god, jesus, holy spirit before family? Really?

[fallingblood]

Are you suggesting that the emotional trauma undoubtedly suffered by both Abraham and his son constituted no harm? Had it been you and yours, would you not have cursed god for his indulgence at the expence of your wellbeing? Would you at no point put your familly first?

What emotional trauma? There is no suggestion of such in the rest of the story about Abraham or Isaac. So yes, I would say there is no harm as there is no suggestion of harm in the story, or after the events. Instead, the two prosper and are rewarded by God.

So if it was me, I would have nothing to curse God about as there seems to be no harm to their well being. There is no suggestion of it. It is never mentioned. And instead, both are said to have been blessed.

As for putting my family first, Abraham was doing what he believed was best. You can't use a 21st century mentality to examine this story as the time period and beliefs were very different.

 

[Tristesse]

You are projecting 21st century ideas onto a time period in which they did not exist. You are also making it seem as if Abraham had no problem with the idea, which the story does in fact state that he did.

Also, it doesn't suggest that is something Abraham had thought his god would ask. To him, it seemed as if it was surprise. However, Abraham does show that he believed that God had something more in store for him. And again, he did struggle with the idea.

You're right, I'm taking a more rational approach to it. This is not a glorified representation of god's character.

 

[fallingblood]

You're right, I'm taking a more rational approach to it. This is not a glorified representation of god's character.

It is only more rational in a 21st century sense. What Abraham did was rational for that time.

As for a representation of God. You are only taking a very small portion of that story. You're taking it out of context, and trying to make it into something that it is not. That simply doesn't make a rational approach.

 

[Tristesse]

What emotional trauma? There is no suggestion of such in the rest of the story about Abraham or Isaac. So yes, I would say there is no harm as there is no suggestion of harm in the story, or after the events. Instead, the two prosper and are rewarded by God.

So if it was me, I would have nothing to curse God about as there seems to be no harm to their well being. There is no suggestion of it. It is never mentioned. And instead, both are said to have been blessed.

As for putting my family first, Abraham was doing what he believed was best. You can't use a 21st century mentality to examine this story as the time period and beliefs were very different.

If your father was going to sacrifice you, you don't think there would be any trauma done?

 

[Tristesse]

It is only more rational in a 21st century sense. What Abraham did was rational for that time.

As for a representation of God. You are only taking a very small portion of that story. You're taking it out of context, and trying to make it into something that it is not. That simply doesn't make a rational approach.

How am I taking it out of context? Did god not ask abraham to sacrifice Isaac? If he did, I don't see how I'm taking it out of context. Maybe you should try putting it in context, whether or not a sacrifice took place is not the point, a sacrifice was asked of. And that is not something a God of "good moral character" would ask of. If we deem it wrong to do so in the 21st century, why would it be deemed good back then? Period of time should have nothing to do with it, if we're talking about a being of moral character.

 

[crocusj]

What emotional trauma? There is no suggestion of such in the rest of the story about Abraham or Isaac. So yes, I would say there is no harm as there is no suggestion of harm in the story, or after the events. Instead, the two prosper and are rewarded by God.

So if it was me, I would have nothing to curse God about as there seems to be no harm to their well being. There is no suggestion of it. It is never mentioned. And instead, both are said to have been blessed.

As for putting my family first, Abraham was doing what he believed was best. You can't use a 21st century mentality to examine this story as the time period and beliefs were very different.

Why can I not use 21st century mentality? Killing your son may have been the norm at one time but when was it ever right? Why would a story describing a man's unquestioning faith in a god include the trauma caused by this god's commands? To suggest that this episode would not have traumatised either participant is - frankly - ridiculous, no-matter what era you live in. As for cursing god, would you not curse him at the suggestion that you kill your child?

 

[fallingblood]

If your father was going to sacrifice you, you don't think there would be any trauma done?

It is not about me. From what we can read, there is no evidence of trauma.

 

[fallingblood]

How am I taking it out of context? Did god not ask abraham to sacrifice Isaac? If he did, I don't see how I'm taking it out of context. Maybe you should try putting it in context, whether or not a sacrifice took place is not the point, a sacrifice was asked of. And that is not something a God of "good moral character" would ask of. If we deem it wrong to do so in the 21st century, why would it be deemed good back then? Period of time should have nothing to do with it, if we're talking about a being of moral character.

You are taking it out of a historical context (you ignore the time and place in which the event occurred), and you are taking it out of a literary context (as in what happened before and after that event).

And yes, whether or not a sacrifice occurred (or was even meant to occur), does matter. It is a story about trust.

Also, if God never intended a sacrifice, which it is evident that he did not, that does change the story. And really, if one was never intended, and God was just testing a person, then it would not make God immoral.

 

[Tristesse]

It is not about me. From what we can read, there is no evidence of trauma.

It is about you, because you're claiming no trauma was done. If the author is trying to claim god as the good character in this story, why would you as an author, write about any trauma done by this test from god. You don't have to read about trauma done, to realize that if this story is true, there most likely was trauma done. And you have to look no further than your own personal preference.

 

[fallingblood]

Why can I not use 21st century mentality? Killing your son may have been the norm at one time but when was it ever right? Why would a story describing a man's unquestioning faith in a god include the trauma caused by this god's commands? To suggest that this episode would not have traumatised either participant is - frankly - ridiculous, no-matter what era you live in. As for cursing god, would you not curse him at the suggestion that you kill your child?

Was any son killed? No. Is there any evidence of trauma? No. And again, this is not about me.

As for why you can't use 21st century mentality? Because we are talking about something that it has nothing to do with. We are talking about an ancient time, and we must try to understand that time period.

If you want to argue that trauma did occur, you must show evidence of it. If you can't, then there is little reason to believe that it was a harmful experience.

 

[fallingblood]

It is about you, because you're claiming no trauma was done. If the author is trying to claim god as the good character in this story, why would you as an author, write about any trauma done by this test from god. You don't have to read about trauma done, to realize that if this story is true, there most likely was trauma done. And you have to look no further than your own personal preference.

No, it's not about me. It didn't happen to me. I was not part of it. I do not live during that time. I am not from that culture.

My own personal preferences are very different from those of people from various ancient times. I live in a different culture, in a different place, in a different time. I live in a very different world. My ideas do not translate into their ideas. So no, it is not about me.

As for trauma, all we have to look at is the story. There is no evidence of trauma. There is no evidence of trauma later on. There is no evidence that this one experience negatively influenced those involved. What we do have evidence of is that both lived healthy lives, and prospered.

 

[Tristesse]

Was any son killed? No. Is there any evidence of trauma? No. And again, this is not about me.

As for why you can't use 21st century mentality? Because we are talking about something that it has nothing to do with. We are talking about an ancient time, and we must try to understand that time period.

If you want to argue that trauma did occur, you must show evidence of it. If you can't, then there is little reason to believe that it was a harmful experience.

If this is a story about god's character, period of time has no relevance, or is god just moral according to the edicts of the time?

The evidence of trauma, is in the fact that myself and probably most individuals would be traumatized by this event. If Isaac wasn't, then he was against the odds. And apparently, his father attempting to sacrifice him to find out that god was testing his father has no emotional repercussions for him.

 

[crocusj]

Was any son killed? No. Is there any evidence of trauma? No. And again, this is not about me.

As for why you can't use 21st century mentality? Because we are talking about something that it has nothing to do with. We are talking about an ancient time, and we must try to understand that time period.

If you want to argue that trauma did occur, you must show evidence of it. If you can't, then there is little reason to believe that it was a harmful experience.

Then where God? Then where the Bible? If this is not about you, what is the relevance of it at all? Do the times and culture dictate a god's morality? Surely, Man created God.

 

[no-body]

The problem with "playing" such a game is that one has to purposely has to take verses and ideas out of context (both literary and historical).

Exactly, which casts doubt on the authenticity that such texts are from God. If they where truly from God they would be in simple straightforward language, you wouldn't need to extensively study them.

 

[fallingblood]

Exactly, which casts doubt on the authenticity that such texts are from God. If they where truly from God they would be in simple straightforward language, you wouldn't need to extensively study them.

Who is saying that the texts are from God? I don't believe that has come up in this thread.

 

[fallingblood]

Then where God? Then where the Bible? If this is not about you, what is the relevance of it at all? Do the times and culture dictate a god's morality? Surely, Man created God.

Surely, no such thing. You can't show that Man created God. Really, it is a moot point.

As for what is the relevance? To learn a lesson. I don't even necessarily believe that the story is historical reliable. However, it teaches a lesson. It is about trust. It is about how God will reward you if you trust him. How God is looking after you, and will do what is best.

 

[fallingblood]

If this is a story about god's character, period of time has no relevance, or is god just moral according to the edicts of the time?

Period of time does have relevance. What is morally right today is not what was morally right years ago. It also isn't what will be morally right in the future. Morals and ethics change over time. So periods of time do matter. Morals are not ever lasting. They change.

And really, no sacrifice occurred. There is no evidence of trauma. There is no evidence of anything negative.

The evidence of trauma, is in the fact that myself and probably most individuals would be traumatized by this event. If Isaac wasn't, then he was against the odds. And apparently, his father attempting to sacrifice him to find out that god was testing his father has no emotional repercussions for him.

Really, what you or anyone living would experience, really doesn't matter in this case. We are not talking about you. We are not talking about anyone from this century. We are talking about a very different time with very different beliefs. You have to put this even into a historically correct context. Taking it out of that context really doesn't work.

As for his father having no emotional repercussions, I would have to say that you failed to actually read the story. Abraham did not just happily go out. He struggled with it.

And again, you have provided no real evidence. No where are we told or is it even suggested that something negative occurred because of this event.

 

[crocusj]

Surely, no such thing. You can't show that Man created God. Really, it is a moot point.

As for what is the relevance? To learn a lesson. I don't even necessarily believe that the story is historical reliable. However, it teaches a lesson. It is about trust. It is about how God will reward you if you trust him. How God is looking after you, and will do what is best.

If the story is not historically reliable then it is just that, a story, and as such becomes an idea that god can be trusted, not a fact. If it's not true then it isn't true. And if the morality of a god changes to suit the times then it is the times and therefore man who is creating that morality and therefore that god, surely. Man may not have created all gods but he certainly created some of them (or would you disagree with that?) I would suggest that those gods whose morality is timeless would be more plausible - existence wise - than those whose morality has a more human flexibility.

 

[fallingblood]

If the story is not historically reliable then it is just that, a story, and as such becomes an idea that god can be trusted, not a fact. If it's not true then it isn't true. And if the morality of a god changes to suit the times then it is the times and therefore man who is creating that morality and therefore that god, surely. Man may not have created all gods but he certainly created some of them (or would you disagree with that?) I would suggest that those gods whose morality is timeless would be more plausible - existence wise - than those whose morality has a more human flexibility.

It will all ways only be an idea that God can be trusted. The fact that no one can prove that God exists, means that one can never prove that he can be trusted. So your point there is moot.

Also, I never said that God changes to suit that time or that morality of that time. Just the understanding of God. People evolve. Ideas change. And the belief regarding God changes. Morality is just one more set of beliefs that change.

This change does not mean that God is changing, but that the idea of God is changing. And for a being that transcends our understanding, that would be a logical conclusion. Thus, people interpret God according their time periods, to their cultures, to their ideas. That doesn't mean they are wrong, or that they have to create a god to fit those ideas. It just means God is much more complex than the black and white idea you want to fit him into.

As God does not control humans, and if one would believe that God exists and created human, created humans to evolve, it would only make sense that he intentionally created humans knowing that they would change their idea of him as well.

 

[Tristesse]

Period of time does have relevance. What is morally right today is not what was morally right years ago. It also isn't what will be morally right in the future. Morals and ethics change over time. So periods of time do matter. Morals are not ever lasting. They change.

And really, no sacrifice occurred. There is no evidence of trauma. There is no evidence of anything negative.
Really, what you or anyone living would experience, really doesn't matter in this case. We are not talking about you. We are not talking about anyone from this century. We are talking about a very different time with very different beliefs. You have to put this even into a historically correct context. Taking it out of that context really doesn't work.

As for his father having no emotional repercussions, I would have to say that you failed to actually read the story. Abraham did not just happily go out. He struggled with it.

And again, you have provided no real evidence. No where are we told or is it even suggested that something negative occurred because of this event.

I agree that morals change and evolve over time. But if god were to ask somebody in today's society to sacrifice their child, would it be moral?

And I would argue that it wasn't moral back then either, but they didn't know any better.

You're not told something negative happened in this story because thats not the direction the author was taking. But in all practical instances this would cause trauma to the individual.