determining the rules of ethical behavior in our society.
Your faith is admirable. Thanks for sharing your religious faith.
I think what I'm asking for, however, is logical argumentation.
Trust yourself.
I've done that too many times to think, naïvely, that my own heart is a good guide for goodness or truth. Jesus is way better.
how do you trust yourself to decide on what religion is true, if god exists, etc?
Great question. I don't trust myself, as a matter of fact. God gave me a new heart and opened my eyes to see the truth. Now, I REMAIN a Christian in part b/c I subject all worldviews, including Christianity, to the same examination. All have failed except for Jesus.
Peace,
Rhology
@bossmanham said:
ReplyDelete"1) you have no basis for that moral disgust"
Please take a basic level Ethics course, and you will see that morality is not necessarily derived from religion. Morality is an evolved process that has take thousands of years to process. There have also been many shifts in moral thought throughout time, but there is no consensus that moral=religious. There are also many moral issues that cannot be answered via religious thought, especially if you are trying to get a consensus among believers. Likewise, there will never be a consensus among skeptics, either, but that doesn't mean that there is a lack of morals.
@Rhology said:
ReplyDelete"the basis for morality must be absolute b/c if not, there is no reason to prefer one morality over another."
This is not true because there are many ethical dilemmas that exist that have no one true answer that everyone will agree upon, even among similar groups of people such as religious sects. There is a plethora of examples I could provide, but that would be a distracting conversation.
Alan,
ReplyDeleteYou have made a category error. "Not everyone will agree" is not a refutation of my position.
In fact, if you read the Bible, you'll find that the Bible anticipates that most people WILL NOT agree with it.
A question for everyone about this passage. If today someone claimed that he was told by god to sacrifice his child, would that be acceptable by today's standards? Would christians stand behind this man, or would they claim that he was delirious and didn't really hear the voice of god?
ReplyDeleteWhat about 7th Day Adventists who won't accept a cure for something that is easily curable? What if it is a parent making that decision for a child? Is that still going against your version god's wishes, or are they ok in following their version of god?
@Rhology, there is disagreement even among those who agree that the bible is the true word of god. Many people make this claim, but the bible has been interpreted in so many ways, that it is impossible to have "One True Interpretation" (tm). When one person makes a claim about the bible (or even a small section), you must also say that someone else is wrong in their interpretation. The point is that there cannot be a clear standard for morality if so many people have differing opinions about it.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that atheists have no standard for morality is an entitled opinion, but many atheists don't make a claim that they have "The Answer" (tm) to all life's questions. Many religious people make that claim and will usually cite the bible.
Gee, this was fun for about a week. Now thanks to Rhology and friends, now its' seminary. Long winded arguments by assertion and appeals to personal revelation?
ReplyDelete"God in His commands, which flow out of His character as their basis, explains and grounds an objective morality which we do not judge. Rather, we submit to it. "
That's an assertion I'd like to see you back up with evidence, otherwise you're just preaching. The Imam down street tells me the same thing. And he's technically talking about the same god. If you want to discuss the text with the rest of us civilly that's fine, but this passive aggressive preaching is pretty close to the line of Trolling.
@Edward
"Why the dislike for God's morality? Anything specific that you don't like?"
That I don't believe in God is a good starting point. When we get to the commandments we can talk about specifics.
I have no idea what "Christians" would do. Most "Christians" don't think very deeply about this sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteThe biblical answer would be: No, God did not tell you that. Abraham had a different relationship and theological epistemological justification than you have. The Bible is God's Word, and He has spoken sufficiently clearly and to a sufficient extent to let us know that child sacrifice would not be permissible.
The issue is not: are they OK in following their version of god? If it were, then nobody could ever proscribe anything. Law and moral condemnation would be impossible. Kinda like how atheism ends up.
The fact is that 7thDA who disallow medical care are not properly understanding or applying the Bible. So no, they are not justified in that.
Alan,
ReplyDeletethere is disagreement even among those who agree that the bible is the true word of god.
Oh, so I guess that means evolution can't be true since there is disagreement that it happened the way Science® says it happened.
Many people make this claim, but the bible has been interpreted in so many ways, that it is impossible to have "One True Interpretation" (tm)
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
What if I took the same route for your own comment that you just did? Tell you what. Do yourself a favor; read this and get back to us, please.
many atheists don't make a claim that they have "The Answer" (tm) to all life's questions.
I question your interp of the data. I guess that means, given what YOU'VE just been telling us, that your comment is without merit or meaning. Thanks! I'll just dismiss it out of hand.
Blotz,
That's an assertion I'd like to see you back up with evidence, otherwise you're just preaching.
What did you have in mind? I'm *explaining* my position. What kind of evidence would you adduce to the contrary?
This is a category error.
The Imam down street tells me the same thing.
And?
this passive aggressive preaching is pretty close to the line of Trolling.
You apparently have little idea what trolling really is.
Peace,
Rhology
@Blotz:
ReplyDeleteGee, this was fun for about a week. Now thanks to Rhology and friends, now its' seminary. Long winded arguments by assertion and appeals to personal revelation?
I agree wholeheartedly. Thanks for saying what I've been thinking for a couple of days now.
@Rhology
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not: are they OK in following their version of god? If it were, then nobody could ever proscribe anything. Law and moral condemnation would be impossible. Kinda like how atheism ends up.
The fact is that 7thDA who disallow medical care are not properly understanding or applying the Bible. So no, they are not justified in that.
You make this claim, but 7th Day Adventists would make the same exact claim about you. Where does that get things? Who is right and who is wrong? An outside arbiter, using only the bible as a guide, would have to claim it as a stalemate. Neither can effectively prove the other wrong or themselves as right. So then where does that leave the bible as a guide for morals?
The biblical answer would be: No, God did not tell you that. Abraham had a different relationship and theological epistemological justification than you have. The Bible is God's Word, and He has spoken sufficiently clearly and to a sufficient extent to let us know that child sacrifice would not be permissible.
Again, you can't prove that someone wasn't hearing the voice of god. In fact, wouldn't that be questioning god if he/she/it was communicating with this person? It's happened before, according to you (and the bible), so why couldn't it happen again?
I agree that this was a nice experiment to begin with, but it has become a long sermon attempt by many people who have not looked at it from both perspectives, a claim that many atheists can make. My one wish is that all those making morality claims about themselves and others would just start citing other perspectives on morality and think beyond the bible.
David,
ReplyDeleteI guess tolerance only extends to people who make you feel comfortable?
Alan,
So then where does that leave the bible as a guide for morals?
1) It changes nothing. Just b/c ppl misuse something means nothing with respect to its utility and ability to decide matters.
2) Let's say I ask whether it's OK for me to kill you right now. You say that's horrible and inhumane.
You make this claim, but serial killers would make the same exact opposite claim. Where does that get things? Who is right and who is wrong? An outside arbiter, using only your vague appellation of "inhumane" as a guide, would have to claim it as a stalemate. Neither can effectively prove the other wrong or themselves as right. So then where does that leave the concept of "inhumane" as a guide for morals?
you can't prove that someone wasn't hearing the voice of god.
Sorry, yes I can. God does not contradict Himself.
It's happened before, according to you (and the bible), so why couldn't it happen again?
B/c God said that He would not speak in that way, and certainly not in a self-contradictory way.
My one wish is that all those making morality claims about themselves and others would just start citing other perspectives on morality and think beyond the bible.
That's funny, I feel a very similar way.
My one wish is that all those making morality claims about themselves and others would just start citing other perspectives on morality and think beyond their self-referential repetition of their own preferences.
:-)
Peace,
Rhology
I am another of those who finds my attitude to the story has changed significantly over time. My religious instruction as a child (Ulster Presbyterianism) led me to much the same conclusion as Brian – that Abraham was a ‘hero and a giant of faith’. Coming back to the story later and as an atheist – I wonder if it is significant that now I have children of my own? – I find myself horrified by the very idea of a God who could ask such a thing even if the asking were a test.
ReplyDeleteI have encountered the suggestion that the test was not the obvious ‘will Abraham do as he is told?’ one, but a marginally more sophisticated (but in my opinion no more moral) trial with no failure option: if Abraham shows himself willing to make the sacrifice, he is the giant of faith and God will approve of him. But if he refuses, he shows himself to be righteous for the sake of righteousness itself, and not merely for the sake of God’s approval, and as a righteous man... God will approve of him. Win-win.
No, I can’t say I like that version much better. That sounds to me like trying to put modern spin on a decidedly not-modern story. But I’ll throw it into the mix for what it’s worth.
However, some years ago I discussed the story with a Jewish friend – specifically, the story as we both remembered it from our childhoods, through the filter of religious education, children’s books etc. My version had Isaac as, most decidedly, a child: I can remember illustrations showing him to be ten at most and often barely more than a toddler. My friend’s recollection was of an Isaac no younger than late adolescence, and perhaps advanced into young adulthood, and she described to me a variation on the story in which Isaac is old enough to understand what is happening and who submits to it. Informed consent, in the modern phrase.
The willing sacrifice will come up later, of course; it is not unique to Judo-Christianity, and I don’t know how widespread that version of the story is. Perhaps another reader will know? I would see it as throwing the focus of the story onto Isaac – making Isaac, not Abraham, the hero and giant of faith. Does that take us somewhere different?
@Rhology
ReplyDeleteSorry, yes I can. God does not contradict Himself.
If you actually read through, there are many places where god indeed contradicts himself. A short list can be found here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Heck, the creation stories (there are 2 in Genesis) contradict each other.
@Alan
ReplyDeleteThis is not the dagger to the neck, however there are Christians today that do sacrifice their children. They even sacrifice themselves. You just need to get outside of America to see it. This is something that is not reported in the news everyday, yet it happens everyday.
Visit persecution read about the Christians in other countries that are killed because of their Faith in Jesus Christ. Also get the free book by Richard Wurmbrand Tortured for Christ. These people know full well that they accept Jesus Christ they are going to pay and sometimes with their own lives.
Matthew 10:16-42
John 16:2
Touching on not taking medicine Matthew 4:7, Deuteronomy 6:16. God gave some of us abilities to learn about the human body and to keep it. Others just don't want to use that knowledge because of some strange doctrine. They are in error.
Oh I'm not uncomfortable, Rhology, just weary of the same ole Christian sermonizing. Lots of us are atheists, we've heard it all before.
ReplyDeleteI've yet to see any compelling, verifiable evidence for the existence of your god or any other - much less his morality.
@David
ReplyDeleteRomans 1:20-25
What evidence would you accept that there is a God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and ed mann?
@Edward
ReplyDeleteI have read Tortured for Christ, but that doesn't prove that the Christians were right. I don't think that the actions taken against them were right, and in fact disapprove strongly of them.
Also, just saying that someone is in error doesn't solve anything because they will say the same thing–and hold to it just as adamantly–about you.
A scary example I have seen is from the movie "Jesus Camp." The director of the camp is leading the group (mostly children) in a chant of "This is war!" talking about their religious fight against Muslims. There is a disconnect because there are Muslims out there doing the exact same thing. Which one is right or just? Each has the right to stand up for what they think is right, but what about when there is no evidence for either except for faith? (and holy books don't count because they each have their own they can cite, some of which is shared between the two groups)
Like David said, many of you are making these grandiose justifications for what's happening in the bible, but if they happened today, it would be a different story. Present the evidence that isn't circular, and maybe I'll start listening.
Here is a pretty succinct list of the type of evidence I would need.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html
ps - who is ed mann?
If you actually read through, there are many places where god indeed contradicts himself. A short list can be found here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Heck, the creation stories (there are 2 in Genesis) contradict each other.
Indeed, contradictions in the Bible are a dime a dozen, absolutely trivial to spot.
Christians/Jews have developed rationalizations for every contradiction in the Bible. But really, almost all these "errors" are simply a result of disparate sources being strung together. Once you tease out the various sources, the contradictions vanish.
While I think the discussion of religious and secular morality has become exceedingly tangential with respect to the daily reading, it's an important one and I suspect it will be a year-long one.
ReplyDeleteAn assertion that catches my attention is that non-religious morality quickly becomes messy upon challenge and scrutiny and that an objective revealed morality solves this problem. It's true that questions of morality, approached secularly, tend to be sticky, entangling and profoundly difficult. And you know what? That's okay with me.
I recognize that most people will see absolute answers to moral questions as satisfying and even necessary, but skepticism teaches an appreciation for the process of asking and exploring difficult questions rather than the certainty of presumed answers. Wrestling with these challenging issues is a deeply meaningful part of what it means to be human.
So, am I a moral relativist? (Or do all skeptics have to be?) That's tricky. I don't consider myself one. I would say that there may be hypothetical perfect moral truths that we will never ascertain completely, but in our struggle to refine our approximation of them we will gain valuable insight into morality and the human experience.
This is essentially what Jean-Paul Sartre means when he talks about the immense responsibility every individual bears in defining mankind. Through each seemingly-insignificant decision we make we are essentially determining what humanity is like, what we value, what we see as right and good collectively. This notion was extremely salient for me from the time I first encountered Sartre, at which point I was a devout Christian. Bertrand Russell has also written sublimely on these kinds of ideas.
@David, i am ed mann and thanks for the list. I read over some of it, but need to get back to work. I have been here to much today.
ReplyDelete@Alan "I have read Tortured for Christ, but that doesn't prove that the Christians were right. I don't think that the actions taken against them were right, and in fact disapprove strongly of them."
The book and site are for reference to sacrificing. Not oh look at the bad going on to those poor Christians. If you know: "If i accept Jesus Christ they will kill me and possibly my family." And you do it anyway is that not you willing to sacrifice your children/family? Sometimes it's children accepting Christ and their mothers/fathers being killed.
As for
"The director of the camp is leading the group (mostly children) in a chant of "This is war!" talking about their religious fight against Muslims. There is a disconnect because there are Muslims out there doing the exact same thing. Which one is right or just?"
Both are wrong. From scripture
Romans 12:14-21, 1 Thessalonians 4:11, 2 Corinthians 13:11. We are instructed to live in peace. That does not mean i cannot defend my life, home, or country. As some would like to use that as chains to enslave a Christian. Yet i don't go out looking for a fight. Now there is a spiritual war that we are engaged in. We will get to that later.
I think something good that can come out of this project is that more atheists will be able to know true Christians, from those that have stolen the label of Christian and behave contrary to how a Christian aught to behave. And that is something we can both speak out against, i am more than willing to show them the error of their way via scripture.
Alan,
ReplyDeleteWrt biblical "contradictions", I invite you to give me your favorite 5. I'll give you a whole blogpost over at my place. Email me and we'll set it up. I never moderate my comments, and your email will be displayed unedited. If you can't substantiate your 5 favorites, I consider the matter closed, and another failure noted.
As for the 2 creation stories, sorry to disappoint.
David,
Feeling's mutual. :-) Seen all this stuff before, myself.
I've yet to see any compelling, verifiable evidence for the truth of your atheistic worldview or any other atheistic worldview, - much less evidence that your morality is correct. Much less than that any evidence that evidence is a good way to discover truth.
IOW, find another objection, please.
Peace,
Rhology
@Rhology: I've not claimed anything exists (atheist remember?) , therefore I've nothing to prove. (You can't prove a negative) You've made the assertion that a biblical god exists, thus the burden of proof rests with you.
ReplyDeleteTruth without independently verifiable evidence is nothing more than an assertion. IOW, find another objection please.
David,
ReplyDeleteYou walked right into it.
Truth without independently verifiable evidence is nothing more than an assertion.
You claimed truth exists. Prove it. The burden of proof rests with you.
Great, we all agree. Truth doesn't exist so morals can't exist. Next subject please. Wait, do I exist?
ReplyDeleteRhology:
ReplyDeleteSorry, but no dice. Truth is the degree with which a statement or assertion corresponds with reality and logic. Truth is a quality of a statement or assertion. It is not a thing or an assertion in and of itself. If I state - It's cloudy in Atlanta, GA @ 4:31PM local time on Jan. 7th, 2011 - is that a true assertion? (hint - I'm looking out my window and it is). But why should you believe me? I've made the assertion, so I have to provide evidence - possibly in the form of near unamimous agreement by several people in the area, Channel 2's ACTION DOPPLER RADAR (sorry, but they always seem to say it in all caps, so...) independent photographic evidence with verifiable time/date stamps, etc. You needn't take just my word. If you decide that I'm lying - so be it.
If you choose to deny the existence of this 'truth' - that's your business. I won't try to dissuade you or convert you to the Friday it was Cloudy Club. Are you willing to stop attempting to dissuade me of the truth of your claim of God as well? If not, the burden of proof regarding god's existence rests with you.
Perhaps I should have said "The truth of a statement without independently verifiable evidence is nothing more that assertion"
Truth is the degree with which a statement or assertion corresponds with reality and logic.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know? You're giving me a doctrinal statement so far. How have your observations led you to this deductive conclusion, and what do you make of the fact that this is a category error?
If you choose to deny the existence of this 'truth' - that's your business.
I didn't say I denied it, but I say truth exists b/c God exists.
Now, you need to give me some confidence that you can identify truth and prove it exists, w/o God. That's why I'm asking you these deconstructing questions. If my long experience is any indication, you won't be able to sustain your position.
Are you willing to stop attempting to dissuade me of the truth of your claim of God as well?
No. My contention is that God's existence is a necessary presupposition, that all other claims result in absurdity. Given that we'll see (if you're willing to stick it out) that you'll be reduced to naked assertions of blind faith, my contention will be shown to be correct.
Peace,
Rhology
@Rhology David did a great job of explaining truth, both its definition as well as how it is discovered. "If my long experience is any indication, you won't be able to sustain your position." That's probably just because people get sick of arguing with you and leave.
ReplyDeleteRhology:
ReplyDelete"My contention is that God's existence is a necessary presupposition"
and a flawed presupposition in my opinion.
Ontological arguments are just bad grammar in my experience. If your 'proof' is a complex philosophical argument, well, I'm not impressed. I mean really - is that the best evidence you are able to provide for the validity of your claims? Sorry. From now on I'll just share my thoughts on the daily reading and let the proselytizers do what they will.
Perhaps Rhology, Edward, Alan and David could form a blog discussion elswhere. That way they could maintain their dicussion on the topics that interest them without interupting the flow of the conversation here. Please consider this and post a link so that those of us interested in participating can find you.
ReplyDeletePS - Thanks Eddie! I needed that laugh!
ReplyDeletePPS - Sorry Mom (looks guiltily downward)
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be a mom if I couldn't generate guilt!
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised that the expectation of this experiment was not going to cause philosophical discussion. Personally I'm happy to see an apologetic response to the difficult topic of why God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son. Your world view determines how you interpret what your reading. That's what Rhology has been trying to tease out with his questions. Why read the bible if you aren't seeking to understand what's written?
ReplyDelete@frank
ReplyDeleteI agree, however the conversation seems to have taken a detour that they are enjoying. We all welcome philosophical discussion, however the depth of that particular thread appears to be getting a bit long for the purposes of this project. It was just a thought. Feel free to ignore me; my kids do all the time!
Alan,
ReplyDeletePlease take a basic level Ethics course, and you will see that morality is not necessarily derived from religion.
Who said anything about that? I'm well aware of the different ethical systems that exist. None of them allow you to say that another person's actions are objectively disgusting. They'll simply respond, "I'm fine with my actions, but thanks for your opinion."
Wow things got busy while I was at work today.
ReplyDelete@Brian Hitt
“For my part, I would never seek to separate a person from their faith. My atheism is a joyful and carefully-considered atheism that was preceded by a secular view of ethics and purpose and a positive naturalistic view of the world. “
“An assertion that catches my attention is that non-religious morality quickly becomes messy upon challenge and scrutiny and that an objective revealed morality solves this problem. It's true that questions of morality, approached secularly, tend to be sticky, entangling and profoundly difficult. And you know what? That's okay with me.”
I love both of these quotes. Easy answers are not always the best, it is the hard ones that we learn the most from. Challenging your morality and aspiring to better actions are wonderful things that are a core part of our humanity.
That is all I will say about normative ethics, there are many other forums of debate on these topics.
@Rhology
Point 1) The Hebrew word used in that verse clearly states “to offer a burnt offering.” http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5930&t=KJV
Point 2) We cannot suppose either way, I think we both agree on that. The mention of genital mutilation was in attempt to point out that God had already demanded actions of faith, and Abraham had carried them out.
Point 3) Still: Hebrews was written later, by different writers. In Genesis NO ONE has been raised from the dead yet. God hasn't stated anything to this effect. Why would he think God has this property? It is more likely the later writers of Hebrews, amending the story to fit their world view.
Point 4) The idea of this referencing Jesus is interesting, but I am not entirely convinced. It could have also been the result of multiple authors, or editing after the fact that resulted in the discrepancy.
Point 5) I concede, I don't know why God would do such a thing. I could have been insecurity, it could have been Him needing to test Abraham more. However, Abraham already mutilated himself, his servants, relatives, and son. This on Gods word alone. That is a LOT of faith already. Demanding the life of the son seems redundant.
Point 6) Claiming a divine command theory of ethics, entails a lot of consequences. IE: If morals do not transcend a deity, then God can command whatever he wants to be good, and it will be. If you would like to discuss normative ethics, this is not the place. However, if you post a link to a blog or forum, I would love to continue the discussion there.
Wow things got busy while I was at work today.
ReplyDelete@Brian Hitt
“For my part, I would never seek to separate a person from their faith. My atheism is a joyful and carefully-considered atheism that was preceded by a secular view of ethics and purpose and a positive naturalistic view of the world. “
“An assertion that catches my attention is that non-religious morality quickly becomes messy upon challenge and scrutiny and that an objective revealed morality solves this problem. It's true that questions of morality, approached secularly, tend to be sticky, entangling and profoundly difficult. And you know what? That's okay with me.”
I love both of these quotes. Easy answers are not always the best, it is the hard ones that we learn the most from. Challenging your morality and aspiring to better actions are wonderful things that are a core part of our humanity.
That is all I will say about normative ethics, there are many other forums of debate on these topics.
@Rhology
Point 1) The Hebrew word used in that verse clearly states “to offer a burnt offering.” http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5930&t=KJV
Point 2) We cannot suppose either way, I think we both agree on that. The mention of genital mutilation was in attempt to point out that God had already demanded actions of faith, and Abraham had carried them out.
Point 3) Still: Hebrews was written later, by different writers. In Genesis NO ONE has been raised from the dead yet. God hasn't stated anything to this effect. Why would he think God has this property? It is more likely the later writers of Hebrews, amending the story to fit their world view.
Point 4) The idea of this referencing Jesus is interesting, but I am not entirely convinced. It could have also been the result of multiple authors, or editing after the fact that resulted in the discrepancy.
Point 5) I concede, I don't know why God would do such a thing. I could have been insecurity, it could have been Him needing to test Abraham more. However, Abraham already mutilated himself, his servants, relatives, and son. This on Gods word alone. That is a LOT of faith already. Demanding the life of the son seems redundant.
Point 6) Claiming a divine command theory of ethics, entails a lot of consequences. IE: If morals do not transcend a deity, then God can command whatever he wants to be good, and it will be. If you would like to discuss normative ethics, this is not the place. However, if you post a link to a blog or forum, I would love to continue the discussion there.
Wow things got busy while I was at work today.
ReplyDelete@Brian Hitt
“For my part, I would never seek to separate a person from their faith. My atheism is a joyful and carefully-considered atheism that was preceded by a secular view of ethics and purpose and a positive naturalistic view of the world. “
“An assertion that catches my attention is that non-religious morality quickly becomes messy upon challenge and scrutiny and that an objective revealed morality solves this problem. It's true that questions of morality, approached secularly, tend to be sticky, entangling and profoundly difficult. And you know what? That's okay with me.”
I love both of these quotes. Easy answers are not always the best, it is the hard ones that we learn the most from. Challenging your morality and aspiring to better actions are wonderful things that are a core part of our humanity.
That is all I will say about normative ethics, there are many other forums of debate on these topics.
@Rhology
Point 1) The Hebrew word used in that verse clearly states “to offer a burnt offering.” http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5930&t=KJV
Point 2) We cannot suppose either way, I think we both agree on that. The mention of genital mutilation was in attempt to point out that God had already demanded actions of faith, and Abraham had carried them out.
Point 3) Still: Hebrews was written later, by different writers. In Genesis NO ONE has been raised from the dead yet. God hasn't stated anything to this effect. Why would he think God has this property? It is more likely the later writers of Hebrews, amending the story to fit their world view.
Point 4) The idea of this referencing Jesus is interesting, but I am not entirely convinced. It could have also been the result of multiple authors, or editing after the fact that resulted in the discrepancy.
Point 5) I concede, I don't know why God would do such a thing. I could have been insecurity, it could have been Him needing to test Abraham more. However, Abraham already mutilated himself, his servants, relatives, and son. This on Gods word alone. That is a LOT of faith already. Demanding the life of the son seems redundant.
Point 6) Claiming a divine command theory of ethics, entails a lot of consequences. IE: If morals do not transcend a deity, then God can command whatever he wants to be good, and it will be. If you would like to discuss normative ethics, this is not the place. However, if you post a link to a blog or forum, I would love to continue the discussion there.
Wow! I take my kids to the snow and miss all this intense discussion!
ReplyDeleteFirst, I want to say thanks, Chris Krycho for your great comments. I enjoyed them - please keep participating!
On the Isaac story - it's kind of funny but this story actually sits better with me now that I'm an atheist than it ever did before. I can see that Israelites were figuring out this new way of experiencing God. God and Abraham were feeling each other out, seeing what could and should be expected both ways. From a cultural perspective, it doesn't even matter to me whether Abraham ever believed that God would actually let him kill Isaac or whether God's test of Abraham (interesting that the KJV used the word "tempt" - God tempts Abraham) is too harsh. The point of the story is that God expects absolute obedience but is also worthy of a absolute faith. Of course, the human in me recoils at the suggestion of child sacrifice, but I can see that that is not really the point of the story.
As for morality - it's very simple. I don't kill people because I don't want them to kill me. I don't steal because I don't want my things to be stolen. If it's something I wouldn't want done to me, it's probably wrong. It's the good old Golden Rule - which appears in some form in almost all human societies and predates the time that we're discussing here. Morality can be inspired by religious teachings. Amoral people can come to morality as a result of religious teachings. But morality is certainly not exclusive to religious teachings and the morality that comes from religious teachings isn't any "better" than non-religious morality. And following religious teachings doesn't guarantee morality.
Wow things got busy while I was at work today.
ReplyDelete@Brian Hitt
“For my part, I would never seek to separate a person from their faith. My atheism is a joyful and carefully-considered atheism that was preceded by a secular view of ethics and purpose and a positive naturalistic view of the world. “
“An assertion that catches my attention is that non-religious morality quickly becomes messy upon challenge and scrutiny and that an objective revealed morality solves this problem. It's true that questions of morality, approached secularly, tend to be sticky, entangling and profoundly difficult. And you know what? That's okay with me.”
I love both of these quotes. Easy answers are not always the best, it is the hard ones that we learn the most from. Challenging your morality and aspiring to better actions are wonderful things that are a core part of our humanity.
That is all I will say about normative ethics, there are many other forums of debate on these topics.
@Rhology
Point 1) The Hebrew word used in that verse clearly states “to offer a burnt offering.” http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5930&t=KJV
Point 2) We cannot suppose either way, I think we both agree on that. The mention of genital mutilation was in attempt to point out that God had already demanded actions of faith, and Abraham had carried them out.
Point 3) Still: Hebrews was written later, by different writers. In Genesis NO ONE has been raised from the dead yet. God hasn't stated anything to this effect. Why would he think God has this property? It is more likely the later writers of Hebrews, amending the story to fit their world view.
Point 4) The idea of this referencing Jesus is interesting, but I am not entirely convinced. It could have also been the result of multiple authors, or editing after the fact that resulted in the discrepancy.
Point 5) I concede, I don't know why God would do such a thing. I could have been insecurity, it could have been Him needing to test Abraham more. However, Abraham already mutilated himself, his servants, relatives, and son. This on Gods word alone. That is a LOT of faith already. Demanding the life of the son seems redundant.
Point 6) Claiming a divine command theory of ethics, entails a lot of consequences. IE: If morals do not transcend a deity, then God can command whatever he wants to be good, and it will be. If you would like to discuss normative ethics, this is not the place. However, if you post a link to a blog or forum, I would love to continue the discussion there.
Human sacrifice is an issue in the Bible and there seem to be different views by different writers. We have the prophets condemning it such as in Jeremiah 32:35
ReplyDelete"They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin."
One wonders whether Jeremiah had heard and considered it accurate the story of Abraham's almost sacrifice of Isaac (aka Akedah). BTW some Rabbinic authorities consider that Isaac might have been in his 30s at the time of the sacrifice.
It is also perhaps not surprising that as @showinginterest mentions some religious people wonder whether Abraham partially failed the test and God was hoping for him to argue back as he had done in the matter of Sodom. Note the Jewish understandings can be quite different from Christian understandings particularly as the latter so often see the sacrifice as a precursor to Jesus's death. Muslim understanding might be different again though they generally consider the son nearly sacrificed to be Ishmael and one of their major holidays, Eid al-Adha, is in honor of it.
As for morality - it's very simple. I don't kill people because I don't want them to kill me. I don't steal because I don't want my things to be stolen.
ReplyDeleteBut some people do want that stuff to happen. Also, that only describes what you want, not what people ought to do.
"Hey, Abram. I mean Abraham. Forgot about that awesome nickname I gave you. You should totally sacrifice your son. That would be SO RAD! JK LOL!!!"
ReplyDelete@bossmanham - But that knife can cut both ways. History is rife with accounts of unspeakable atrocities being committed by people of religion (including Christians) in the name of their religion. But I wouldn't try to argue that religion can't be inherently moral because some people misinterpret its intent and just because you're moral doesn't mean every Christian will be.
ReplyDeleteMorality stems from empathy. Empathy is something every child learns long before they're old enough to understand religion or philosophy or law. It is a natural state of humans. Empathy can be subverted, it can be destroyed by mistreatment or circumstance or mental illness, but it is a basic component of the human personality, religious or not.
But I know this isn't exactly the forum for a discussion of the moral merits of atheism vs. Christianity, so I'm shutting up now! ;)
@hdauria: One more quick thing to point out on the religious vs. humanistic morality: I agree (as do most humanists) that morality stems from empathy. There are many different secular philosophies of morality and many different religious conceptions of revealed morality but one thing is consistent. In secular morality, nothing is ever immoral unless it negatively impacts other humans (or non-human animals), while religious systems can include trespasses that hurt nobody, even thought-crimes.
ReplyDeleteTo all,
ReplyDeleteHere is why empathy is insufficient as a basis for morality.
If you disagree, please be so kind as to comment there.
Wow things got busy while I was at work.
ReplyDelete@Brian Hitt
“For my part, I would never seek to separate a person from their faith. My atheism is a joyful and carefully-considered atheism that was preceded by a secular view of ethics and purpose and a positive naturalistic view of the world. “
“An assertion that catches my attention is that non-religious morality quickly becomes messy upon challenge and scrutiny and that an objective revealed morality solves this problem. It's true that questions of morality, approached secularly, tend to be sticky, entangling and profoundly difficult. And you know what? That's okay with me.”
I love both of these quotes. Easy answers are not always the best, it is the hard ones that we learn the most from. Challenging your morality and aspiring to better actions are wonderful things that are a core part of our humanity.
That is all I will say about normative ethics, there are many other forums of debate on these topics.
@Rhology
Point 1) The Hebrew word used in that verse clearly states “to offer a burnt offering.” http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5930&t=KJV
Point 2) We cannot suppose either way, I think we both agree on that. The mention of genital mutilation was in attempt to point out that God had already demanded actions of faith, and Abraham had carried them out.
Point 3) Still: Hebrews was written later, by different writers. In Genesis NO ONE has been raised from the dead yet. God hasn't stated anything to this effect. Why would he think God has this property? It is more likely the later writers of Hebrews, amending the story to fit their world view.
Point 4) The idea of this referencing Jesus is interesting, but I am not entirely convinced. It could have also been the result of multiple authors, or editing after the fact that resulted in the discrepancy.
Point 5) I concede, I don't know why God would do such a thing. I could have been insecurity, it could have been Him needing to test Abraham more. However, Abraham already mutilated himself, his servants, relatives, and son. This on Gods word alone. That is a LOT of faith already. Demanding the life of the son seems redundant.
Point 6) Claiming a divine command theory of ethics, entails a lot of consequences. IE: If morals do not transcend a deity, then God can command whatever he wants to be good, and it will be. If you would like to discuss normative ethics, I would love to join you, but this is not the place.
@hdauria—glad you found the comments helpful. I'll be in and out (too busy to comment on every post, alas) but I plan to participate in the project as long as there's productive discussion going on!
ReplyDeletePaul and I continue ourdiscussion here, FYI.
ReplyDelete