Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
It doesn’t mean atheists get to draw another tally mark on the big board.
Oh, okay, now I see why this topic exists, you seem concerned that atheists are 'claiming' babies as part of our 'big board.' Atheists don't actually have a big board, and I doubt any atheist would really care about 'claiming' a baby, and none of us, not one, think a baby is someone who has reasoned or otherwise 'arrived' at a conclusion that there isn't any god or gods to believe in. I really don't care about anyone's baby's religious beliefs, frankly.
The fact remains that babies don't believe in god or gods. That makes them atheists by default, and I'd certainly say that's far different than someone who arrives at the conclusions I have. But they're still atheists when they're born, as they aren't capable of the kind of thought pattern required to form beliefs, and the word 'atheist' just means 'no belief in god.'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
@RoderickSpode
Calling a baby an atheist rests on the incorrect definition of atheist as "without belief". But without belief in what?A god or gods.ethang it's very simple:"Do babies believe in god?"Unless the answer is "yes" they are atheists.
Well put. God or gods are a subset of 'everything people can believe in." If a moments old babies cannot be demonstrated to hold any beliefs at all, then they don't believe in god or gods either, and yes, then they are atheists. I don't get it, what's the issue, like atheism isn't claiming these children, plenty of them grow up religious, so.....what's the point?
Rod, would it be more accurate to say your thread means "are toddlers by nature atheists>" r something like that? Because I can't see how one can support the idea that a newborn infant DOES NOT start out an atheist unless you can point to some evidence, some study of brain patterns of newborns or some other hard evidence, without bald assertion. Which you've done already by saying "I believe they start out with the idea of a creator," supported by literally nothing at all. It seems an easier argument to make once the child is communicative (though then they're not 'starting out' anymore).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
No you are wrong again because they are like atheist babies because they are born to be gods children but their parents are scum and then they teach the kids to be scum. It is not good anyway because those kids they have goat milk anyway.
Right, right, sorry, miscalculated. Clearly the hindus and muslims are all scums, and all that goat's milk is a clear factor in their scumly results. I can't believe I didn't put all this together sooner. Babies are born Christians, all over the world, and goat's milk plus their scummy parents eventually condemn them to hell, and the god that loves these innocent pre-scum babies so much doesn't do a lot to help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
So there is proof that infants believe in God because they believe in God more than you do.
Impenetrable logic, well done, I feel like this is how Saul felt on the road to Damascus. Clearly all those muslim and hindu babies are not only stupid, and maybe even scums.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Your wrong again because infants are holding beliefs because they would not believe that they are having breast milk and that they are in a good bed and have a loving mummy because they will cry all the time thats how we know they believe and that they are not dumb. Also they are Gods childrens so they are born as theists anyway.
Oh right, obviously, yeah, forgot all that "babies definitely believe they have a loving mummy," clearly demonstrated in many scientific studies of babies. Sorry, my bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Tradesecret
@RoderickSpode
Children are born neither and move one way or the other naturally.
Neutral = atheist. This really isn't that hard, guys. You are just having a hard time with the word 'atheist' because of your notions of what atheists are, when all it is at its most basic is "no belief in god or gods." Neutral. Infants are not capable of holding 'beliefs'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm determining that a sixteen year old is not a child due to their ability to reason. A sixteen year can generally say "Phooey, Santa doesn't exist". A child however will at first explanation believe Santa exists because there's no reason as of yet not to.If a sixteen year old is mentally handi-capped, then they might be considered a child depending on the level of their handi-cap.
So you are not really sure if my question was referring to a handicapped sixteen year old? You read that question and your first through was "wait a minute, does he mean a special needs sixteen year old? Better clarify just in case!" For real?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Rod, it doesn't make any difference, babies are not born believing in god, which answers the question in the OP. Resoundingly, YES, they are atheists. They don't believe in god, which is the only requirement to qualify. An infant doesn't have the cognitive function to worry anything but its physical needs, it doesn't contemplate the origin of the universe or life. Forget I asked about the sixteen year old, you don't want to answer and instead are trying to dissemble into semantics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Okay, I guess forget it then. Intelligence doesn't determine if someone is a child or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Just say you don't want to answer, man. It's not that hard, a sixteen year old is a child, for pete's sake. I have an idea, why don't you define "child" because I'm pretty sure I know what a child is. If you want some sort of semantical trap door, go ahead and build one, or just skip the question for being somehow too impenetrable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
THat's fine, you're just choosing something to believe because you don't want to be boring in your own view, you've the right to do so, but it's not a position from which you will convince anyone that it's true. t appears you recognize that, so I say mazel tov!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'll rephrase: if you kept a person's influence absolutely free of any mention of religion at all for the first sixteen years of their lives (think of it like being totally isolated on an island where religions simply doesn't exist), and that child spent their time learning critical thinking skills and the demonstrable scientific reasons things happen, do you think after sixteen years you'd be able to convince them a god exists?
Created:
Posted in:
Do you think George Washington Carver wasn't taught critical thinking and the scientific method?
He wasn't taught the scientific method free of any influence of religion at an early age. My question:
Do you think you could convince a sixteen year old, if you never taught them anything about religion, any religion, but taught critical thinking, science and natural causes that we can demonstrate as the causes for various natural phenomena, do you think at 16 you could convince that child that a particular god is god's real?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you think you could convince a sixteen year old, if you never taught them anything about religion, any religion, but taught critical thinking,science and natural causes that we can demonstrate as the causes for various natural phenomena, do you think at 16 you could convince that child that a particular god is god's real?If you were a child who was taught by a person of any age (for lack of a better term) natural science without any mention of deities or religion; and one day the idea of a creator was proposed, would you reject the proposal or idea claiming it to be an unscientific notion?
What's your answer to my question?
If you were taught critical thinking and the scientific method, you wouldn't reject it out of hand, but you'd end up rejecting it after examination, because there's no other real conclusion to make.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
My opinion is no. That is, children do not determine that there's no God based on lack of evidence.
This is not the answer to the question posed in the topic. When a child is born, it has no concept of any god at all, and is therefore an atheist. In fact, they don't even know what evidence is, and they don't understand language. So yes, they are atheists, and there are only two options: atheist or theist, there's no third option.
Have you ever known a child to dispute the existence of God due to lack of evidence?
Plenty of kids ask "how do you know?" or "why?" a million times.
Would you agree that the childhood years are typically VERY Important for the formation of religious ideas? Do you think you could convince a sixteen year old, if you never taught them anything about religion, any religion, but taught critical thinking, science and natural causes that we can demonstrate as the causes for various natural phenomena, do you think at 16 you could convince that child that a particular god is god's real?
Created:
Posted in:
I'm also a little confused as to how it'd be moral to hold anyone eternally accountable for some crime committed by some ancestor a thousand generations ago, supposedly, I mean is it moral if your dad commits a crime and you're sent to the chair for it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
First of all, great argument. Do you think it's possible to not be evil? Is it possible for people who are ostensibly god's reps on earth, people like clergy or even your standard run of the mill Christian like yourself, who really love them some Jesus, to do unspeakable evil things? Is it possible for anyone who is not a Christian to do moral acts? Like is it possible for a naïve Aborigine who's never heard of Jesus to be moral? Is it possible for someone who doesn't believe in god to be moral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
If the Chistians are true Christians then they would not say that because why is the homeless person a homeless person. It is because he is not a true christian and probably not a Christian at all and God does warn about helping out scums. Luke 22 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” So then God will no that I resisted temptation and I will go to heaven but the bus driver wont because he is also scum for running over me. My family will have immacculate bodies like me and when Im not in my mansion I will visit there mansions. It doesnt matter anyway because it is eternity and there is no such thing as time so you never think about it.
So, you believe that true Christians can't be homeless, AND that if someone's homeless, it's because god is punishing them, and they don't deserve help? That they're "scums"? That you'd be lauded in heaven for resisting the temptation to help someone in that situation? And that if the bus driver accidentally ran you over, he's also scum and not a true Christian? Is it not possible god's using the scummy bus driver to punish you for not being a true Christian? I wonder if your fellow Christians would agree with this, I must say, rather unique standard for being a true Christian. Ever heard of the beatitudes? Isn't that where Christians are obliged to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless? Are all the Christian homeless shelters propagating false Christianity for helping the scums god is punishing?
As far as your family in heaven: what age will they be? Why would they need bodies or a mansion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
God will not be mocked - by you or anyone else.
What does this mean, in practical terms?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
God is eternal. He has no beginning, so the premise does not apply to Him.
Meh, forgetit, I don't have the energy to explain special pleading to you.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Then your system of thought is irrational and illogical, as I have explained before. I don't think I can reason with you.
I agree, we're talking past each other , and I don't have the time to sort through your repetitive screeds. I'll go on not torturing little kids for fun even though I don't believe in god..
Created:
-->
@ethang5
See, sacrifice is used in the same sense as "offer". What version of the bible did your source use?
NIV.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Humanity is as distinct and unique on this earth as anything else.
So, completely indistinct, then?
There is no discernable purpose for its existence, unlike every other creature.
I'm not clear on this: there's no purpose for humanity's existence, but there IS a purpose for, say, cave frogs that never see the light of day? This seems an unusual position to take in support of the existence of the christian god.
Humanity has an awareness of self-existence. It has language.
As do animals, unless I misunderstand what you mean. Also, all animals have language. We just don't understand it.
It has the ability to worship God. Something which is clearly a complex evolved creature is able to do - but the less complex forms of creation do not.
How do you know for certain that monkeys, for example, do not contemplate some monkey god?
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
We are all sinners but all my family are true christians so we will all be heaven. We have all been redeemed and saved by the lord Jesus Christ and we are prepared for what god has prepared for us. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.....Hebrews 14.
Wow, that's a lot of confidence there. I take it your doctrine is "once saved always saved," meaning since you have accepted JEsus as your personal savior, it doesn't really matter if you die in sin? In other words, let's say you're on your way to work one morning, and you're accosted by a homeless person, asking for money. You say "Sorry, I don't have any," even though you have five dollars in your pocket, or your lunch. As you cross the next street, you're hit by a bus, and sadly, you pass away. THe last act on earth was lying to a person in need, in service of keeping your own wealth. Now I'm not saying YOU would do this, but just setting up a scenario. So , if you died under these circumstances, a once saved always saved person thinks "I"m saved, no big deal." Many other CHristians think you died a sinner, and without that redemption from the sin, you go to hell. Which do you think?
Also, what's your family in heaven going to look like?
And what are you doing during the days in heaven? Like when you're not at your mansion?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
So what caused god to exist?
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
My opinion is that God was asking Abraham to trust Him - that his promise could be trusted.
Doesn't the text say "offer as a burnt sacrifice," and not "trust me"? You're talking about the moral of the story, actually, not what's the text of the story. The 'trust' part is only apparent at the end of the story, do you see what I'm saying? At the time in the story god says go kill and burn your son in my honor, to Abraham, it can only sound to Abraham like that's exactly what god wants to happen. Abraham doesn't doubt it, and he doesn't think "God won't let that happen, so I'll go along with this because I trust him." That's read into the story later, and interpreted in Hebrews apparently, but Hebrews isn't the text in question, and no one who wrote Hebrews was present or interviewed Abraham, so at best, the interpretation is conjecture after the fact.
In Abraham's mind - it seems that he believed that Isaac would come back and worship with him.
I see your reading of verse 5, where he says to servants to stay here, we'll come back to you, as a way to keep the servants from trying to do the right thing and stop him from killing his only child, thinking he'd gone crazy. Reading it your way, Abraham DOES NOT have faith in the direct communication with god, because he was told to sacrifice his son, and not believing that was how things would end would mean that he thinks god is lying to him.
Was God serious in his request to Abraham to sacrifice his Son? Absolutely.
So god WAS serious when he said " Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering"? Why did Isaac not get sacrificed then?
Absolutely - not only did Abraham believe God in respect of the command, but also in relation to what would happen and moreover in that Isaac would come back with from the Mountain to worship God.
So he believed god's command BUT believed god wouldn't go through with the command? That would mean god wasn't serious about it, and Abraham didn't believe thepart about killing his son, and nowhere does god tell Abraham Isaac would come back down the mountain.
- Is this a story about the depth of Abraham's faith?
Yes. And God's promise. The promise of death and resurrection.
Why did god require a test at all, doesn't god know Abraham's faith?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I seem to recall he was in the penalty box for six months.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you think you meet with your family there? What if they died in sin, would you still meet them there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I guess duly noted, but I think the original post (not the one I directed to Mr. Spode, with whom I was discussing on another thread) was pretty benign. I'm not taking an anti0theist approach, I'm asking a Christian to explain to a former believer why they think the story means what it means. I guess you don't have a case to make? I'm not straw manning anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@RoderickSpode
Daniel was thrown in the furnace because he was doing God's will. So in that sense God pretty much sent Daniel into the furnace. Was God sending him there to be killed? Under normal circumstances, that would be the case.
We're talking about Abraham, not Daniel, and god ordering one human to kill another human.
Then we really wouldn't have much to discuss because to me they're not fictional characters until demonstrated otherwise. Are we on the same page that the characters' actual existence (and non-existence) is a key factor in our argument?
Why is it important if they're fictional or historical, in your view? Besides eternal damnation I mean. I don't see it as a big factor really if you take that condition out, because what we're talking about is just analyzing a piece of text.
God was not kidding. The text in Hebrews states that Abraham, through faith, offered his son as a sacrifice. That's all that was required of him.
The story of Abraham isn't in Hebrews, it's in Genesis, and in Genesis, god commands (not asks) Abraham to take his only son to the top of a mountain to be offered as a burnt sacrifice. God's word IN THIS STORY and TO ABRAHAM sounds like "slit your son's throat as you would a ewe, then burn the body in my honor on an altar, as you would a ewe." God then not following through with this command leads logically to only two conclusions: he never intended Abraham to sacrifice and burn Isaac (generously, he was kidding, cynically, we has fxcking with Abraham for no reason), or the ever unchanging god CHANGED HIS MIND. THis all leaves aside the notion that this is a demonstration of FAITH to god at all, as he would know if ABraham was faithful or not without having to test him. Is he trying to demonstrate ABraham's faith to Abraham? What's the point of that?
But as far as whether or not God commands the killing of another human, then yes. In the case of capitol punishment, and wartime.
And here, with Isaac.
I don't ultimately know for sure how, but there were other written documents to glean from. We know a number of documents have been lost. And there's also the possibility that like a number of people and authors in the bible, they received information by revelation.
This is your response to how do the writers of Hebrews know what Abraham is thinking. You refer to potentially lost documents (like...what, Abraham's ancient blog? The entire area was 99.9% illiterate and they were largely concerned with how to not die overnight, not writing a diary), the 'possibility' that a number of people received a heretofore unspecified revelation. This is why you have to stick with the text of the story: none of those things are remotely reliable sources. A document that might have existed or a dream someone might have had but not written down doesn't exactly stand up to your insistence that these are factual accounts. Imagine if I tried to present YOU with such an agument: well, documents may have been lost that showed JEsus was just basically the BC equivalent of a guy with a sandwich board, muttering on the streetcorner, therefore it's likely that I'm right. You'd not accept that, you'd as for more substantiation, right? If you're not sure how the writer of Hebrews knew, why are you treating it as if unequivocally THEY DID KNOW?
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Daniel was thrown in the furnace because he was doing God's will. So in that sense God pretty much sent Daniel into the furnace. Was God sending him there to be killed? Under normal circumstances, that would be the case.
We're talking about Abraham, not Daniel, and god ordering one human to kill another human.
Then we really wouldn't have much to discuss because to me they're not fictional characters until demonstrated otherwise. Are we on the same page that the characters' actual existence (and non-existence) is a key factor in our argument?
Why is it important if they're fictional or historical, in your view? Besides eternal damnation I mean. I don't see it as a big factor really if you take that condition out, because what we're talking about is just analyzing a piece of text.
God was not kidding. The text in Hebrews states that Abraham, through faith, offered his son as a sacrifice. That's all that was required of him.
The story of Abraham isn't in Hebrews, it's in Genesis, and in Genesis, god commands (not asks) Abraham to take his only son to the top of a mountain to be offered as a burnt sacrifice. God's word IN THIS STORY and TO ABRAHAM sounds like "slit your son's throat as you would a ewe, then burn the body in my honor on an altar, as you would a ewe." God then not following through with this command leads logically to only two conclusions: he never intended Abraham to sacrifice and burn Isaac (generously, he was kidding, cynically, we has fxcking with Abraham for no reason), or the ever unchanging god CHANGED HIS MIND. THis all leaves aside the notion that this is a demonstration of FAITH to god at all, as he would know if ABraham was faithful or not without having to test him. Is he trying to demonstrate ABraham's faith to Abraham? What's the point of that?
But as far as whether or not God commands the killing of another human, then yes. In the case of capitol punishment, and wartime.
And here, with Isaac.
I don't ultimately know for sure how, but there were other written documents to glean from. We know a number of documents have been lost. And there's also the possibility that like a number of people and authors in the bible, they received information by revelation.
This is your response to how do the writers of Hebrews know what Abraham is thinking. You refer to potentially lost documents (like...what, Abraham's ancient blog? The entire area was 99.9% illiterate and they were largely concerned with how to not die overnight, not writing a diary), the 'possibility' that a number of people received a heretofore unspecified revelation. This is why you have to stick with the text of the story: none of those things are remotely reliable sources. A document that might have existed or a dream someone might have had but not written down doesn't exactly stand up to your insistence that these are factual accounts. Imagine if I tried to present YOU with such an agument: well, documents may have been lost that showed JEsus was just basically the BC equivalent of a guy with a sandwich board, muttering on the streetcorner, therefore it's likely that I'm right. You'd not accept that, you'd as for more substantiation, right? If you're not sure how the writer of Hebrews knew, why are you treating it as if unequivocally THEY DID KNOW?
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Created:
Posted in:
I'm referring specifically to the tale in Genesis about the guy who god tells to take his only son up a mountain to kill then burn as a sacrifice. It's come up in another topic and is threatening to derail that. Some possible talking points:
- What's the moral of the story?
- Did god ask Abraham to kill his son or not?
- Was god being serious?
- Did Abraham believe him
- Is this a story about the depth of Abraham's faith?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It's certainly a reasonable conclusion based on the text that's in the story. There's nothing in that story that said "Abraham knew god would not let him kill his son," because that makes it difficult to have god be some supremely smart entity. Abraham would have outsmarted god, if that were the case. The lack of hesitation also seems to be painted here as him knowing there was never any real danger to Isaac, but in context of its time, it makes more sense that Abraham is simply THIS obedient that he doesn't even hesitate. It's a story about faithfulness, which requires Abraham to believe wholeheartedly that whatever god says he should do, without question or hesitation.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Abraham, according to Hebrews did not believe the sacrifice would result in death.
Which book of the bible is Abraham actually in, and not referred to? The actual tale doesn't say anything at all about what Abraham thought of the whole thing, just that god told him to do it, and Abraham was so sure that he should do it he didn't even hesitate to take the kid up the mountain,. In this story, god told Abraham to kill (sacrifice as a burnt offering = dead, we agree?). How the story nds and how other books interpret it is a different topic, but do you agree that in the story in genesis, specifcally the verse I cited, god tells Abraham to kill his son?
Are you saying the author is implying that Abraham was under the impression he was going to kill his son at God's command as a fictional character? In other words, since the author didn't mention in this chapter that Abraham was anticipating a deliverance for Isaac, then that's how we should take it if it's fiction?
Yes, they're all fictional characters to me until demonstrated otherwise, and the text reads exactly as you describe it above.
I don't see any reason to suspect that Abraham was expecting to kill his son
This is a pesky verse then: Gen 2:22: " "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."" So you're saying Abraham knew god was kidding? Doesn't that make god 's word suspect? How do you know if he's kidding or actually commanding? Seems a dangerous proposition on which to make a guess, considering according to your beliefs, disobedience without repentenace results in eternal torture., and your case on judgement day basically comes down to "Wait, you were SERIOUS about that? Oh my goodness, so sorry, I was positive you were kidding, like you did with Abraham!"
Weird as unusual?
More like non-sensical. ETA: we can discuss it further in a different topic if you're interested, this one's pretty deep and the story of Abraham isn't really the topic. The command from god to a human to kill another human was what I was responding to. Apparently Christians think that god was either kidding and both he and Abraham knew it (this was not one of the non-sensical ways I have heard the story, it's a new one!), or you can sacrifice a burned child and it's not dead somehow.
Would you agree that whether or not this was fact or fiction plays a big role?
As with the whole book, yes. If it's factual, let's have the demonstration, but it makes a lot more sense as a collection of ictional myths from a different civilization than it does as a fact, considering its major tales of supernatural exploits are not chronicled in any other reputable way or source.
Abraham's focus was on Isaac being resurrected if in fact he had to plunge in the knife and kill him.
Hebrews =/= Genesis. The interpretations of the story aren't the story. How would whoever wrote Hebrews (if it's all factual) have known beyond doubt what Abraham was thinking hundreds of years earlier if that isn't in the text?
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
But for fun, let's say God allowed the sacrifice (the term God used instead of "kill"), and there was no pain in the process.....and no death? In other words, God miraculously caused the actual stabbing to be of no effect.Would that still be "killing"?
If it doesn't result in death, it wouldn't seem so.
Then maybe I'm not clear on what you're arguing.
Very simply that god did in fact order humans to kill humans in the bible. It's in there. You can say it says "sacrifice," not "kill," but you point out that human sacrifice was a custom of the day and it involved killing whatever the sacrifice subject was, AND he asked him for a burnt offering, which were also always dead. Abraham was under the impression he was going to kill his son at god's command. It's very, very plain. It's not a technicality, it's just what the text says. In writing.
The best thing to do is focus on the direct message itself which is the faith of Abraham. That we do know.
Exactly, and that's what's weird about it.
Trying to side track the main focus to something difficult to understand is not a wise move.
I'm not saying the focus of the Abraham tale is god telling a guy to kill his son. I'm saying THAT IS IN THE STORY. Nothing more than that. There's far more meat on the bone of that tale than there is question about what exactly Abraham left his hut with his kid intending to do. The story itself is not at all mysterious, and if I said I don't understand the story, I mis-spoke: I don't understand how Christians INTERPRET the story. The meaning you get from it doesn't make sense. Do a topic on it and we can discuss if you like, I'd enjoy that.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The topic seems to be about murder. Do you see this as God requesting that Abraham murder his son?
All I'm saying is god asked one human to kill another human in this story. It's not a legal argument. It's reading.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
All I'm saying is what the text actually says, in the verse, is god telling a guy to kill his son. It's very plain: take you son to the top of that mountain and offer him as a burnt sacrifice. This part of the story is completely unambiguous. There's plenty of weirdness in the whys of this story and their implications, but we're far afield of the topic at hand.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
All that's well and good, but the point is the text shows god asking someone to kill someone else. What happens after that is a different discussion. The text is the text. THe story in Genesis is clear.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Why not just tell him that he's the one to be sacrificed?
Don't know, but if I had to speculate, in the real world I'd say it's because a kid Isaac's age could outrun a man Abraham's age. The way you are reading it, the whole thing makes LESS sense to me: If god knew he wasn't going t let Abraham kill Isaac, and Abraham knew god wasn't going to let him kill Isaac, what exactly is the test about? BEcause you said this:
It's pretty clear from the text that Abraham viewed the test as a cultural necessity meant to prove his allegiance to the God he believed in.
So if neither Abraha nor Isaac expected this whole affair to end up with a dead kid, then no one is actually proving anything to anyone, because there's no stakes on either side.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm not disputing what happens in the text. I'm saying the text says God asked Abraham to sacrifice his kid as a burnt offering. Whatever happens after, god indeed asked him to kill Isaac. It's very plain. I get the moral (though it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I get how Christians read it). But it doesn't change the fact that the text has god asking a man to kill his son.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
The question isn't about what happened. You said god never commands anyone to kill anyone else, yet here he is, commanding Abraham to kill his son and offer him as a burnt offering like they did with lambs. I don't disagree that god stopped him, not sure why you're worrying about that, when that has nothing to do with what you claimed, again. So even if god was kidding (which, I mean...weird), he DOES in fact ask Abraham to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering which we agree means Isaac would be required to be dead, which is why he brought the knife. It's really something we can agree on, but you refuse to read the text as it is, as usual.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Or God asking Abraham to offer his son
Exactly. As a burnt offering. Which is something that's dead, according to rationale and reason and also the text.
Created: