I am Gay - if your god told you to murder me, would you murder me?

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

11.18.2020 05:40PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

You brought up the case you thought was your strongest. It was weak.

The clear implication is that Abraham is prepared to kill his son

Abraham was prepared to offer his son. Address the context I gave you. Just asserting you opinion is not argumentation. I'm surprised none of you see the possibility of Abraham believing that Isaac would survive the sacrifice, or that God would resurrect him.

But I know from experience that when an atheist wants to convict God, words can have only one meaning and the bible becomes as clear as day. At all other times it's open to interpretation and ambiguous.

it would a clear as day example

Is it because its so "clear as day" you refuse to give us an actual example from scripture? Basically you're telling us what you believe and are expecting us to accept your personal perception as God's character.

Sorry. Logic prevents me. But you are free to believe any illogical thing you want. The truth remains unaffected.

#422

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

11.18.2020 05:42PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Also, I've read the bible cover to cover, I was a christian for the majority of life, etc, etc... But if I need to quote scripture to prove my point, fine.

Uh-huh.

#423

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

11.18.2020 05:48PM

-->

@ethang5

I'm surprised none of you see the possibility of Abraham believing that Isaac would survive the sacrifice, or that God would resurrect him.

Where is this possibility demonstrated in the text? Also, you're saying Abraham thinks god's a liar and the command to sacrifice and burn his son (again, not alive), is not authentic, in a story about how deeply faithful this one person is. Strange.

Topic's author

#424

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.18.2020 05:50PM

-->

@ethang5

Regardless of God's promises to replenish his ancestors that does not mean that Abraham was specifically talking about Isaac's children (Note that Abraham has more than one son and even if he didn't the having faith arugment would work just as well there)

How about you address the literal scripture of evidence I give you, offering? He is going to kill Issac. According to the bible he would have to but the angel stopped him at the last second.

My "opinion" is supported by the bible, therefore it is not an opinion.

Your increduality about my raising is funny, because of my Christian back ground I've been through some shit whenever I deconverted. Let's not even bring up the fact that different sects have different's takes and perspectives of the bible, therefore you are still wrong.

You are the one using illogical arguments here. I actually provided evidence and you just ignored it.

#425

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

11.18.2020 05:53PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

You are the one using illogical arguments here. I actually provided evidence and you just ignored it.

I'm afraid you're going to have to get used to this with this guy, it's kind of his brand. Better off just limiting your attempts and good faith conversation until he is, inevitably, banned again.

Topic's author

#426

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.18.2020 05:55PM

-->

@ludofl3x

Gotcha, I've been trying to be "charitable" as Mopac would say, but it gets kinda annoying after a while.

#427

WesleyBColeman

Debates: 1

Posts: 7

WesleyBColeman

11.19.2020 12:30AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

"No, the bible specifically talks about the abominations of those who men who lay with another man (I suppose you argue lesbians are clear?) and how they ought to be put to death."

In the Bible abominations are things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements God set out in his law. So yes, a man /woman laying with another man /woman of the same sex is an abomination. However, the mere act of being attracted to a person of the same sex is not a sin unless it is lustful. The Bible says on many occasions the wages (or penalty) of sin is death. Not in the sense that they are to be put to death, but in the sense that they are to have lost their everlasting life unless they repent. In this text God speaks to all sinners:

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine" 1 Timothy 1:8-10

In some cases in the old testament, God may require that certain sinners or groups of unrighteous may be put to death, whereas here he is referring to their life after death. Regardless, God is just. His judgements are righteous. When he smites or brings death on a person or group it is not a permanent death. God doesn't merely kill the person, instead, they enter a new realm of existence.

Back to the issue at hand, the Bible speaks to sinners in 1 Corinthians, when it mentions that people who are ungodly will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. Yet, through God's grace and forgiveness and through Jesus's sinless life and sacrifice, we may be sanctified and reborn as Christians.

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

God redeems us of our sinful ways and tells us to go and sin no more. All have fallen short of the glory of God, but through his mercy that we don't deserve, he has made us a child of the Holy God.

"When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”" John 8:7-11

I pray that this gives you a clearer understanding of the scripture and the knowledge of God's mercy to all mankind. I pray you repent of your sin and accept Jesus Christ into your life. May God bless you and keep you. Amen.

#428

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

11.19.2020 03:06AM

-->

@ludofl3x

Where is this possibility demonstrated in the text?

I didn't say it was in the text. But we Christians do not read the bible with our brains turned off. I think it might have occurred to Abraham that God would save the day somehow even if Isaac was killed. This is God we're talking about. He can bring the dead back to life.

Also, you're saying Abraham thinks god's a liar...

If God kept Isaac alive during the sacrifice, or raised him from the dead, how would it be a lie? Think man.

...and the command to sacrifice and burn his son (again, not alive),

God said "offer you son". He did not say " burn" you son. And the fact that God stopped him is evidence that God did not want the young man killed. But your bias forces you to be obtuse about that.

...is not authentic, in a story about how deeply faithful this one person is. Strange.

Your feefeeling of strangeness comes from your biased assumptions, not from the story.

#429

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

11.19.2020 03:33AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Regardless of God's promises to replenish his ancestors that does not mean that Abraham was specifically talking about Isaac's children (Note that Abraham has more than one son and even if he didn't the having faith arugment would work just as well there)

This is what I mean when I say you do not know the bible. God's promises were specifically to Isaac. In fact, Sarah thought God was taking too long and got her maid to have a baby with Abraham. God rejected that baby as the conduit for His promised and insisted it would be Isaac only to whom the promises came through. I did not know this.

How about you address the literal scripture of evidence I give you, offering?

I have addressed it. You are giving us YOUR impression of what Abraham thought God meant and expecting us to accept that as what God meant. That is illogical.

He is going to kill Issac. According to the bible he would have to but the angel stopped him at the last second.

That is not our disagreement. You are saying God intended to kill Isaac. And you are trying to conflate Abraham's intention to kill Isaac as God's intention. It isn't. God never intended Isaac to die, that is why He stopped his death.

My "opinion" is supported by the bible, therefore it is not an opinion.

Lol. Your opinion is that the bible supports your opinion. It doesn't.

Your increduality about my raising is funny, because of my Christian back ground I've been through some shit whenever I deconverted. Let's not even bring up the fact that different sects have different's takes and perspectives of the bible, therefore you are still wrong.

What "takes" different sects have on the bible is immaterial and off topic. You are trying to claim that God told Abraham to kill Isaac. Yet God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. You admit you do not know why God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. Yet you insist God intended to have Abraham kill Isaac. Your argument is incoherant.

You are the one using illogical arguments here. I actually provided evidence and you just ignored it.

OK. We can agree to disagree, but of the two of us, I know the historical context and you do not, and what actually happened in the story supports my argument, you have no clue why God stopped Abraham. I'm satisfied that your argument has been eviscerated.

#430

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

11.19.2020 12:06PM

-->

@ethang5

I think it might have occurred to Abraham that God would save the day somehow even if Isaac was killed. This is God we're talking about. He can bring the dead back to life.

RIght, but that's you adding your opinion to inform the text, not the other way around. That's called...bias. I'm just analyzing the actual text. It's much easier to make god or any other fictional character into anything you want if you just add to, or subtract form, the text according to your preference.

If God kept Isaac alive during the sacrifice, or raised him from the dead, how would it be a lie? Think man.

But is that what happens in the text? He doesn't let him sacrifice the kid, which is what god expressly told him to do. That's what happens,.

God said "offer you son". He did not say " burn" you son. And the fact that God stopped him is evidence that God did not want the young man killed. But your bias forces you to be obtuse about that.

Ethan, come on now. This is the verse, Genesis 22:2.

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

That's what the text says. Not offer: SACRIFICE. AS A BURNT OFFERING. Then god backs off. So he either changed his mind about the sacrifice, or was giving a fake command to Abraham, or Abraham didn't believe god, or Abraham disobeyed the command. That's all the options that are available from the text.

#431

Debates: 6

Posts: 3,215

11.19.2020 12:28PM

-->

@ludofl3x

What does the text of the US Constitution mean I wonder, in regards to the second amendment?

Rhetorical question.

Just saying, because people disagree on how to interpret it.

#432

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

11.19.2020 12:38PM

-->

@Lemming

Okay, but no one is claiming the Constitution is god's own words, a perfect document that not only was never meant to change, but even attempting to change it or adding your own opinion to it is a sin which earns federal rebuke (PRoverbs 30:6). In fact, the US constitution has been changed 27 times, on the average once every decade or so, and we're overdue for one as the last one was in 1993. I'd argue if the bible could be updated like the Constitution can, it'd be a much more useable document.

Topic's author

#433

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.19.2020 12:45PM

-->

@ethang5

This is what I mean when I say you do not know the bible. God's promises were specifically to Isaac. In fact, Sarah thought God was taking too long and got her maid to have a baby with Abraham. God rejected that baby as the conduit for His promised and insisted it would be Isaac only to whom the promises came through. I did not know this.

Wait, so I don't know the bible, for supposedly, not knowing this one specific detail out of an arguably not very important story (compared to others), and yet you also didn't know it? So then wouldn't you also not know your bible? Not to mention, you're wrong:

Genesis 21: 13 "I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”

have addressed it. You are giving us YOUR impression of what Abraham thought God meant and expecting us to accept that as what God meant. That is illogical.

No you haven't, you're only reasoning is that Abraham had faith that god would allow him to live to give birth to his descendants, but he also promised that to his slave son, and then they went and become the literal enemies, kinda.

That is not our disagreement. You are saying God intended to kill Isaac. And you are trying to conflate Abraham's intention to kill Isaac as God's intention. It isn't. God never intended Isaac to die, that is why He stopped his death.

I see where you misunderstand now, no, I do not think God intended to kill Isaac. Obviously it was a test on god's end in that story. No, my point with this story is that the believers, as small as they were at the time, did not doubt that god would ask for human sacrifices. And honestly this is only a side point to support that, considering all of the people he commands the death in whenever he tells his "people" to go raid cities and all that.

Lol. Your opinion is that the bible supports your opinion. It doesn't.

I could say the literal exact same thing, please substantiate our claim with a verse or passage as I have.

What "takes" different sects have on the bible is immaterial and off topic. You are trying to claim that God told Abraham to kill Isaac. Yet God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. You admit you do not know why God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. Yet you insist God intended to have Abraham kill Isaac. Your argument is incoherant

Which he did. God did tell Abraham to kill Isaac. And Abraham nearly did. An Angel had to stop him right before he could, if Abraham was even a little bit faster, than no more Isaac. What? Of course I know why he did stop Isaac, because he didn't intend for him to actually kill Isaac there, that's obvious.

OK. We can agree to disagree, but of the two of us, I know the historical context and you do not, and what actually happened in the story supports my argument, you have no clue why God stopped Abraham. I'm satisfied that your argument has been eviscerated.

You say unironically without citing a thing.

#434

Debates: 6

Posts: 3,215

11.19.2020 01:04PM

-->

@ludofl3x

Okay, but no one is claiming the Constitution is god's own words, a perfect document that not only was never meant to change, but even attempting to change it or adding your own opinion to it is a sin which earns federal rebuke (PRoverbs 30:6). In fact, the US constitution has been changed 27 times, on the average once every decade or so, and we're overdue for one as the last one was in 1993. I'd argue if the bible could be updated like the Constitution can, it'd be a much more useable document.

When you say God's own words, what do you mean by that?

Is the Constitution 'not the Founders/Framers own words?

Certainly the original document was their own words, but further I'd conjecture, that later versions of the Constitution, are 'still 'influenced, guided in a direction by the original document.

Meaning of word changes with context, with what tongue it is uttered, words meaning changes over time.

Different denominations, churches exist, and speaking to adding one's own word or opinion, the proverb 'right before the one you mention states,

"Every word of God is pure; He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. - Proverbs 30:5"

Am I to take this 'literally as a physical shield shall materialize itself, or instead am to add some words, my own opinion of what is meant here?

I would say I am to take it figuratively/metaphorically, and further that I am to find how it 'relates to my own life, how it is to be 'used and incorporated into my life.

I do not think it is 'strictly wrong for believers to search for context, argue points of meaning.

#435

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

11.19.2020 01:17PM

-->

@Lemming

I do not think it is 'strictly wrong for believers to search for context, argue points of meaning.

Many Christians believe the bible is the literal word of god. Others believe it's godly inspired. Still others believe it was written by fallible humans, which makes it somewhat less convincing and takes god out of the mix. Who wrote the bible?

I don't think it's wrong to have varying interpretations either., because it's just a text My counterpoint to your constitutional argument is that the constitution CHANGES. The bible doesn't change, and believers like to say it's a timeless document as applicable now as it was when originally written. Clearly, the US Constitution isn't that, and the founders never intended it to be that (which is why the amendment option was put into it). Not to mention we know the people who wrote the Constitution existed as they are independently verified in various historical documents. It's not a good comparison,, in other words.

THe problem with the interpretations of the bible being so different is in your post: denominations who think each of the other ones is doing Christianity incorrectly, interpreting key parts of it incorrectly or with too much / not enough modernity in it. Christians can't agree on who's right in their own faith, but they're happy to tell everyone else they're wrong. Especially when someone is literally just reading the text as it is written,. And your verse would be clearly poetic imagery, as that's what Proverbs is, except when the lines don' contain any imagery at all. 20:6 says "Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.." It contains no metaphor, no images, it's a statement. Is there a different way to interpret this line in any sort of credible way? It seems REALLY clear.

#436

Debates: 6

Posts: 3,215

11.19.2020 01:55PM

-->

@ludofl3x

Well, I'm an atheist, so I take the point of view that numerous different humans over a long period of time wrote the Bible.

The Bible changes as well, least how people apply it to their lives, maybe I don't talk to enough theists, but I'd think they'd understand and agree with such a point. The eating of ham for instance, or working on the day of rest.

Translations into other languages, words changing over time, councils of groups of people deciding 'what type of Bible they want.

It 'is a long lasting, surprisingly durable document 'I think.

After all, it's been around and propagated about so long, 'very much documentation about it and different versions of it.

I still don't quite understand what you meant by the 'literal word of God though, sorry I'm a bit slow there.

People fond of the Constitution 'do get in an uproar about what they think the Founders 'meant, people fond of their traditions, culture and such.

I'd imagine a number of Americans 'do see the constitution as a timeless document, certain articles or ideals of it anyhow, or how they interpret such.

Americans and their freedoms. . .

I wonder if the British have something similar with the Magna Carta, or if that's more just a 'link in a chain for them, of their history and views. Hm, Google search later.

Some people are rather certain of the existence of Biblical figures.

But well enough, I think you make decent posts regarding my Constitution argument, though I still disagree a bit, I think what's relevant has been said, saying more might be redundant.

20:6 says "Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.."

Somehow this gives me pause, how do you interpret it?

#437

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

11.19.2020 02:06PM

-->

@Lemming

Hah, I'm an atheist too, so we're probably arguing stuff we agree on.

I still don't quite understand what you meant by the 'literal word of God though, sorry I'm a bit slow there.

Certain sects of thiests, including thesits here, believe that god LITERALLY dictated the bible, or parts of the bible, hence conclude that the bible is an infallible and timeless document. You're right, the application of the bible changes over time but onlyin accordance with the society's moral preferences, and Christianity in particular benefits from some agility to do so and remain relevant because of their community churches. If the community doesn't like what the church is telling them, they lose adherents (funding), and therefore they are forced to adopt an interpretation that reflects the community values, not the other way around (Though often community values are informed by biblical tales). This is why, for example, you find more churches accepting of homosexuals or divorcees in San Francisco and New York, and less in Alabama and MIssissippi. Gay people don't live in MS in the same numbers they do in SF, so they represent less a financial slice of the pie.

20:6 says "Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.."
Somehow this gives me pause, how do you interpret it?

To me it means exactly what it says: the only text that counts is the text itself. This insulates against shifting interpretation because it makes adding non-scriptural references,i ncluding one's own reading, a sin worthy of rebuke.

#438

Debates: 6

Posts: 3,215

11.19.2020 02:10PM

-->

@ludofl3x

20:6 says "Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.."
Somehow this gives me pause, how do you interpret it?
To me it means exactly what it says: the only text that counts is the text itself. This insulates against shifting interpretation because it makes adding non-scriptural references,i ncluding one's own reading, a sin worthy of rebuke.

'Feels a bit of a rigid way to take it, somehow.

Still, just something for me to think about, ponder for a time I suppose.

#439

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

11.19.2020 02:16PM

-->

@Lemming

It just doesn't seem a very interpretable verse, I mean feel free to offer a different reading. But it seems designed to keep people from adulterating the text, on pain of divine rebuke. It's an effective tool, and one the Quran co-opts down the road much more effectively, which is why there aren't nearly as many denominations of Islam as there are Christianity. I believe Islam has only three denominations, Sunni, which makes up about 85% Shiite, which makes up at 12%, and Kharji at about 3%. Even if you take out 90% of the denominations of Christianity as meaningless differences, you'd still be left with 300.

#440

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

11.19.2020 03:54PM

-->

@ludofl3x

RIght, but that's you adding your opinion to inform the text

No. The text doesn't say that Abraham had two legs. Is it "adding opinion" if I assume he climbed the mountain rather than flew? I'm not using what Abraham might have thought as an explanation for what he did, but as a reaspnable explanation for why he was ready to do what he did.

But is that what happens in the text?

No. Because Isaac didn't die! But Abraham probably believed God would some miraculous method to keep Isaac alive so that His promises would stay true.

He doesn't let him sacrifice the kid, which is what god expressly told him to do. That's what happens,

Yes. The God you say wanted the death of Isaac, stopped the death. AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHY HE DID!

So he either changed his mind about the sacrifice, or was giving a fake command to Abraham,

Interesting that the atheists interpretation only allows for God being inconsistent or a liar.

...or Abraham didn't believe god, or Abraham disobeyed the command.

You cannot say Abraham didn't believe or disobeyed and also say Abraham would have killed Isaac if God had not stopped him. You are undercutting your own argument. Abraham was able to do what he did because He believed in the promises God had made, and believed in the power of God even over death.

That's all the options that are available from the text.

No sir. That is an irrational argument from a biased atheist who does not really know the subject he's speaking about. But as I told you, even God allows atheists to hole contradictory and incoherent beliefs.

Ethan, come on now. This is the verse, Genesis 22:2
Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
That's what the text says. Not offer:

Wrong. That is what I mean by you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to insult you. You aren't reading from a bible but probably from some atheist website or blog. Watch.

Here is what verse 2 says...and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell you of. KJV

See, sacrifice is used in the same sense as "offer". What version of the bible did your source use?

Here is what actually happened in the story.

*God asked Abraham to offer his son.

*Abraham offered his son just as God asked.

*That satisfied God and the sacrifice was not needed so God stopped Abraham.

This logical, true to text interpretation does not require the irrationality of an omniscient God " changing His mind" or illogically charging Abraham with disobeying God for doing exactly what God told him to do.

#441

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

11.19.2020 04:01PM

-->

@ethang5

See, sacrifice is used in the same sense as "offer". What version of the bible did your source use?

NIV.

#442

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

11.19.2020 05:10PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Wait, so I don't know the bible,

You don't.

for supposedly, not knowing this one specific detail...

It was not supposedly. You did not know.

out of an arguably not very important story (compared to others),

The importance of the Abraham and Isaac story cannot be overstated. I don't wish to make this about what you don't know, but what am I to do when you don't know?

and yet you also didn't know it? So then wouldn't you also not know your bible?

I did know it. You apparently still don't know it.

Not to mention, you're wrong:
Genesis 21: 13 "I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”

God's promise was not just that the child would have many offspring, but that the promised Messiah would come through that line.

Genesis 21:12, the verse directly before, God says Abraham should allow Sarah to sack Ishmael, because "In Isaac shall thy seed be called". It is difficult to debate a person who doesn't know what he's talking about, especially if he views it as an insult when he is shown not to know what he's talking about.

...but he also promised that to his slave son, and then they went and become the literal enemies, kinda.

Ishmael did not have the same promise. You are totally unaware of the covenant and what it means. You think the promise was only about having a lot of children.

...my point with this story is that the believers, as small as they were at the time, did not doubt that god would ask for human sacrifices.

OK. I don't think you can reasonably get that conclusion from THIS story, but even if you are correct, (and you aren't) that doesn't show that God Himself would ask for human sacrifice, it only would show that a few thought He would. The historical fact is that Israel was unique at the time among nations of that region in that it did not practise human sacrifice, and had written law that prohibited it.

...please substantiate our claim with a verse or passage as I have.

Read this to better understand the difference between Isaac and Ishmael.

ROM 9:5 ...from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Rom 9:6 - It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Rom 9:7 - Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”

Rom 9:8 - In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Rom 9:11 - Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand:

Rom 9:12 - not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

Rom 9:13 - Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

The Abraham story is vital to God's plan of salvation. I do not believe you are less honest or less intelligent because you didn't know. But the fact that you don't know makes you interpret the story incorrectly. Taking verses out of context always results in error.

Of course I know why he did stop Isaac, because he didn't intend for him to actually kill Isaac there, that's obvious.

We have reached agreement on that one point! Which means that in THIS case, God was not telling someone to go kill another, He was telling someone to offer someone.

I agree that Abraham thought Isaac might die, but knew that God could/would remedy that situation because of what he said to others at the time and what God had promised through Isaac. But God Himself never wanted the death of Isaac. Thus God was not asking for a human sacrifice.

Topic's author

#443

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.19.2020 05:34PM

-->

@ethang5

DId you completely ignore entire sentences and parts of my refutation? Yes, yes you did, will I respond to this specifically later, indeed, indeed I will.

#444

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,342

11.19.2020 05:37PM

-->

@ethang5

Ethan, come on now. This is the verse, Genesis 22:2
Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
That's what the text says. Not offer:
Wrong. That is what I mean by you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to insult you. You aren't reading from a bible but probably from some atheist website or blog. Watch.

Here is what verse 2 says...and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell you of. KJV

See, sacrifice is used in the same sense as "offer". What version of the bible did your source use?

Yes Ethang5, this will be one of your famous - "there are no Americans in Baghdad" - claims.

Which bible!!!!? The holy "god breathed" bible . Your playing semantics and trying to be clever, YOUR NOT! Snidey more like. And they are not interchangeable words either. They are two distinct words with individual meanings in their own right

So you are preferring to use the word "offer" when it suites your narrative. It won't be the first time. You swap bibles when it suites you to do so.

Offer as a burned sacrifice means present him burned to a crisp.

You are forgetting that your god just loves the aroma of burning flesh; 20 "Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma .......Genesis 8:20-21"

AND , what about bibles that don't even mention the word offer? But sacrifice alone?

New International Version

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, whom you love--Isaac--and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you."

New Living Translation

“Take your son, your only son—yes, Isaac, whom you love so much—and go to the land of Moriah. Go and sacrifice him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will show you.”

Contemporary English Version

The LORD said, "Go get Isaac, your only son, the one you dearly love! Take him to the land of Moriah, and I will show you a mountain where you must sacrifice him to me on the fires of an altar."

GOD'S WORD® Translation

God said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I will show you."

#445

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

11.19.2020 05:50PM

-->

@Stephen

Sacrifice him to whom?

....they are not interchangeable words...

They can be. Which is why some interpretations interchange them.

But what about bibles that don't even mention the word offer? But sacrifice alone?

I do not think the atheist tendency to believe words can have only one meaning in the bible is intelligent. A sacrifice can be offered. And a sacrifice can be an offering.

Anyway, Abraham did offer Isaac, and God stopped him after that, showing that what God wanted was the offer, not the death.

#446

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

11.19.2020 05:55PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

DId you completely ignore entire sentences and parts of my refutation?

I don't think I did. I tend to ignore points you make that do not contradict my argument. There is no reason to entertain them. Less clutter. But I thought we had agreed on my main point.

Yes, yes you did, will I respond to this specifically later, indeed, indeed I will.

You are welcome. I appreciate that you don't go (or haven't yet gone) BLM on me. I enjoy your responses.

#447

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,342

11.19.2020 06:06PM

-->

@ethang5

Sacrifice him to whom?

To the one asking for the sacrifice . One of those examples clearly says " you must sacrifice him to me". So you can call him what you like. I am not too fussed. take your pick>>

New International Version

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, whom you love--Isaac--and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you."

Contemporary English Version

The LORD said, "Go get Isaac, your only son, the one you dearly love! Take him to the land of Moriah, and I will show you a mountain where you must sacrifice him to me on the fires of an altar."

GOD'S WORD® Translation

God said, "Take your son, your only your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to Moriah. Sacrifice him .................

....they are not interchangeable words...
They can be. Which is why some interpretations interchange them.

Nope. This why some bibles simply leave out the other word that you prefer to use when it suits you. It is simply not needed when the point is made clear to fry poor Issac to a crisp . Your semantic BS is not working.

But what about bibles that don't even mention the word offer? But sacrifice alone?
I do not think the atheist tendency to believe words can have only one meaning in the bible is intelligent.

Well you wouldn't would you, especially if it makes you look silly not to mention wrong and to be clutching at straws trying to defend your gods sadistic and torturous indefensible actions.

Anyway, Abraham did offer Isaac, and God stopped him after that,

It is not what is in dispute and you know it.

showing that what God wanted was the offer, not the death.

Yes Ethang5, this will be one of your famous - "there are no Americans in Baghdad" - claims.

#448

Tradesecret

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,346

Tradesecret

11.19.2020 08:54PM

-->

@Stephen

Anyway, Abraham did offer Isaac, and God stopped him after that,
It is not what is in dispute and you know it.

But that is the point and the one that some don't want to engage with. God did not kill Isaac. He never had any intention for Isaac to die. The lamb provided shows this.

Why is it so difficult this was a much bigger picture than the small one you are attempting to make it? The only reason that springs to mind is that the bigger picture does not fit with the narrative you want to believe - and not only want to believe - but have to believe. If you can't show God is a monster then it cuts off your hands.

Topic's author

#449

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

11.19.2020 11:45PM

-->

@ethang5

Wait, so I don't know the bible,
You don't.

Notice the comma, this is not meant to be addressed as a part, but as a larger part of a sentence, hence how sentences work.

Also, I suppose you could argue that I don't know the entirety of the bible, but from our conversation so far, you could not conclude my knowledge on the other books justifiably.

It was not supposedly. You did not know.

Incorrect, as I showed later in my refutation, which you were wrong about.

The importance of the Abraham and Isaac story cannot be overstated. I don't wish to make this about what you don't know, but what am I to do when you don't know?

As compared to any of the new testament? No, it is not important, its a general claim that would have happened anyways. It is most likely true that man such as Abraham who is more than willing to reproduce with his slaves/servants (depends on the version), and slaves/servants who do so, would have many children. Or at the very least many descendants, its really not that important in the narrative of Jesus as god's son here to do so and so.

and yet you also didn't know it? So then wouldn't you also not know your bible?
I did know it. You apparently still don't know it.

#429 "This is what I mean when I say you do not know the bible. God's promises were specifically to Isaac. In fact, Sarah thought God was taking too long and got her maid to have a baby with Abraham. God rejected that baby as the conduit for His promised and insisted it would be Isaac only to whom the promises came through. I did not know this."

God's promise was not just that the child would have many offspring, but that the promised Messiah would come through that line.

Genesis 21:12, the verse directly before, God says Abraham should allow Sarah to sack Ishmael, because "In Isaac shall thy seed be called". It is difficult to debate a person who doesn't know what he's talking about, especially if he views it as an insult when he is shown not to know what he's talking about.

None of the verses in the chapter, nor does the actual verse itself imply anything about a messiah being born through Isaac's line:

Genesis 21:11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring[b] will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”

...but he also promised that to his slave son, and then they went and become the literal enemies, kinda.
Ishmael did not have the same promise. You are totally unaware of the covenant and what it means. You think the promise was only about having a lot of children.

They will both have nations risen in there name, that's all you can get without making assumptions.

OK. I don't think you can reasonably get that conclusion from THIS story, but even if you are correct, (and you aren't) that doesn't show that God Himself would ask for human sacrifice, it only would show that a few thought He would. The historical fact is that Israel was unique at the time among nations of that region in that it did not practise human sacrifice, and had written law that prohibited it.

That is not the conclusion you get, as in not the main idea, but it is a conclusion you can get. I will agree that certain portions of the bible (specifically the Molech part) prohibited offering your children to Molech specifically. Also, if I am right, which I am, then Abraham, the guy literally leading it believes that. I'd say thats pretty important. Not to mention, as I said last time, this is only a side point to God's commanding to kill people, there are the way more blatant examples

Genesis 19:

23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

So because god thought them bad they just were? That's pretty lose for a genocide, and is even looser for some of the god of the old testament, not to mention the salt thing.

The Abraham story is vital to God's plan of salvation. I do not believe you are less honest or less intelligent because you didn't know. But the fact that you don't know makes you interpret the story incorrectly. Taking verses out of context always results in error.
(Referring to the verses too)

First of all this isn't decreed from god as far as my understanding leads, but a work of Paul and his writings, second the only thing they speak of is being god's children or not, yet later god claims all people who accept him are his children. I find these verses propagating contradictions

We have reached agreement on that one point! Which means that in THIS case, God was not telling someone to go kill another, He was telling someone to offer someone.

I agree that Abraham thought Isaac might die, but knew that God could/would remedy that situation because of what he said to others at the time and what God had promised through Isaac. But God Himself never wanted the death of Isaac. Thus God was not asking for a human sacrifice.

Indeed we have, but that was not my point here, my point is that its not out of the realm of believability for god to ask such a thing.

#450

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875