A Christian challenge

[KarenNC]

My question to you then is how an all powerful God can exist when He could be de-created by a “rival” all powerful God?

This presumes that in order to be a God the being must be omnipotent. This is not a presumption in polytheism.

My particular problem with that is that it’s indicative of a system of thought which focuses only on the immediate, and the immediate can be defined in such a way that any action can be justified as “ok”.

Many things can be defined in many ways. I do not define the immediate as such nor am I acquainted with any others who consider themselves Neopagan who do so.

**Your focus is on effectiveness. The gods are all about “specific manipulations” to achieve goals. God is about the goals themselves.

You judge the world entirely as it relates to how effectively you can manipulate it.**

In what way is this the case? I am afraid you are going to have be more specific, because I am not sure where you are getting the impression that I am attempting to manipulate the world?

 

[KarenNC]

What is the focus of the gods, in your belief system?

I don’t know. I only know that our spheres of focus intersect at times.

 

[Bennie_P]

I don’t know. I only know that our spheres of focus intersect at times.

Can you give an example? Of when your focus and God’s intersected?

 

[Morning_Star15]

Having not studied the religion associated with Moloch particularly, I cannot say for sure, but it is not usually the case that humans would simply decide to sacrifice, especially on an ongoing basis, without having some idea that such a sacrifice is desired by the god to whom the sacrifice is offered. One could just as easily say that Abraham decided to sacrifice Isaac—Abraham is the only source one has for it being a request of God. Is one to accept the word of one person that his God told him to perform a human sacrifice, but then say that all other people who claim that their Gods tell them to perform human sacrifices are simply making it up?

If you claim that they (either those worshipping Moloch or any other god to whom they sacrificed their children) were directly commanded by this god to do so, then the onus is on you to provide some evidence of that - many ancient pagan societies had systems of writing which have been discovered and translated - surely a command this great would have been recorded as was God’s command to Abraham.

So God, despite being omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent, chose to create beings in such a way and set them in such a situation under such rules that He knew, without a shadow of doubt or uncertainty, that a large portion of them would choose a course of action for which He would decide (by His own standards) that it was worth damning them to eternal torment? Infinite punishment for finite sin? Evidently that level of punishment meets His desires in some fashion.

** Do you know what free will means? It means being free to get ourselves into any situation we choose to get ourselves into, including one that would be harmful to us. If God had given us only the freedom to get into certain “situations” and not others, then that’s not free will, is it? God didn’t decide to damn anyone into eternal torment - anyone who deliberately turns away from God damns themselves to this torment. Look at it this way: there are two possible destinations after death, which are Heaven and Hell. Heaven is a complete and eternal union with God. If someone chooses during his life to reject God, and decides that he doesn’t want anything to do with God, then why should God force that person to spend an eternity with Him? Once again, this is God respecting our free will. Free will in order to be free will has to be so absolute that we are free to make a decision that will determine our destination for all of eternity. And if we deliberately choose that we want to separate ourselves from God, He respects that choice forever. And the only other place to go after death is Hell, so this is where that person ends up.**

That He would decide that then He would give them, several thousand years later, a second chance, but would only reveal this second chance to a tiny minority of the world’s population and in such terms as to be so ambiguous that the people to whom He supposedly gave prophecies about this second chance would not be able to clearly see it as such? This is the action that demonstrates ultimate Love?

Tiny minority of the world’s population??? A third of the world’s population is Christian, and the vast majority of the rest know of Christ, but have chosen not to follow Him. There are very few people in the world who have not heard of Christ and the second chance He offers us. If someone chooses to doubt Christ’s message, well that’s free will for you again.

Why would an omniscient God need to test anyone’s faith? To whom did He need to prove it? It continues to surprise me that folks will level all sorts of accusations against my Gods for evidence of what they term capricious behavior, but the same behavior in their own God is not interpreted in that manner.

It proved to Abraham that he needs to have enough faith in God and His promise to be willing to sacrifice everything that’s dear to him, if it gets in the way of him following God. It showed Abraham that his relationship with God, and his covenant with Him, rests on him having a faith in God so strong that it would move him to any action God desired, even if this action was difficult for him.

And in this case you are examining the story mythically, rather than literally, the same way in which I examine the sacred stories of my tradition.

Please show me where I said that I consider this story mythical rather than literal. I was simply pointing out that people having problems understanding or liking this story usually have a problem with feelings of entitlement to things which they are not entitled to.

 

[KarenNC]

Can you give an example? Of when your focus and God’s intersected?

Pretty much the same as when a Christian feels a prayer has been answered or heard. Nothing spectacular, no fireworks or big to-do. A trip that has been going wrong starting to go more smoothly after a libation has been poured, a sense of peace or comfort, a feeling of connectedness from ritual.

 

[Bennie_P]

Pretty much the same as when a Christian feels a prayer has been answered or heard. Nothing spectacular, no fireworks or big to-do. A trip that has been going wrong starting to go more smoothly after a libation has been poured, a sense of peace or comfort, a feeling of connectedness from ritual.

I feel so sad for you.

 

[KarenNC]

I feel so sad for you.

Why?

 

[KarenNC]

** Sorry, this was poorly worded…
Originally Posted by KarenNC
Having not studied the religion associated with Moloch particularly, I cannot say for sure, but it is not usually the case that humans would *not *simply decide to sacrifice, especially on an ongoing basis, without having some idea that such a sacrifice is desired by the god to whom the sacrifice is offered. One could just as easily say that Abraham decided to sacrifice Isaac—Abraham is the only source one has for it being a request of God. Is one to accept the word of one person that his God told him to perform a human sacrifice, but then say that all other people who claim that their Gods tell them to perform human sacrifices are simply making it up?

Morningstar’s reply:

If you claim that they (either those worshipping Moloch or any other god to whom they sacrificed their children) were directly commanded by this god to do so, then the onus is on you to provide some evidence of that - many ancient pagan societies had systems of writing which have been discovered and translated - surely a command this great would have been recorded as was God’s command to Abraham. **

Yes, many had systems of writing, many did not, and much that was written did not survive. The knowledge we have often comes from secondhand accounts at best, often by cultures who were at war with the cultures in question.

Would you consider a written record of such a command to be reliable evidence that a specific God desired such a sacrifice or would you then say that the person who wrote it did so just as a cover for them making it up? I see positing that people who would sacrifice their children would only do so for a compelling reason, that they believed such a sacrifice would be welcomed by their God(s) as more reasonable and likely given human nature than that they just woke up one morning and thought it might be something to do to break the monotony. It is unlikely, particularly, that one would continue in such a practice if they did not believe that such a sacrifice was well-received and effective. Ritual sacrifice is not something that is approached lightly, the sacrifice of a human even less so.

Do you know what free will means?

Yes, I know what it means. I do not see that such is an adequate explanation for the actions and motivations attributed to an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God.

Tiny minority of the world’s population???

I was speaking of the time of Christ.

It proved to Abraham that he needs to have enough faith in God and His promise to be willing to sacrifice everything that’s dear to him, if it gets in the way of him following God. It showed Abraham that his relationship with God, and his covenant with Him, rests on him having a faith in God so strong that it would move him to any action God desired, even if this action was difficult for him.

Okay. Actually, if a God asked me to sacrifice my child, it would be more than “difficult,” it would be heinous and not the act of a being I am willing to worship.

Please show me where I said that I consider this story mythical rather than literal. I was simply pointing out that people having problems understanding or liking this story usually have a problem with feelings of entitlement to things which they are not entitled to.

It’s not a case of “rather than.” A situation can be read both literally and mythically and be true in both senses or only in one. Now, no, I do not know of any hard and fast evidence that the story was literally true in the time-travel sense that I mentioned, but even if it did, that does not mean that one cannot (and should not) look at it in terms of its larger representational meanings as well, its place in the mythos of the culture.

It is not a question of like or dislike. It is a question, as you have pointed out, about what it is meant to tell us about the nature of the culture’s God and the relationship which the people of that culture have with their deity. That is the mythic part of the story. I don’t happen to see that what it reveals about the nature of the Abrahamic God, in relation to all the other aspects attributed to Him, inspires me with a desire to worship Him or to acknowledge that He is the only God.

 

[KarenNC]

Sorry, left out a very important part of this (the part that makes it intelligible )

As a Hellenic, well, “revivalist” might be a better term than “reconstructionist” for my practice, I read the myths in order to learn more about the ways in which others have worshipped the particular Gods.

 

[Morning_Star15]

Morningstar’s reply:

If you claim that they (either those worshipping Moloch or any other god to whom they sacrificed their children) were directly commanded by this god to do so, then the onus is on you to provide some evidence of that - many ancient pagan societies had systems of writing which have been discovered and translated - surely a command this great would have been recorded as was God’s command to Abraham.

Yes, many had systems of writing, many did not, and much that was written did not survive. The knowledge we have often comes from secondhand accounts at best, often by cultures who were at war with the cultures in question.

Would you consider a written record of such a command to be reliable evidence that a specific God desired such a sacrifice or would you then say that the person who wrote it did so just as a cover for them making it up? I see positing that people who would sacrifice their children would only do so for a compelling reason, that they believed such a sacrifice would be welcomed by their God(s) as more reasonable and likely given human nature than that they just woke up one morning and thought it might be something to do to break the monotony. It is unlikely, particularly, that one would continue in such a practice if they did not believe that such a sacrifice was well-received and effective. Ritual sacrifice is not something that is approached lightly, the sacrifice of a human even less so.

This is just speculation - anything could have motivated them, from a sudden panic at seeing a natural disaster, and someone suggesting child sacrifice without thinking, to the control of the population (for example, the Inca civilization practiced child sacrifice, and the children chosen for this sacrifice were the ones whose parents hadn’t paid their taxes to the Emperor that year).

Do you know what free will means?

Yes, I know what it means. I do not see that such is an adequate explanation for the actions and motivations attributed to an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God.

**I’ve been trying to explain that free will is about our actions and not God’s - God is not responsible for choices we have freely made on our own. It’s called taking responsibility for our own actions, although God has shown Himself to be very benevolent by sending His Son to redeem us from our sins rather than have to face the consequences for them. What more do you want from God? To create a perfect world where no one does anything wrong? **

Tiny minority of the world’s population???

I was speaking of the time of Christ.

And since then Christ’s message of salvation has been revealed to almost the entire world, and a third of the world has accepted it and become Christian. I see no reason to complain about that.

It proved to Abraham that he needs to have enough faith in God and His promise to be willing to sacrifice everything that’s dear to him, if it gets in the way of him following God. It showed Abraham that his relationship with God, and his covenant with Him, rests on him having a faith in God so strong that it would move him to any action God desired, even if this action was difficult for him.

Okay. Actually, if a God asked me to sacrifice my child, it would be more than “difficult,” it would be heinous and not the act of a being I am willing to worship.

That is the true test of faith - do we only want to worship a God who will make that worship easy and won’t ask anything difficult of us, or are we willing to put Him first in our lives and believe that even if He sends seemingly bad things into our lives, they work out for the best in God’s plan of salvation. Only God sees the bigger picture, and as He says Himself, His ways are not our ways (I’m pretty sure this was in the prophet Isaiah)

Please show me where I said that I consider this story mythical rather than literal. I was simply pointing out that people having problems understanding or liking this story usually have a problem with feelings of entitlement to things which they are not entitled to.

 

[KarenNC]

That is the true test of faith - do we only want to worship a God who will make that worship easy and won’t ask anything difficult of us, or are we willing to put Him first in our lives and believe that even if He sends seemingly bad things into our lives, they work out for the best in God’s plan of salvation. Only God sees the bigger picture, and as He says Himself, His ways are not our ways (I’m pretty sure this was in the prophet Isaiah)

We will just have to agree to disagree in whether this is a good thing or not. I am willing to grant the mythic uses for such a story, but to take it literally as an indication of the nature of God, I see a problem.

To me, there is a difference between “asking something difficult,” or “sending something seemingly bad into our lives” and asking me to actively go against every moral and ethical principle I follow (including the ones specifically given by that deity, though I suppose the prohibition against murder didn’t come until later, and technically killing on the order of God would fall under the umbrella of killing for a just cause in some eyes, but not mine). Personally, I am not willing to compromise my ethics and morals to worship any being. If I were to have a deity demand that as a test of my faith I cheat on my taxes, lie and deceive others or murder, much less murder my child, I would not be willing to subject myself to such a test.

What criteria would you then use to determine whether the demand to do something came from God rather than from Satan or some other being inimical to humanity?

 

[Keikiolu]

My question to you then is how an all powerful God can exist when He could be de-created by a “rival” all powerful God?

This presumes that in order to be a God the being must be omnipotent. This is not a presumption in polytheism.

That would be correct.

In polytheism there can be no “all powerful” god, as He would be God.

That is the basic incompatibility, and mutual exclusivity, between God and gods (monotheism and polytheism).

Thus, since a God can not exist if you believe in gods, you can’t possibly consider monotheism (God worship) as valid if you hold that polytheism is valid.

What I’m getting at is that a polytheist cannot give validity to a belief in God, and therefore a polytheist CAN NOT RESPECT the beliefs of a monotheist.

People who believe in God are therefore “deluded”, if you are not deluded.

And people who believe in gods are therefore “deluded”, if I am not deluded.

But,… and this is the point,… for you to claim that I am NOT deluded, only “believing differently but equally as validly”, would mean that both our deities could actually exist simultaneously, which they can’t be definition.

I don’t mind being called deluded, but I don’t much ken to being called “equally valid” insincerely by polytheists.

The biggest problem I see with (so called) polytheists is that they flipantly grant the validity of my beliefs, while not understanding the implications of our respective definitions of each others deity(s), which are specifically mutually exclusive…!

If polytheists (so called, again) would simply be honest and say that my God is nonsense, and show me why, which I would agree with by the way given their definitions, then I would at least be able to respect them as honest people.

One reason that they (polys) AREN’T “honest” about that is simple ignorance of the definition of God, which I must admit I commonly find in monotheists (Christians!) in horrifyingly large numbers, which is that God isn’t omni-potent in all ways (all powerful).

But another common (actually the prevalent) reason that they aren’t honest is that they are in fact atheists who profess “gods” as a socio-political “utility” to have something (anything!) to form a “society” around that isn’t like their surrounding “dominant culture”.

Those who are into the “utility” aspect of gods, as opposed to the “destinations” (eschatology) of them, which they (gods) are sorely short of (eschatological specifics), are MOST likely to be of the latter category.

…continued —>

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

My particular problem with that is that it’s indicative of a system of thought which focuses only on the immediate, and the immediate can be defined in such a way that any action can be justified as “ok”.

Many things can be defined in many ways. I do not define the immediate as such nor am I acquainted with any others who consider themselves Neopagan who do so.

That’s cool.

What are, actually, the reasons you perform the “rites” of your faith?

Are they to come into line with your (chosen at the time) god, or to “get something”?

Christian prayer, as an example, is not about “bribing” our God into giving us things. It may SEEM that way, as practiced by FAR too many supposed Christians, but those “Christians” are usually the ones either taught a lesson by the seeming “non-response” of God, or who leave the Church in dis-allusionment with not getting any results from their bribery attempts.

So the question is: Do you try to “pay” your gods for their “powers of supplying wants”, or to recieve wisdom to accept the reality of that which is?

Your focus is on effectiveness. The gods are all about “specific manipulations” to achieve goals. God is about the goals themselves.

You judge the world entirely as it relates to how effectively you can manipulate it.

In what way is this the case? I am afraid you are going to have be more specific, because I am not sure where you are getting the impression that I am attempting to manipulate the world?

That was a rather “wild” statement, wasn’t it…!? Based on evidence not presented, I dare say…!

What I’m saying is that gods can, in fact, be “useful” in achieving goals. I would frame it as “demons” (and, rarely, angels, if the goal is “from God”) are effective in doing so, but that gods don’t provide the goals themselves, because they are “personifications” of specific “wants”, and have no real interest in any goal other than that for which they promote.

My issue with (so called) polytheists is from whence they get their goals?

My contention is that they always get them from “elsewhere”. It comes not from their gods.

(( I do like your manner, by the way…! It’s quite nice to see a level headed “polytheist” who is VERY thoughtful and can give me a solid basis for “refuting” their errors,… Don’t get annoyed with my “jibes”, other than in the way that a good strong habanero {pepper} “jibes” up an omelette…! ))

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bennie P forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

What is the focus of the gods, in your belief system?
I don’t know. I only know that our spheres of focus intersect at times.

When gods can be defined on an “as needed” basis, the “focus” they exhibit is utterly dependent on the need/want of the worshipper.

Even “established” gods, such as, say, Artemis, will “evoke” in direct correlation to the worshipper’s present wants.

The interest of a god is in SATISFYING the want of it’s worshipper, not in showing them how their want may not be wise.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Morning_Star15]

We will just have to agree to disagree in whether this is a good thing or not. I am willing to grant the mythic uses for such a story, but to take it literally as an indication of the nature of God, I see a problem.

To me, there is a difference between “asking something difficult,” or “sending something seemingly bad into our lives” and asking me to actively go against every moral and ethical principle I follow (including the ones specifically given by that deity, though I suppose the prohibition against murder didn’t come until later, and technically killing on the order of God would fall under the umbrella of killing for a just cause in some eyes, but not mine). Personally, I am not willing to compromise my ethics and morals to worship any being. If I were to have a deity demand that as a test of my faith I cheat on my taxes, lie and deceive others or murder, much less murder my child, I would not be willing to subject myself to such a test.

What criteria would you then use to determine whether the demand to do something came from God rather than from Satan or some other being inimical to humanity?

I like the criteria St. Ignatius of Loyola gave in his rules for Discernment of Spirits. In a nutshell, he said that if an inspiration or feeling that we should do something comes from God, this should fill us with a sense of consolation, which is a sort of happiness (although not the wordly kind), where we feel peace in our souls about what we are doing or are about to do. This could cause sadness, depending on what we’re contemplating doing, but we have a profoud feeling in our souls that it’s what God wants.

If the inspiration doesn’t come from God, and is opposed to His Will, then this will fill us with a sense of desolation, which is a kind of inner restlesness and lack of peace. We can’t shake the inner feeling that something isn’t right in what we’re doing or about to do. It’s basically the opposite of consolation.

It can sometimes be hard to discern what we’re feeling or where it’s coming from, I totally agree, but it comes down to being connected with God and examining ourselves to see whether we feel at peace or the opposite.

 

[KarenNC]

Thus, since a God can not exist if you believe in gods, you can’t possibly consider monotheism (God worship) as valid if you hold that polytheism is valid.

Never said I did. In fact, in this and in other threads, I thought I had pretty bluntly stated that I don’t think monotheism is an accurate representation of spiritual reality. Shouldn’t be a big surprise .

What I’m getting at is that a polytheist cannot give validity to a belief in God, and therefore a polytheist CAN NOT RESPECT the beliefs of a monotheist.

I can respect that you thoughtfully and sincerely hold your beliefs, even if I consider them wrong. I wouldn’t say deluded, though I would say mistaken or incomplete.

If I thought that Christianity and Hellenic Neopaganism were equally valid, why in the world would I have left the one for the other, when to do so has created a lot more issues for me and my immediate family socially and with my extended family? When I am actually still nostalgic for the ritual, beauty and music of the Episcopal service and wish I could see what mine will develop along those lines after several hundred years?

**I don’t mind being called deluded, but I don’t much ken to being called “equally valid” insincerely by polytheists.

The biggest problem I see with (so called) polytheists is that they flipantly grant the validity of my beliefs, while not understanding the implications of our respective definitions of each others deity(s), which are specifically mutually exclusive…! **

You’re really going to have to find someone who holds such beliefs if you want to have this part of the conversation. I don’t have a dog in that hunt.

One reason that they (polys) AREN’T “honest” about that is simple ignorance of the definition of God, which I must admit I commonly find in monotheists (Christians!) in horrifyingly large numbers, which is that God isn’t omni-potent in all ways (all powerful).

I will agree that a lot of arguments I get (from Christians on this board) seem to stem from a belief that the Christian God is really only “mostly-potent.”

But another common (actually the prevalent) reason that they aren’t honest is that they are in fact atheists who profess “gods” as a socio-political “utility” to have something (anything!) to form a “society” around that isn’t like their surrounding “dominant culture”.

see above about finding someone who holds this belief with whom to discuss it. I would have liked to have found some honest way to stay within the dominant culture as it would have been infinitely easier, but I could not.

 

[KarenNC]

** What are, actually, the reasons you perform the “rites” of your faith?

Are they to come into line with your (chosen at the time) god, or to “get something”?

So the question is: Do you try to “pay” your gods for their “powers of supplying wants”, or to recieve wisdom to accept the reality of that which is?**

I can just imagine the reaction of the Gods if I were to approach with a shopping list of wants and expect to get them based on which offerings I have brought If you ever see anyone do that, you might want to step out of the way! No, I do not worship cosmic vending machines.

No, I pour libations, make offerings, etc to enter into a relationship with Them. To steal another post from my husband’s blog (it’s easier than re-typing ):
"I make the effort to do something nice for Them, not because I want something from Them or because I don’t want Them to smite me, but because I love and honor Them and want to give to Them of my time and effort. (ADDENDUM: This is part of one of the core virtues of our religion (and of many paleopagan cultures/religions generally) - xenia (literally “hospitality”, but more broadly covering the proper relationship between almost any two beings)).

I think the deep, true purpose of religious ritual is precisely to foster relationship (kharis). In the Hellenic tradition generally, prayer with offering is the nomos arkhaios, the customary and traditional way of initiating contact and establishing relationship."

**What I’m saying is that gods can, in fact, be “useful” in achieving goals. I would frame it as “demons” (and, rarely, angels, if the goal is “from God”) are effective in doing so, but that gods don’t provide the goals themselves, because they are “personifications” of specific “wants”, and have no real interest in any goal other than that for which they promote.

My issue with (so called) polytheists is from whence they get their goals?

My contention is that they always get them from “elsewhere”. It comes not from their gods.**

Maybe if you gave a concrete example of some of the goals you mean, I could get a better idea of what you intend by this. As it stands, I really don’t understand what you are asking.

Do you mean that I operate under the belief that should I want a Maserati, I would create and pour libations to a God who was a personification of my desire for that Maserati and expect that, because I want the Maserati and so want the Maserati God to be real, therefore I would automatically get a Maserati? If so, then no.

What sort of goals do you expect the Gods to set?

 

[KarenNC]

When gods can be defined on an “as needed” basis, the “focus” they exhibit is utterly dependent on the need/want of the worshipper.

That would be true if tmy Gods were creations of humans. They are not.

**Even “established” gods, such as, say, Artemis, will “evoke” in direct correlation to the worshipper’s present wants.

The interest of a god is in SATISFYING the want of it’s worshipper, not in showing them how their want may not be wise.**

Care to give a specific example of your source for this statement? I am pretty sure it doesn’t come from anything that I have said. If it did, then I have woefully miscommunicated.

What precisely do you mean by the term “evoke?”

 

[KarenNC]

I like the criteria St. Ignatius of Loyola gave in his rules for Discernment of Spirits. In a nutshell, he said that if an inspiration or feeling that we should do something comes from God, this should fill us with a sense of consolation, which is a sort of happiness (although not the wordly kind), where we feel peace in our souls about what we are doing or are about to do. This could cause sadness, depending on what we’re contemplating doing, but we have a profoud feeling in our souls that it’s what God wants.

If the inspiration doesn’t come from God, and is opposed to His Will, then this will fill us with a sense of desolation, which is a kind of inner restlesness and lack of peace. We can’t shake the inner feeling that something isn’t right in what we’re doing or about to do. It’s basically the opposite of consolation.

It can sometimes be hard to discern what we’re feeling or where it’s coming from, I totally agree, but it comes down to being connected with God and examining ourselves to see whether we feel at peace or the opposite.

Fair enough. I believe I can pretty safely say that I can imagine absolutely no conditions under which I, while sane, would feel at peace about being asked to act in direct opposition to my moral and ethical principles, much less murder my child, simply to prove my faith to anyone or any being, therefore I would say that I would have to conclude that a God who would ask that of me would not be one that had my best interests at heart nor one with whom I desire a relationship.

 

[Bennie_P]

Fair enough. I believe I can pretty safely say that I can imagine absolutely no conditions under which I, while sane, would feel at peace about being asked to act in direct opposition to my moral and ethical principles, much less murder my child, simply to prove my faith to anyone or any being, therefore I would say that I would have to conclude that a God who would ask that of me would not be one that had my best interests at heart nor one with whom I desire a relationship.

I think both of are not seeing the multilayer meanings of the story, One layer it is a story about trusting in God, that he takes care of us and on another it is God showing the Israelites (since that part of the OT was written way after the time of the Exodus) it is not human sacrifice he wants, as the Pagan gods require (and that is what the Pagans were doing at the time the story was written down, and also fallen away Israelites), but a loving and trusting relationship. Otherwise, hey Israel, don’t kill your kids as the Pagans do, its not nice!

You must also look at it in context to the time it was written and not judge the story by the modern times we live in. If you look at the ancient world by our current view of things, you’ll miss the point. :bible1: