NEW explanation for why God killed babies in the OT (Heresy?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harry123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BlackFriar said:
The point is that is exactly what he actually commanded Abraham and that is what Abraham understood YHW to intend. God knowingly left him in that deceived state for three days.

I am not interested in a God who would do such a thing.
You are happy with people who do that to you?
Click to expand...
He is the LORD, let Him do what is good in His eyes.
 
As above this still suffers from the same blind “morality”.
Ultimately you are willing to blindly obey, regardless of how immoral, a voice that comes to you in great mystery and power without even questioning that voice’s consistency or congruity with established morality.

This is the personal profile of an Islamic terrorist, a member of Hitler Youth, a cult victim.
 
Last edited:
So if it is also acceptable to solve the difficulties in the story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son by suggesting its a literary device and God never really spoke to Abraham in quite this way…why are you remonstrating?
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Even a bad hair day? LOL Seriously though, what if G-d wanted Abraham to disobey Him? What if G-d’s will was that we should not relinquish the moral authority that He placed within our souls toward ANYONE, even G-d Himself? And what if Abraham in fact failed G-d’s will by listening to Him without responding (and by not even informing Sarah of his decision to kill HER son as well)?
Click to expand...
The whole idea of Human Sacrifice goes against the whole of “Natural Law” It is one thing for God to offer up his own Son, but is another to order another to do so.
 
James817 said:
As others have said God never intended for Isaac to be sacrificed.
Click to expand...
The problem is that Abraham did not know this.
He wanted to test Abraham’s faith and give the world a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of His Only Son.
Click to expand...
And that would not be known for another 3000 years.

Take the position, that nothing has been written yet but just the Pentatuch. That the frist 5 Books have to stand alone in Theology. And argue from that standpoint. Can you?
 
BlackFriar said:
So if it is also acceptable to solve the difficulties in the story of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son by suggesting its a literary device and God never really spoke to Abraham in quite this way…why are you remonstrating?
Click to expand...
The whole of Genesis is ( for a better phrase ) a work of folklore. It conveys a spiritual truth only. It does not convey actual truth at all. I can and have picked it apart in the past and have destroyed a Christian’s belief that did not have a solid foundation.
 
Good point. It’s a minority view in Judaism but an interesting one, I think.
 
What is the matter with people here and their binary views.
If its not one extreme why must it be the other?

Just because we can at times recognise that a literary device is being used does nkt mean this is happening always and everywhere in Genesis and it is all only the truth of a myth and nothing else.

It is an oral history. It may not be actually true in every detail, but it is a history.
 
Last edited:
Judaism rejects natural law, an Ancient Greek invention adopted by Christianity. G-d’s Law supersedes natural law.
 
Did you notice this is a Catholic Forum 🙂
So that argument will clearly go nowhere.

But I do appreciate the Jewish factual insights you offer.

My protagonists clearly do not yet understand their Western Gentile cultural inheritance of Nat Law and would make better Jews than Catholics.
 
Last edited:
Different Books of the Bible have different literary styles and inventions. I agree with you in the sense that it may be Genesis mixes literary traditions. The problem or question, however, is how to interpret which part of the Book is literal, plain-speaking text and which makes use of other literary devices. Torah scholars spend their lives doing this.
 
Exactly so. It is our Nat Law affinity which provides us further tools for discerning what God really said (or didnt say) as opposed to what a literal reading would have us believe.

If Judaism is not hot on NLaw how is it so immune to fascism from without? Simply because it accepts no Kings but YHW?
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Torah scholars spend their lives doing this.
Click to expand...
And there are as many differing opinions as there have been Torah Scholars throughout the ages? IE: No 2 in history have actually agreed identically?
 
Last edited:
I see that as a good thing. Its the ongoing debate thats important.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn’t necessarily go that far; but certainly Jewish scholars disagree with one another, and so long as they are not nullifying by their arguments any of the moral principles within Judaism, they are permitted to disagree. We are a religion of questions as much as, if not more than, answers.
 
Fascism is contrary to the very moral tenets of Judaism and its Law, so I don’t see the problem here.
 
Obviously, was hoping for detail.
To my mind NLaw and conscience theology is the main balwark. But thats Christianity not Judaism.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
I wouldn’t necessarily go that far; but certainly Jewish scholars disagree with one another, and so long as they are not nullifying by their arguments any of the moral principles within Judaism, they are permitted to disagree. We are a religion of questions as much as, if not more than, answers.
Click to expand...
We have been around for 2000 years, the vast of our questions have been answered if I am not mistakened. Yours have been around for about 5000 years and yet your questions are still being answered?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top