Abraham Was Backward

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 94
Topic's author
#61
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
22 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
2 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 International Version (NIV)

#62
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Stephen
Well with my disposition, I can hardly be called any less of a fence sitter than keith.

I'm not aware of any passage in the Bible which spells out that God meant "legitimate heir" when he said "only son". I only guessed it from context. It seems the word "only" is a translation of the Hebrew word "yachiyd", which like many Hebrew words in the Bible has a plurality of usages, including sole, beloved, only child, proper, lonely, and united.

I am asking, how was it that Abraham couldn’t work out that a great nation would not spring from him as god had promised if he had murdered his only son.
Well as I see it, the possible explanations are:

  1. Abraham did not notice any conflict between God's command and God's prior promise.
  2. Abraham was aware of the conflict and perhaps questioned it, but said nothing.
  3. Abraham believed God would still fulfill the promise, just without Isaac.
  4. Abraham somehow knew Isaac's death was never a possibility and that God would intervene.
  5. Abraham believed God had the power to even bring Isaac back to life once the test was over.
  6. A combination of two or more of these.
Concerning #4: The Jewish views on the subject are interesting.
#63
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@keithprosser
"...blah bleh bleh ahurpa durpa"
I'm suing.
"I'm suing blah bleh bleh ahurpa durpa."

All I have to do is blind the judge, and then how will he even tell us apart, keith? HOW?

#64
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Castin
I think one of us having a beard would be a give away, Cas.  But I suppose you could shave it off.



#65
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@keithprosser
Lololol

... You win this round, asshole. *eyes narrow*
#66
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Castin
Abraham believed God had the power to even bring Isaac back to life once the test was over.
Yeah after all he'd seen that happen so many times. Can you remind me of those times?

Topic's author
#67
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I'm not aware of any passage in the Bible which spells out that God meant "legitimate heir" 

Because there aren't any in this case.  I believe as you do it has everything to do with Issac being his only son by his first and official wife. But this isn't in the bible either.  The subject of  favouritism -  some suggest nepotism -  of one child over another is all to do with the rightful - first born  heir of the official wife as was the rules back in Abraham's own land of birth Mesopotamia . He was simply adhering to the rules of ascendancy. It is as simple as that.

For christians to even acknowledge this brings them great problems simply because the god of Abrams god -  as he was named - is a different god to that of the hebrews and the Christians. When Abraham was ordered to up sticks and travel to Canaan. he arrived there neither being Hebrew or Jew. 


 
Abraham was aware of the conflict and perhaps questioned it, but said nothing.
Not mentioned in the scripture so again we have to submise and assume.  Not acceptable to christians 

Abraham believed God would still fulfill the promise, just without Isaac.
Not mentioned in the scripture so again we have to submise and assume.  Not acceptable to christians 

Abraham somehow knew Isaac's death was never a possibility and that God would intervene.
Not mentioned in the scripture so again we have to submise and assume.  Not acceptable to christians 

Abraham believed God had the power to even bring Isaac back to life once the test was over.
Not mentioned in the scripture so again we have to submise and assume.  Not acceptable to christians 

A combination of two or more of these.
Not mentioned in the scripture so again we have to submise and assume.  Not acceptable to christians 

As I have already explained; all the above would be  quite good and reasonable explanations for what is, on the surface a silly unexplainable story that doesn't show this so, so loving god in any-kind of favourable light.

The Mopecs and ethang5's of the world simply refuse to accept anything that is not in the scripture  -- UNTIL IT SUITS THEN TO DO SO.

As for prosser, he often makes his stance clear of what he believes concerning the "unprovable thousands of years old scriptures" because we weren't there and puts them all down to BS .  Yet when I started a thread on Joseph he was the first to tell me who Joseph's god was although the name of Joseph's god is never revealed in the scriptures.
#68
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
prosser is a strange one though. One minute he's banging on about how these thousands of years old scriptures aren't   true at all and basically complete BS from beginning to end,  and then spends pages and pages giving us his in depth nauseating opinion of  all what these scriptures could mean and then  adding " but we will never know we wasn't there". By this standard of his we may as well discount all the history ever written as BS.
it's very naught to put quotes around words I did't write.

I consider the historical parts of the bible to be fiction or propaganda, written to serve the purposes of the writers and my posts should be taken as coming from that perspective.



#69
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Stephen
Yep, none of the numbered explanations are made explicit anywhere. As far as I know.

For christians to even acknowledge this brings them great problems simply because the god of Abrams god -  as he was named - is a different god to that of the hebrews and the Christians. When Abraham was ordered to up sticks and travel to Canaan. he arrived there neither being Hebrew or Jew.
You lost me here.
#70
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Castin
Concerning #4: The Jewish views on the subject are interesting. 
So are the Christian views. Consider Abraham's answer to Isaac when asked about what would be offered. "God will provide an offering."

Abraham could have said, "God has provided an offering."

This wasn't a test as God already knew whether Abraham would pass or not. God said "offer" your son, and Abraham did offer him. That done, God could stop him from killing Isaac as what was asked for had been supplied.

Too many people, not knowing scripture, assume God was asking for the death of Isaac. They elevate their agendas over the text.
Topic's author
#71
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I consider the historical parts of the bible to be fiction or propaganda,
Yet refer to them as “historical”.
 
it's very naught to put quotes around words I did't write.
 Didn’t you?
 
  Maybe I should write the words   "words to the effect" when referring to something you have actually  said concerning biblical matters such as  "we  will never know" , and  you have said "we weren't there" and  you have said you are an atheist   so a combination of all of the above would suffice.
 
Here are just a few reminders:
 
 
Post 19 As an atheist I don't bother with the miraculous or magical elements of Bible stories - they can be junked straight away.  So in regard to something like the nativity I'm not bothered with the virgin birth nonsense, but it is interesting whether Jesus Was born in Bethlehem for instance,  
 
After many years I have concluded that almost none of the Gospel story is based on actuality. 

 
Post 17 As you (probably!) know I Don't really like speculating about 'what really happened' because without atime machine we will never know, but I don't deny its fun to speculate!
 
 
 
 
Post 22. My assumptions are  that Abraham and isaac never existed - they are characters in a story, like Sherlock Holmes and Watson. 
 
 
 
 
Post 29 What really happened cannot be known or ascertained,

Post 33 I think it is impossible to know what -if anything - really happened;

Post 48 there isn't enough material to decide between them as to 'what really happened'. 

Post 64 Jesus getting cruficied is an episode in a written tale and at this distance in time there is no way to know if it 'really happened' at all.

Post 64 But I don't like to speculate about 'what really happened' because AFAICT there is no way of knowing.

Post 69I would say that it's entirely possible that Barabbas never existed and was invented by the gospellers to make a good story. 


 
For someone who "doesn't like speculating", you speculate more than any other person on the religion forum about things you categorically tell us you do not believe. 
#72
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
For someone who "doesn't like speculating", you speculate more than any other person on the religion forum about things you categorically tell us you do not believe. 
For a loon, he's got you dead to rights Keith. You speak out both sides of your mouth. You do this deliberately and knowingly. And he isn't the first person to have noticed this about you.
(Honesty requires me to admit here that you have been better)

Of course, part of his anger is that you tell him his argument is nonsense when it is. But then you turn right around and offer a nonsense argument of your own.

I guess he wants you using his nonsense exclusively.
#73
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
I speculate on the writer's motivation.  The only thing we can rely on is that someone sat down and wrote the text.  We can't know if Jesus was really brought in front of Pilate, but we do know for sure that the gospellers tell a story about it and presumably they had their reasons for doing so.   I'm not very interested speculating on why Pilate washed his hands... I am interested in speculating why the gospellers said he did.   What did the writer of the Abraham/Isaac story want to put across to his readers?


Topic's author
#74
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Castin
Concerning #4: The Jewish views on the subject are interesting. 
Concerning your link above which states :
      
"The Jewish PublicationSociety suggests Abraham's apparent complicity with the sacrifice was actuallyhis way of testing God". 
 
Thou shalt nottempt the Lord thy God. The World English Bible translatesthe passage as: ... In full Deut 6:16 reads "Do not test the Lord your God as you did atMassah." This is a reference to the events of Exodus 17:5 where theIsraelites wandering in the desert doubted God was with them.

Luke 4:12

Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
 just a thought ^^^^^

Topic's author
#75
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I speculate on the writer's motivation.  The only thing we can rely on is that someone sat down and wrote the text.
Now you resort to stating the bleeding’ obvious , Well thought through 10/10.

“We can't know “
 
Tomorrow you will accuse me of putting “ quotes around words” you “didn’t write”. AGAIN!


 I'm not very interested speculating on why Pilate washed his hands...
 
I should think not....considering that this thread is about Abraham's lack of ability to work out  that  "A Great Nation would NOT spring from him” if he was to carry out his gods orders.
 
I am interested in speculating why the gospellers said he did.

"Speculate"  the reasons on a thread of your own then. Although you say you don't like "speculating" for lack of a "time machine"

Post 17 As you (probably!) know I Don't really like speculating about 'what really happened' because without a time machine we will never know, but I don't deny its fun to speculate!
I am interested in speculating why the gospellers said he did.

Yet to my knowledge you haven't started a thread asking this very question, have you? Why don't you show me where if you have done so. I would be very interested to read your speculations as to why the gospellers even took the time to write bible stories that  "can be junked straight away." according to you.

Post 19 As an atheist I don't bother with the miraculous or magical elements of Bible stories - they can be junked straight away.  So in regard to something like the nativity I'm not bothered with the virgin birth nonsense, but it is interesting whether Jesus Was born in Bethlehem for instance,  
 


Topic's author
#76
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Of course, part of his anger 
hahahhahahah.  Clown.

 I have no anger at all about these unreliable scriptures. I do though have questions and opinions about them that you simply cannot handle and do not like. Get used to it and get over it. I have plenty more questions I know you can't answer.
#77
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@keithprosser
What did the writer of the Abraham/Isaac story want to put across to his readers?
Oh, that Abraham was the father of Isaac and God asked him to offer his son as a sacrifice but then stopped him before he could kill the boy who became the ancestor of Jesus and all Christians.

Lol. Atheism really does make you guys silly. What did the writer of the Abraham/Isaac story want to put across to his readers? The 
Abraham/Isaac story I would guess. D'uh.

But that is too much like right to you anti-theists. So you must ignore what the writer says and "focus" on your supplied reason of why he wrote what he did. Clumsy.
#78
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
I should think not....considering that this thread is about Abraham's lack of ability to work out  that  "A Great Nation would NOT spring from him” if he was to carry out his gods orders.
 I think this thread should be about why the writers of genesis included a symbolic espiode where a patriarch is willing to sacrifice his son.

You seem to have forgeotten the obvious:
The only thing we can rely on is that someone sat down and wrote the text.


Topic's author
#79
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
 I think this thread should be about why

But it isn't , it is my thread not yours. it is about what i have chosen it to be about , and not what you want is to be about or what you think it should be about. Why does this always seem to go over your head. And you should start a thread of your own giving your own speculations on your own thread.

Why haven't you ever done that.  Instead of cluttering up other peoples topics with your nauseating "speculations" about something you have categorically stated you do not believe.

Yet to my knowledge you haven't started a thread asking this very question, have you? Why don't you show me where if you have done so. I would be very interested to read your speculations as to why the gospellers even took the time to write bible stories that  "can be junked straight away." according to you.

keithprosser wrote: Post 19 As an atheist I don't bother with the miraculous or magical elements of Bible stories - they can be junked straight away.  So in regard to something like the nativity I'm not bothered with the virgin birth nonsense, but it is interesting whether Jesus Was born in Bethlehem for instance,  
 



You seem to have forgotten the obvious: 

WelI no I  didn't forget that did I, stop lying . I have responded to it haven't I.

Or did you miss what I wrote? in case you did this is what I wrote post 75 in response to you "stating the bleeding obvious".

Stephen wrote: Now you resort to stating the bleeding’ obvious , Well thought through 10/10.


#80
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5

What did the writer of the Abraham/Isaac story want to put across to his readers?
Oh, that Abraham was the father of Isaac and God asked him to offer his son as a sacrifice but then stopped him before he could kill the boy who became the ancestor of Jesus and all Christians.

Lol. Atheism really does make you guys silly. What did the writer of the Abraham/Isaac story want to put across to his readers? The 
Abraham/Isaac story I would guess. D'uh.

But that is too much like right to you anti-theists. So you must ignore what the writer says and "focus" on your supplied reason of why he wrote what he did. Clumsy.

I think the writer is presenting a mythical explanation for why the Hebrews - unlike many of their neighbours - sacrificed animals but not their children to their god.

Topic's author
#81
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I think the writer is presenting a mythical explanation for why the Hebrews - unlike many of their neighbours - sacrificed animals but not their children to their god.


Says the man who  tells us-  "As an atheist I don't bother with the miraculous or magical elements of Bible stories - they can be junked straight away."    and that  "After many years I have concluded that almost none of the Gospel story is based on actuality."  Post 19 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/518


I think the writer is presenting a mythical explanation for why the Hebrews

Is all "the writer" had to say  - if anything at all - was that the Hebrews didn't practice the savagery of child sacrifice of other nations/tribes and their  Gods. He didn't have to make the great epic long winded song and dance out of it  about sacrifice and burnt offering and tied up rams and only sons and the lord demanding the death of a child. 




#82
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
I would be very interested to read your speculations as to why the gospellers even took the time to write bible stories that  "can be junked straight away.


#83
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@keithprosser
I think the writer is presenting a mythical explanation for why the Hebrews - unlike many of their neighbours - sacrificed animals but not their children to their god.
Interesting. I wasn't aware the Hebrews significantly differed from their neighbors in this way. I'm rather ignorant on the cultures of the various -ites of the period. Amalekites, Canaanites, etc.
#84
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Stephen
Concerning #4: The Jewish views on the subject are interesting. 
Concerning your link above which states :
      
"The Jewish PublicationSociety suggests Abraham's apparent complicity with the sacrifice was actuallyhis way of testing God". 
 
Thou shalt nottempt the Lord thy God. The World English Bible translatesthe passage as: ... In full Deut 6:16 reads "Do not test the Lord your God as you did atMassah." This is a reference to the events of Exodus 17:5 where theIsraelites wandering in the desert doubted God was with them.

Luke 4:12

Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
 just a thought ^^^^^
Good catch. Though I imagine the passage in Luke probably doesn't count because I'm guessing the Jewish Publication Society does not recognize the New Testament.

It is a fascinating interpretation though, because it means Abraham was basically saying to God "prove you are righteous and worthy of my worship". That runs so counter to the fearful and unquestioning subservience to God that is thematically enforced elsewhere.

It would be called blasphemy and sacrilege, of course. Testing God means considering oneself worthy of sitting in judgment of God. And if you are a theist who believes God is the ultimate authority on morality, and in fact the very source of all morality, then attempting to hold him to a moral standard probably becomes nonsensical.

#85
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Castin
I wasn't aware the Hebrews significantly differed from their neighbors in this way.
They differed in many other ways but unlettered atheists misconstrue it. For example, "An eye for an eye" was meant to limit retribution to proportional repayment, not to insist that an eye must be taken at a eye lost, as atheist like to frame it.

Or when the Israelites would take the women from defeated cities as a mercy because leaving them meant certain death, but the smut brain atheist sees only rape and war booty. But kill everyone and he has problems too. Assimilating the foreign women into the tribe by marriage is seen as proof by the geniuses of sexual intent instead of a good way to address the problem of cultural differences.

God calls the Jews a "peculiar people". And they are.
Topic's author
#86
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
God calls the Jews a "peculiar people". And they are.


He also called the Hebrews a "stiff necked people"  that is to say stubborn, I assume.. No different  to Christians then who like to rewrite verses they find embarrassing and controversial and go as far as to  deny the existence of other  prickly verses altogether.
Topic's author
#87
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I'm guessing the Jewish Publication Society does not recognize the New Testament.
Good guess:  as it seems a perversion of the actual truth of what was going on in Palestine at the time of Christ. 
#88
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
He also called the Hebrews a "stiff necked people"  that is to say stubborn, I assume.
Ho! You know stiff necked can mean stubborn? Where have you been hiding this insight?

I'm going to play Stephen here.

The text doesn't say stubborn! Stop lying! You want to change scripture. STIFF NECKED PEOPLE  he called them. Who are you to contradict Almighty God?
How did they turn their heads? The story makes no sense!  And what about Ruth? And How did Solomon build a temple? And who was Abner?
Hahahahaha! You really love that stick don't you?
Clown.

:::Face palm:::
Topic's author
#89
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
The text doesn't say stubborn! Stop lying! You want to change scripture. STIFF NECKED PEOPLE  he called them.
I didn't say it does. I have said " that is to say stubborn, I  ASSUME." Post 86 above.

STOP TRYING TO EDIT MY TEXT!!!! THAT HAS TO BE AGAINST THE RULES I AM SURE. IT IS SLY AND DECEITFUL.

I haven't lied. Stop trying to clever, because you are not and never will be. I wrote "stiff necked people" as the scripture states clearly  and ASSUMED it to mean "stubborn".  See the difference. By doing this  you see, I have given anyone who chooses the chance to contradict and correct my ASSUMPTION on what I have taken "stiff necked" to mean. I notice you have failed to correct my ASSUMPTION" OF stiff necked".  

So what does this god mean by the phrase " stiff necked people" , if not STUBBORN?


I'm going to play Stephen here.

 And you have failed, you clown

stiff-necked

\ˈstif-ˈnekt  \


"You stubborn people! You are heathen at heart and deaf to the truth. Must you forever resist the Holy Spirit? That's what your ancestors did, and so do you!


"How stubborn you are!" Stephen went on to say. "How heathen your hearts, how deaf you are to God's message! 


"You stubborn people with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do. 


 You really are sad and  PATHETIC

AND

   YOU JUST LOVE THAT STICK DON'T YOU. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAH
Topic's author
#90
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5


Then the LORD said, "I have seen how stubborn and rebellious these people are.

Moses, I have seen how stubborn these people are, 

Good News Translation EXODUS 32: 9
I know how stubborn these people are. 


:::Face palm:::