The Hebrews were horrified by the idea of child sacrifice. — frank
Maybe the part about the test of faith was added later to a story which originally emphasized the angel's arrest of Abraham's hand and the presentation if the sheep that Abraham sacrificed instead. — frank
Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.(22:12)
There is in the story no indication of a misunderstanding:
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.” (Genesis 22:2)
Abram hid what he was about to do from Isaac and his servants. — Fooloso4
It is not about God, it is about faith in God, and it is god who told him to do this. — Fooloso4
Some see this as exemplary, but others look at this example and recoil. It is not simply a matter of the absence of certainty. It is contrary to what we hold most dear. It is shocking and disturbing that he would have obeyed. Are you not certain that it would have been wrong to do this? — Fooloso4
do think that it’s against human sacrifice — Possibility
We too readily assume that what is written as what ‘God said’ is in fact what God actually said, as if the words were God’s actual words. Given that we have yet to confirm this is even possible (and much reason to doubt), why do we accept this without question? — Possibility
The simple fact that what is apparently commanded here is not what transpired, despite Abram following it to the letter, is indication enough for me that Abraham misunderstood what (if anything) was asked of him. — Possibility
No, it is about faith in what we think God is. — Possibility
But what is wrong for Abraham is to put his own fears and desires ahead of his relation to an infinitely significant existence, of which he was aware beyond conception. — Possibility
It’s only disturbing when we assume the command was beyond doubt. Abraham never assumed this. — Possibility
Faith is action in the absence of certainty, and is a key aspect of the scientific method. Without it, no experiments would ever be conducted. There is a common misunderstanding that faith is the absence of doubt, but this is not the case. Faith always carries with it the possibility of doubt, too often ignored, isolated or excluded in pursuing an illusion of certainty. Science does this too, but where the scientific method ensures ongoing critique and correction of erroneous beliefs in light of this ever-present doubt, institutionalisation in both religious and scientific structures serve to protect and preserve tradition by concealing doubt and uncertainty. I think language is a key problem area here. — Possibility
Abraham's sacrifice of his son is the paradigm of faith in God. It is also the paradigm of everything that is wrong with such faith, the willingness to sacrifice everything. — Fooloso4
It is entirely devoid of any rational conception of a God. — Janus
That is correct, his is not a God of reason, but of will. — Fooloso4
Faith is action in the absence of certainty, — Possibility
Abraham's sacrifice of his son is the paradigm of faith in God. It is also the paradigm of everything that is wrong with such faith, the willingness to sacrifice everything. — Fooloso4
So back in the day, if you went to war with your neighbor, you were pitting yourself against their gods. — frank
So maybe the story of Abraham and Isaac is not about faith at all, but about fear. — Fooloso4
Christians generally prefer a god of love, but given what happened to Jesus in the hands of the Romans, he does not look like a good choice to lead you into battle either. — Fooloso4
An indication of my level of interest. — Banno
How is faith is a rational conception of God different from faith in rational conception, that is, faith in reason? — Fooloso4
If I am to discuss a story I take the story as it is written. If I read in a book:"Harry said" then I can safely say that according to the book this is what Harry said. If the book is a novel then the question of whether or not it was actually said goes no further. If the book purports to be historically accurate then whether Harry said this or if there even is a Harry comes into question. I do not read Genesis as history, and so the question of whether God said this goes no further than the story. I do, however, read it as a story about belief and faith. — Fooloso4
But if I grant that it was a misunderstanding this still points to the danger. Many horrendous things are done because it is believed that this is God's will. In order to distinguish between what should and should not be done as a matter of faith we must turn to reason. — Fooloso4
Perhaps that is true of some "we", but in the Jewish tradition God is ineffable. Faith is a matter of keeping His commandments. — Fooloso4
Since God says that Abram loved his son (22:2), "your son, your only son" (22:12) his desire would be to keep him alive. His proper relationship with God should be one of fear (22:12) — Fooloso4
We are given no indication that he doubted, but even if he did, he was going to carry out the commandment. — Fooloso4
You seem to be saying that we have faith in the experimental method, and in our own abilities to rationally understand, and that these things we cannot be certain of. If that is what you are saying I agree, but although faith operates in the absence of certainty, I would still maintain that there is a distinction between believing and acting in the absence of empirical evidence, and believing and acting on the basis of empirical evidence. Of course a Christian can claim that the bible constitutes evidence, but it seems clear that it cannot constitute what could be counted as empirical evidence. — Janus
It’s a mythical journey that Abraham takes here. — Possibility
a heuristic device, — Possibility
It is reason that Abraham brings to the relationship. — Possibility
Says who? — Possibility
‘God will provide the offering’. — Possibility
I don't buy it. But I am not going to argue the point. — Fooloso4
But nevertheless, believing in the face of contrary facts is not rational, and not praiseworthy. But unfortunately common. Would you agree to that? — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.