|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:56 am
In the old testament, God tells Abraham to take his son, Isaac, up on the mountain and sacrifice him, with fire.
Why would God, who is a jealous God and one who disagrees with the concept of making kids pass through the fire, ask Abraham to perform a ritual normally employed by followers of false gods? I know we generally say that he was testing him, but why would he use a "pagan" practice to do so?
*This question is meant to be viewed from the perspective of a believer(Christian), no offense was intended. Terms were used to clarify the intent of the question, not to alienate or make any claims that other beliefs are "wrong", or "false".
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:53 am
I suppose from a religious perspective, God cannot be wrong. If God could suppress the natural laws he created to prove a point (like causing the Earth to cease its orbit around the sun Joshua 10:13), then it could follow that God could suppress the religious laws he created for the same reason. Though through this course of logic, God could rape the Virgin Mary and it would be okay-- wait!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:48 am
If God can bend his own rules when ever he wants just to make a point, then would that make belief in Him not based on an absolute like Christians claim?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:33 am
Antiockus If God can bend his own rules when ever he wants just to make a point, then would that make belief in Him not based on an absolute like Christians claim? On the contrary, God could maintain his absoluteness if we reexamine what "absolute" means. If God did have to be absolute, in the sense of an unwavering judgment, then God would not be omnipotent because he would be submitting to a higher authority, namely: propriety. On the other hand, if we believe that God's will is law, then everything he does is absolute; whatever we 'thought' absolute meant would be wrong. Not to mention, that if God could not break his own rules then he would not be omnipotent because he, again, would be limited by his own decisions. I am not saying that this reasoning is fair, but then again "fair" would also be what ever God wants it to be. I should mention at this point that I am not a Christian , but rather a Discordian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:04 am
whynaut Antiockus If God can bend his own rules when ever he wants just to make a point, then would that make belief in Him not based on an absolute like Christians claim? On the contrary, God could maintain his absoluteness if we reexamine what "absolute" means. If God did have to be absolute, in the sense of an unwavering judgment, then God would not be omnipotent because he would be submitting to a higher authority, namely: propriety. On the other hand, if we believe that God's will is law, then everything he does is absolute; whatever we 'thought' absolute meant would be wrong. Not to mention, that if God could not break his own rules then he would not be omnipotent because he, again, would be limited by his own decisions. I am not saying that this reasoning is fair, but then again "fair" would also be what ever God wants it to be. I should mention at this point that I am not a Christian , but rather a Discordian.
So would that mean that 'absolute' is subjective, relying on God's will?
I am a Christian, but I am more spiritual than religious. I've reached a stage in my life where I need to decide what I believe instead of what I was raised to believe.
Discordian? What would that be in your own words?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:55 am
Antiockus So would that mean that 'absolute' is subjective, relying on God's will? I am a Christian, but I am more spiritual than religious. I've reached a stage in my life where I need to decide what I believe instead of what I was raised to believe. Discordian? What would that be in your own words? Well, think of it this way: If God created the universe then he created the standard for it. In terms of morality this would mean that "Good" is whatever God has dictated "Good" to be (like the Ten Commandments, etc.). So it would go to follow that God would be infallible, not because he can rigidly follow what is Good, but because he is automatically Good no matter what action he performs. An omnipotent God would be able to change what "Good" means. For people, this would mean that we basically would just have to 'put up with it' because humans would be defined by God and not the other way around. *** But I must insist that my reasoning is purely academical and do not reflect my own views. I said I am a Discordian, which is technically atheistic (or at least nonthestic), but I do not like the connotations of the word atheist. Discordianism is just the belief that humans can never understand true reality, and instead we build a grid around meaningless chaos in the shape of the reality we want. Of course the grid would include Discordianism itself, and therein lies the joke, you see? I feel that Discordianism is more of a joke than most major religions, but less of a joke than something like Pastafarianism or the IPU. But it is really not my intent to convert anyone. If you want to speak with a really intelligent Christian, I suggest you contact another active poster of the guild Purete. She has more than once given me a run for my money in our debates of God vs. Meaninglessness.Though this is not to say that there are not a lot of smart people here who would not be happier than to be able to spew philosophical advice. AbrAbraxas, I have noticed, also has a diverse knowledge of most religions. Though he rarely argues (or at least not in a negative way). And Niniva is also very bright and has argued me to a standstill on several occasions. Though I am not 100% sure what his philosophy is, I think it would insult him if he was so rigidly defined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:29 pm
Antiockus Why would God, who is a jealous God and one who disagrees with the concept of making kids pass through the fire, ask Abraham to perform a ritual normally employed by followers of false gods? I know we generally say that he was testing him, but why would he use a "pagan" practice to do so? Since YHVH had already established that he was not like other gods, by behaving as Abraham would have expected from them he tests Abraham's devotion to YHVH. If Abraham wanted something different from his god then he would leave YHVH to find another to fulfill that role. If all Abraham wanted in his god was more of the same, then he would go back to his more familiar pagan gods who were just looking for first fruits and the occational sheep. But by being willing to sacrifice his son in such a way he showed that he was devoted to YHVH alone. Note: I'm not christian so I have no quotes to back me up, this is just my understanting of the scenario presented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:07 am
Antiockus In the old testament, God tells Abraham to take his son, Isaac, up on the mountain and sacrifice him, with fire. Why would God, who is a jealous God and one who disagrees with the concept of making kids pass through the fire, ask Abraham to perform a ritual normally employed by followers of false gods? I know we generally say that he was testing him, but why would he use a "pagan" practice to do so? *This question is meant to be viewed from the perspective of a believer(Christian), no offense was intended. Terms were used to clarify the intent of the question, not to alienate or make any claims that other beliefs are "wrong", or "false". This question has plagued me not because of the "test" aspect of it as God merely wanted Abraham's undying devotion....what I fail to understand about the scenerio is....why the child? There are inumerous other ways to test a man's faith then by having him kill his first born son. I do not understand why the son went with him first of all....and second of all....why Abraham would even bother to desire to follow a God that would have him kill his first born son. If it were me, in that day when God's who never asked you to do anything at all most especially dangerous things were thrown at you left and right.....I would have said "I'm not entirely certain dear fellow who calls yourself God, but I do believe you said you were a moral and just God. My son is innocent and so if you are who you say you are, then asking for my son to die in order for me to show devotion to you is a total contrediction to everything you say you are." Then again throwing God's nature into his own face like that is likely to get met with lightning bolts and giant floods (at least according to the Bible that is). So I understand the fear of Abraham, but what I don't understand was why God would use that as a tool to motivate the faith of this poor man who must have been torn to shreds by this scenerio. This particular story in the Bible makes me sigh to myself because I simply do not understand the moral implications of it, but then again God did pull through in the end, so that makes everything all better right?......... Or does it? On this question I ponder many long hours only to conclude that there was a reason for all of this (as God, if he exists must exist within his own nature...thats a tautology...and God's nature is logical or logic wouldn't work...therefore God must exist within a logical nature and so causality is presserved even with God) but that it is one of those times where I may never know what all the reasons for it were, why God would do anything like this ever.....because testing a man's faith by asking him to kill another (breaking a commandment) seems wrong to me. Then Again just days after the ten commandments were issued God told the people of Judah to make an idol and fall down and worship it....thereby breaking his own commandment just days after it was issued. So to say I understand morality at all in the sense of God would be a lie. I'm ok with that though. If God exists (and I believe he does personally) then as I have said before there isn't anything we could possibly know about him, we can postulate all we want to but being that he is not intrinsically physical in nature and by definition exists outside of the borders of space and time (figurative borders not literal) then there is nothing....literally....that you could ever say about him that is meaningful since meaningful statements (in the finite sense) require logic which first requires time (If.....then.....) Since that is the case then using logical rules it follows that since you could never say anything meaningful about God that whatever you think about God would be intrinsically wrong, and the only way you could ever be right about God is completely by accident (Accident in the sense that it is nothing that you did or thought about that led you to that belief or could lead you to that belief and so you believe it, but your right by chance...happenstance.....which makes you not right, but lucky). Therefore God does what he does and occasionally the nature of God is not understandable which is what makes him God, so it doesn't bother me much that I can't understand it...if I could he wouldn't be very impressive would He?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 11:51 am
Maybe it's because he wanted to see Abraham trully obeyed him cool
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 9:32 am
Well, it was probably to test Abraham even more, because then he would be commiting a pagan act while killing his son, so it was a double test maybe? Idk, some things 'just are'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
