god, jesus, holy spirit before family? Really?

[fallingblood]

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.

And there is the problem. You are projecting modern ideas unto ancient times. It simply doesn't work.

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.

You can't show that to be true. There isn't even a suggestion of a negative impact. The characters never portray any negative effects from this event. They don't seem to be impacted negatively by this event at all. Yes, the author may not specifically say that there was trauma, but if the trauma really was that bad, one should be able to see it popping up at some point in their lives.

 

[Tristesse]

And there is the problem. You are projecting modern ideas unto ancient times. It simply doesn't work.
You can't show that to be true. There isn't even a suggestion of a negative impact. The characters never portray any negative effects from this event. They don't seem to be impacted negatively by this event at all. Yes, the author may not specifically say that there was trauma, but if the trauma really was that bad, one should be able to see it popping up at some point in their lives.

Is that a yes or a no. Couldn't tell.

Ok, there may not have been one iota of a negative impact in his life. But does that still mean that God did the right thing by asking abrham to sacrifice his son?

There may or may not have been trauma in isaac's life from this, but was it still the right thing to do?

 

[fallingblood]

Is that a yes or a no. Couldn't tell.

It doesn't matter. We are not talking about our society. Thus, whether it would be moral for God to ask such a thing today has no bearing on the subject.

Ok, there may not have been one iota of a negative impact in his life. But does that still mean that God did the right thing by asking abrham to sacrifice his son?

It was the right thing for Abraham. It caused no apparent negative effect that lasted. It prepared Abraham for the mission that God had for him. And in the end, Abraham prospered.

There was no sacrifice. There was no harm.

There may or may not have been trauma in isaac's life from this, but was it still the right thing to do?

For Abraham, yes.

 

[waitasec]

Would God ask such a thing? No. Putting God first does not mean one has to forsake their family, or even leave the possibility open. Putting God first also requires one to love and cherish their family, as that is something that God gave to that person.

It really isn't God or family. It is God and family.

god asked abraham to sacrifice his son....
and god sacrificed his own...so i'd say yes he would...

 

[fallingblood]

god asked abraham to sacrifice his son....
and god sacrificed his own...so i'd say yes he would...

Abraham is a completely different context, and just one single figure. It is an exception, not the rule. More so, there was no sacrifice.

As for Jesus. He chose to sacrifice himself. Completely different.

 

[jtartar]

A friend of mine who has a wonderful family (wife is beautiful, kids are straight students and overachieving) said he would always take god first (I'm also assuming jesus and holy spirit too) over family.
I will NEVER understand this and if really put to the test would he really do it?
In other words, if god "spoke" to him to leave his family for some "spiritual trek", would he really do it? If you were in his position would you?
For me family first and foremost. No if's ands or buts.

ninerbuff,

Let's consider what Jesus said. Consider Luke 14:26; If anyone comes to me and does not HATE his father and mother and his wife and children and brothers and sisters, and even his own soul, cannot be my disciple. Now at first this seems harsh, but in the scriptures the term hate is not exactly what it is today. The word hate actually means to love less than. So Jesus is saying that we must love God and Jesus MORE that your relatives. The fact is we must hate everything when compared to our love for God. WHY??? One reason is; Everything be have, God gave us!!! Should we like the gift more than the giver??
Even more important is: With God you are thinking about eternity!! Anything that we might lose for God's sake, we will gain back, and forever, in The New Earth, Rev 2:1-4, Mark 10:28-30, 16:24-27.
The whole point is;if we are followers of Jesus and we lose something for him, we will receive whatever it is back in the New system and have the prospect of enjoying whatever it is throughout all eternity. If we chose anything above God or Jesus we are certain to lose it at death and we will not gain it back.

 

[ellenjanuary]

A friend of mine who has a wonderful family (wife is beautiful, kids are straight students and overachieving) said he would always take god first (I'm also assuming jesus and holy spirit too) over family.
I will NEVER understand this and if really put to the test would he really do it?
In other words, if god "spoke" to him to leave his family for some "spiritual trek", would he really do it? If you were in his position would you?
For me family first and foremost. No if's ands or buts.

This would be less of a problem with more female prophets... we're working on it.

It's idolatry, not family in the modern sense. Even when the Teach comments on "making books without end makes the soul weary," or some such, I know for sure he's not telling me not to read the tao; he's saying, basically, don't build an encyclopedia just to find the answer you desire...

And what about Job? If this man had the righteousness of Job, he would still not be "righteous before god," no? So how does modern man get "more righteous?" By sharing the Spirit. Synergy.

The only way I would put my family before god, is if I considered my family my property; I like to (dream?) think that people of compassion can understand the the strength of the Living Word is enhanced by life, not diminished by strife.

 

[waitasec]

Abraham is a completely different context, and just one single figure. It is an exception, not the rule. More so, there was no sacrifice. As for Jesus. He chose to sacrifice himself. Completely different.

luke 12
49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

luke 12 49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Poor Jesus. Personally, I don't believe that he existed in the time as claimed for him nor in any form which would be recognizable to us today. In other words, if we had a time-machine capable of monitoring his life, no one on board that craft would be able to pick Jesus out from a crowd.

But... poor Jesus.

The gospelers sat around using him like a dummy. First they made him say, "Peace and Love, Brothers and Sisters!"

Then they pulled the strings again, flapped his lips, and the quote you've posted came out of his mouth.

I hope no one ever tries to make a Hero out of me.

 

[waitasec]

Poor Jesus. Personally, I don't believe that he existed in the time as claimed for him nor in any form which would be recognizable to us today. In other words, if we had a time-machine capable of monitoring his life, no one on board that craft would be able to pick Jesus out from a crowd.

But... poor Jesus.

The gospelers sat around using him like a dummy. First they made him say, "Peace and Love, Brothers and Sisters!"

Then they pulled the strings again, flapped his lips, and the quote you've posted came out of his mouth.

I hope no one ever tries to make a Hero out of me.

or it was the other way around, who knows

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

or it was the other way around, who knows

Only the certainty embracers.

 

[fallingblood]

luke 12
49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Have to take it in context, both historical and literary.

 

[waitasec]

Have to take it in context, both historical and literary.

ok, so what is the literal and historical context...?

 

[fallingblood]

ok, so what is the literal and historical context...?

Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher who was, in his belief, ushering in the Kingdom of God.

 

[waitasec]

Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher who was, in his belief, ushering in the Kingdom of God.

apocalyptic...indeed...
he is the symbol of devastation and the ultimate doom between
husband and wife, father and son mother and daughter...he is the vehicle that will transform one thing to the next...
matthew 10

21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved....
... 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

 

[fallingblood]

apocalyptic...indeed...
he is the symbol of devastation and the ultimate doom between
husband and wife, father and son mother and daughter...he is the vehicle that will transform one thing to the next...
matthew 10

21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved....
... 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

You have to put Jesus in a historical context. Meaning you also have to put the apocalyptic mindset into a historical context.

 

[waitasec]

You have to put Jesus in a historical context. Meaning you also have to put the apocalyptic mindset into a historical context.

would you apply the same historical mindset with someone like hitler?

 

[Proper-Gander]

Yep, really.

I obviously wouldn't do this - but I can understand why Christians would. Y'know....'cause they're told to.

Personally - if I had a god, it wouldn't be one who expected me to forsake my family in order to be closer to him/her. That just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[fallingblood]

would you apply the same historical mindset with someone like hitler?

Not the same historical mindset, but in order to understand Hitler fully, placing him back into this historical time, and the mindset then would be crucial.

 

[waitasec]

Not the same historical mindset, but in order to understand Hitler fully, placing him back into this historical time, and the mindset then would be crucial.

i agree...
but my question to you is, how often do people (christians, in particular) do this? my guess is, not very many.