|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 19, 2020 1:57:41 GMT
Isaac is considered to be 37 years old when this happened.
Not a child.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Mar 19, 2020 2:33:01 GMT
It must be remembered it was written at a time and place where child sacrifice was common. It is probably a fact that the Hebrews themselves practiced child sacrifice. The story is important because it's a declaration that child sacrifice is forbidden. It was actually a great religious reform. Even atheists can admit this was a landmark in human rights. I don't understand why both theists and atheists miss the point. The story is clearly about a Hebrew declaration that child sacrifice is forbidden. It took most of the ancient world a few thousand more years before this progressive reform was instituted. Isaac wasn’t a child. The whole point of the story was that HUMAN SACRIFICE is totally wrong and should never happen. HUMAN SACRIFICE was the bread and butter of the pagan world. God was saying that the pagans were dead wrong to do this and that the Hebrews were on a totally different path. Animals could be sacrificed instead until ancient people were weaned off needing to sacrifice animals, too. Replace "child" with "son". That's irrelevant. I agree with you. But the story is not "unsettling", it's ennobling. And it's really not about a test of Abraham's faith. It was a political directive about law and social reform. My point is both theists and atheists are concentrating on the idea that god asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. That is not the point of the story at all. It's not as if god asked for a human sacrifice and then changed his mind. There is only one point to the story: Human sacrifice as practiced in Canaan and the Middle East was now BANNED. I'm an atheist. You see it as a religious issue. I see it as a step forward in human rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 19, 2020 2:42:19 GMT
Isaac wasn’t a child. The whole point of the story was that HUMAN SACRIFICE is totally wrong and should never happen. HUMAN SACRIFICE was the bread and butter of the pagan world. God was saying that the pagans were dead wrong to do this and that the Hebrews were on a totally different path. Animals could be sacrificed instead until ancient people were weaned off needing to sacrifice animals, too. Replace "child" with "son". That's irrelevant. I agree with you. But the story is not "unsettling", it's ennobling. And it's really not about a test of Abraham's faith. It was a political directive about law and social reform. My point is both theists and atheists are concentrating on the idea that god asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. That is not the point of the story at all. It's not as if god asked for a human sacrifice and then changed his mind. There is only one point to the story: Human sacrifice as practiced in Canaan and the Middle East was now BANNED. I'm an atheist. You see it as a religious issue. I see it as a step forward in human rights. The Canaanites were child sacrificers, which is why God in the Bible told the Hebrews to kill them. The Hebrews didn’t do it, though. Two messages: 1. Human sacrifice (especially child sacrifice) is horribly wrong. 2. God can decide who to kill, but humans aren’t God. The Hebrews couldn’t bring themselves to kill off a people. God gave the order but they still couldn’t do it. They just didn’t see themselves like that. So 400 years passed without them doing it. |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Mar 19, 2020 3:28:58 GMT
Replace "child" with "son". That's irrelevant. I agree with you. But the story is not "unsettling", it's ennobling. And it's really not about a test of Abraham's faith. It was a political directive about law and social reform. My point is both theists and atheists are concentrating on the idea that god asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. That is not the point of the story at all. It's not as if god asked for a human sacrifice and then changed his mind. There is only one point to the story: Human sacrifice as practiced in Canaan and the Middle East was now BANNED. I'm an atheist. You see it as a religious issue. I see it as a step forward in human rights. The Canaanites were child sacrificers, which is why God in the Bible told the Hebrews to kill them. The Hebrews didn’t do it, though. Two messages: 1. Human sacrifice (especially child sacrifice) is horribly wrong. 2. God can decide who to kill, but humans aren’t God. The Hebrews couldn’t bring themselves to kill off a people. God gave the order but they still couldn’t do it. They just didn’t see themselves like that. So 400 years passed without them doing it. If God is not just he is not God. He might be the Demiurge.  But bottom line, human sacrifice was banned. It was a political story. Atheists who mock the story to say it shows God is an ogre who demanded human sacrifice miss the whole point. The story is not that God can do whatever he wants. He is bound by his own rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 19, 2020 4:22:53 GMT
The Canaanites were child sacrificers, which is why God in the Bible told the Hebrews to kill them. The Hebrews didn’t do it, though. Two messages: 1. Human sacrifice (especially child sacrifice) is horribly wrong. 2. God can decide who to kill, but humans aren’t God. The Hebrews couldn’t bring themselves to kill off a people. God gave the order but they still couldn’t do it. They just didn’t see themselves like that. So 400 years passed without them doing it. If God is not just he is not God. He might be the Demiurge. But bottom line, human sacrifice was banned. It was a political story. Atheists who mock the story to say it shows God is an ogre who demanded human sacrifice miss the whole point. The story is not that God can do whatever he wants. He is bound by his own rules. God was going to stop the sacrifice of Isaac and knew it all along. He was sending humanity a message. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Mar 19, 2020 5:05:32 GMT
Basically that God is an asshole.
"Hey you mortal down there, I want you to kill this other mortal to show you love me.... you are going to do it aren't you? Alright! But it's ok, don't kill him--one day I want your son to be as willing to kill his son as you are. Here. kill this ram instead so your blood lust isn't put to waste."
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Mar 19, 2020 5:23:45 GMT
If God is not just he is not God. He might be the Demiurge. But bottom line, human sacrifice was banned. It was a political story. Atheists who mock the story to say it shows God is an ogre who demanded human sacrifice miss the whole point. The story is not that God can do whatever he wants. He is bound by his own rules. God was going to stop the sacrifice of Isaac and knew it all along. He was sending humanity a message. I understand. But I usually hear atheists mock the story saying that god was evil because he forced this poor father to plan and murder his son. Literally, Abraham did plan to kill his own son. What kind of father would plan to kill his own son? My point is the atheists mock the story, but don't realize that we are reading about an important even in human history where human sacrifice was finally banned. Do you not agree that atheists find no value in the story and mock it? See what this atheist said on this thread. He misses the point that this is about banning human sacrifice because he'd rather yell about god: Lol. I'm an atheist but that is sheer ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 19, 2020 8:07:27 GMT
The story is important because it's a declaration that child sacrifice is forbidden... I don't understand why both theists and atheists miss the point. The story is clearly about a Hebrew declaration that child sacrifice is forbidden. That strikes me as a pretty novel take on it. Plenty has been written about this episode by scholars, but I've never run across such an interpretation. Can you cite any expert in the field who put forth this view you've expressed?
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Mar 19, 2020 8:15:36 GMT
The story is important because it's a declaration that child sacrifice is forbidden... I don't understand why both theists and atheists miss the point. The story is clearly about a Hebrew declaration that child sacrifice is forbidden. That strikes me as a pretty novel take on it. Plenty has been written about this episode by scholars, but I've never run across such an interpretation. Can you cite any expert in the field who put forth this view you've expressed?
Lol. No. It's just my opinion. It seems obvious to me. We all know about Molech and child sacrifice. It just seems evident to me that if the Hebrews were going to ban a common practice, they'd have a story which said it was prohibited by god. I only see atheists saying that Yahweh was an ass because he tricked Abraham into almost killing his son. Or I see theists babbling about Abraham's faith. Are you saying I'm the only one on earth who gets it? It's just a historical reference to the struggle for human rights. Is that Marxist enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Mar 19, 2020 9:26:10 GMT
Its a decent fairy tale
But its far from the best biblical fairy tale.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 19, 2020 9:46:36 GMT
SciFive , gameboy Can’t believe what I’ve been reading in this little exchange. You really believe the whole point of the story was to declare a ban on child/human sacrifices? Let me give the background story. Basically....God promises Abram that through his descendants, all the nations of the earth will be blessed. After many years went by Abram started to have doubts and lose faith because his wife Sarah was struggling to get pregnant. God reassured him and to confirm it he made a covenant with Abram. Genesis 15:16 Anyway, more time went by and at this point Abram’s missus Sarah was starting to get really impatient. So she gave Hagar, their Egyptian servant, to Abram to bear a child. Hagar gave birth to a son they named Ishmael. But God wasn’t impressed and made it clear to Abram that this wasn’t the heir that was promised. When Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah 90, the nation-blessing heir was finally born. A miracle had occurred considering Sarah’s age and the fact she was already barren and long past menopause. The son’s name was Isaac. At this point God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, which means father of a multitude or something. Now ask yourself this. Why would God promise Abram that he will bless the nations through Isaac’s seed, only to then ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Doesn’t seem to add up. What people need to consider is that Abraham would have trusted God’s plan and his faith strong seeing how he miraculously gave him a son and appeared to him numerous times to declare prophecies and fulfil them before his own eyes. Putting all this together Abraham likely expected God to return Isaac from the dead anyway. Also don’t forget that blood covenants in those days were considered a binding sacred pact. Abraham was given a guarantee that through Isaac his descendants would come. Because of this Abraham knew that God would raise Isaac from the dead. This is indicated in Genesis 22:5 where it reads ”Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I will go over there to worship; then we’ll come back to you.”Now if you rewind further back to Genesis 3:15 we see the another promise made by God: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.””GENESIS 3:15 The woman in question is Eve BTW. If we put the two promises together. The crushing of the serpent’s head is what will bless all the nations, and the sacrifice of Isaac was all a foreshadowing of Christ’s atonement on the cross. Jesus is literally the one through whom all nations will be blessed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 9:57:51 GMT
There's nothing about it that's hard to understand. Read it like a news paper.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 19, 2020 9:58:27 GMT
SciFive , gameboy Can’t believe what I’ve been reading in this little exchange. You really believe the whole point of the story was to declare a ban on child/human sacrifices? Let me give the background story. Basically....God promises Abram that through his descendants, all the nations of the earth will be blessed. After many years went by Abram started to have doubts and lose faith because his wife Sarah was struggling to get pregnant. God reassured him and to confirm it he made a covenant with Abram. Genesis 15:16 Anyway, more time went by and at this point Abram’s missus Sarah was starting to get really impatient. So she gave Hagar, their Egyptian servant, to Abram to bear a child. Hagar gave birth to a son they named Ishmael. But God wasn’t impressed and made it clear to Abram that this wasn’t the heir that was promised. When Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah 90, the nation-blessing heir was finally born. A miracle had occurred considering Sarah’s age and the fact she was already barren and long past menopause. The son’s name was Isaac. At this point God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, which means father of a multitude or something. Now ask yourself this. Why would God promise Abram that he will bless the nations through Isaac’s seed, only to then ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Doesn’t seem to add up. What people need to consider is that Abraham would have trusted God’s plan and his faith strong seeing how he miraculously gave him a son and appeared to him numerous times to declare prophecies and fulfil them before his own eyes. Putting all this together Abraham likely expected God to return Isaac from the dead anyway. Also don’t forget that blood covenants in those days were considered a binding sacred pact. Abraham was given a guarantee that through Isaac his descendants would come. Because of this Abraham knew that God would raise Isaac from the dead. This is indicated in Genesis 22:5 where it reads ”Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I will go over there to worship; then we’ll come back to you.”Now if you rewind further back to Genesis 3:15 we see the another promise made by God: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.””GENESIS 3:15 The woman in question is Eve BTW. If we put the two promises together. The crushing of the serpent’s head is what will bless all the nations, and the sacrifice of Isaac was all a foreshadowing of Christ’s atonement on the cross. Jesus is literally the one through whom all nations will be blessed. Cody, I am Jewish. This is my religion’s Bible, not yours. You can interpret what you wish in your religion, but it has no bearing on our 3300 year old Jewish understanding of our own scriptures. No offense meant, but our Jewish understanding of our Bible is not affected in any way by yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 19, 2020 10:16:09 GMT
SciFive , gameboy Can’t believe what I’ve been reading in this little exchange. You really believe the whole point of the story was to declare a ban on child/human sacrifices? Let me give the background story. Basically....God promises Abram that through his descendants, all the nations of the earth will be blessed. After many years went by Abram started to have doubts and lose faith because his wife Sarah was struggling to get pregnant. God reassured him and to confirm it he made a covenant with Abram. Genesis 15:16 Anyway, more time went by and at this point Abram’s missus Sarah was starting to get really impatient. So she gave Hagar, their Egyptian servant, to Abram to bear a child. Hagar gave birth to a son they named Ishmael. But God wasn’t impressed and made it clear to Abram that this wasn’t the heir that was promised. When Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah 90, the nation-blessing heir was finally born. A miracle had occurred considering Sarah’s age and the fact she was already barren and long past menopause. The son’s name was Isaac. At this point God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, which means father of a multitude or something. Now ask yourself this. Why would God promise Abram that he will bless the nations through Isaac’s seed, only to then ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Doesn’t seem to add up. What people need to consider is that Abraham would have trusted God’s plan and his faith strong seeing how he miraculously gave him a son and appeared to him numerous times to declare prophecies and fulfil them before his own eyes. Putting all this together Abraham likely expected God to return Isaac from the dead anyway. Also don’t forget that blood covenants in those days were considered a binding sacred pact. Abraham was given a guarantee that through Isaac his descendants would come. Because of this Abraham knew that God would raise Isaac from the dead. This is indicated in Genesis 22:5 where it reads ”Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I will go over there to worship; then we’ll come back to you.”Now if you rewind further back to Genesis 3:15 we see the another promise made by God: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.””GENESIS 3:15 The woman in question is Eve BTW. If we put the two promises together. The crushing of the serpent’s head is what will bless all the nations, and the sacrifice of Isaac was all a foreshadowing of Christ’s atonement on the cross. Jesus is literally the one through whom all nations will be blessed. Cody, I am Jewish. This is my religion’s Bible, not yours. You can interpret what you wish in your religion, but it has no bearing on our 3300 year old Jewish understanding of our own scriptures. No offense meant, but our Jewish understanding of our Bible is not affected in any way by yours. The first Christians were Jewish. Most of the writers of the NT were Jewish. Let me ask you a question. In Genesis 22:13-14 it says this: “Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.””This is a future prophecy being made. What exactly will the Lord provide on that mountain?
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 19, 2020 10:20:49 GMT
Cody, I am Jewish. This is my religion’s Bible, not yours. You can interpret what you wish in your religion, but it has no bearing on our 3300 year old Jewish understanding of our own scriptures. No offense meant, but our Jewish understanding of our Bible is not affected in any way by yours. The first Christians were Jewish. Most of the writers of the NT were Jewish. Let me ask you a question. In Genesis 22:13-14 it says this: “Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.””This is a future prophecy being made. What exactly will the Lord provide on that mountain? God provided the ram to be offered. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 19, 2020 10:33:20 GMT
The first Christians were Jewish. Most of the writers of the NT were Jewish. Let me ask you a question. In Genesis 22:13-14 it says this: “Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.””This is a future prophecy being made. What exactly will the Lord provide on that mountain? God provided the ram to be offered. The passage says will..future tense. We know God had just provided a ram. But it declares a time will come when God will provide something else on that very mountain in the future. What?
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 19, 2020 10:36:44 GMT
God provided the ram to be offered. The passage says will..future tense. We know God had just provided a ram. But it declares a time will come when God will provide something else on that very mountain in the future. What? Jesus was born in that bush? You are seeing what you want in your religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 19, 2020 10:45:07 GMT
The passage says will..future tense. We know God had just provided a ram. But it declares a time will come when God will provide something else on that very mountain in the future. What? Jesus was born in that bush? You are seeing what you want in your religion. Are you going to answer the question? What will the Lord provide on that mountain?
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Mar 19, 2020 10:53:52 GMT
Jesus was born in that bush? You are seeing what you want in your religion. Are you going to answer the question? What will the Lord provide on that mountain? Answer my question. Did they find Jesus on that mountain? Abraham said to Isaac that God WILL SEE that they have a lamb for the offering. God provides. |
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Mar 19, 2020 11:21:51 GMT
I think the appropriate response from Abraham should've been: "Go fuck Yourself."
|
|
