The immaculate misconception

[MindOverMatter2]

If you were to know, undoubtedly, that your god is all-knowing, you would likewise be all-knowing, therefore the privileged status you accord your god would be severely undermined.

If you simply take your god’s word for it that he is all-knowing, that is belief, not knowledge.

This claim is very weak.

There is a difference between the inductive knowledge that there must necessarily exist an all knowing being, and the omniscience that would come from the act of observing all ontological knowledge. Inductive knowledge is indirect knowledge of a fact or truth; its not a direct observation of some fact or truth. Also, if i could demonstrate on other grounds that God cannot lie, i would not need to be all knowing in-order to know that God is omniscient.

That is not difficult to understand. You are being sloppy.

 

[tdgesq]

If you were to know, undoubtedly, that your god is all-knowing, you would likewise be all-knowing, therefore the privileged status you accord your god would be severely undermined.

This is unintelligible for several reasons:

1. That I may be “undoubting” that God exists does not mean I know that God exists. I could still be “undoubting” and yet have no justification for my belief, precluding knowledge.
2. That I know God exists does not make me omniscient. Omniscience is knowledge of everything that can logically be known.
3. Knowledge does not require some kind of absolute justification, which I assume is what you mean by “undoubting.” It only requires justification. Such a demand would make it impossible to know anything, except perhaps symbolic syllogisms run through my mind.

If you simply take your god’s word for it that he is all-knowing, that is belief, not knowledge.

Well, that’s not what I see theists here doing, even though it is permissible to resort to sources of authority where the author has expertise and is reliable.

 

[Warrenton]

In ancient times, kings and queens expressed their absolute power, by mercilessly killing men women and children. The concept of wiping out a whole race of people, when seen in its proper context, seem to the author at the time to be a good way of showing how powerful the Jewish God has made Israel and how his favor rests with them over all nations. Its unfortunate that he used that idea.

I beg to differ.

First off, rulers still express their power by mercilessly killing others.

Second, it is not unfortunate that God chose to act in history the way He did. It is fortunate that He did so, because that is how you and I come to be Christians.

God never commanded the human sacrifice of Abraham’s son; and those people who take the story literally, miss the point.

 

[Sair]

This is unintelligible for several reasons:

1. That I may be “undoubting” that God exists does not mean I know that God exists. I could still be “undoubting” and yet have no justification for my belief, precluding knowledge.
2. That I know God exists does not make me omniscient. Omniscience is knowledge of everything that can logically be known.
3. Knowledge does not require some kind of absolute justification, which I assume is what you mean by “undoubting.” It only requires justification. Such a demand would make it impossible to know anything, except perhaps symbolic syllogisms run through my mind.

Well, that’s not what I see theists here doing, even though it is permissible to resort to sources of authority where the author has expertise and is reliable.

In essence, this was a response on a number of levels to claims I have seen made on these and various other forums. There are a number of people who have claimed here that they know their god exists, the implication being that this is some privileged form of knowledge to which only they are privy; the usual implication is that if people are ‘open’ to belief in God, the knowledge will come - as long as you believe first.

The other side of this coin is the claim I have often seen made, that in order to be a ‘real’ atheist, one must know that no gods exist, and must therefore be omniscient. Since no human can claim omniscience, there are no ‘real’ atheists, only agnostics. I think this cuts both ways - in order to know that that God of Classical Theism exists, possessing qualities such as omniscience, any person claiming to unequivocally know that such a being existed and knew everything would need to know everything known by God.

But at the end of the day, both those claims are deeply absurd, and miss the point altogether. Atheism and theism are both fundamentally matters of belief. It’s just that, unlike someone who believes in the existence and involvement of a personal god, my experience and study have led me to believe that the universe is godless - at least in the sense of being created and presided over by a being not of itself.

 

[Candide_West]

Its wrong to see the bible as a strictly historical document, just as it is wrong to see the bible as a science book. In essence its a theological expression of a Jewish religion that used stories mixed with both history, allegory, myth, and parable, in order to express their understanding of God, the source of their religion. And what we see in the bible is a continual development of their understanding of the concept of God, both morally and ontologically. We see a history of man grappling with the idea of God. Yes there is history, but there is also exaggerated myths, some of which when taken literally do not really correspond to Gods true nature but are used none the less to express Gods power and sovereignty as they understood it at the time. How much God cares for Israel is depicted in the sense of God ensuring their victory over their enemies. In ancient times, kings and queens expressed their absolute power, by mercilessly killing men women and children. The concept of wiping out a whole race of people, when seen in its proper context, seem to the author at the time to be a good way of showing how powerful the Jewish God has made Israel and how his favor rests with them over all nations. Its unfortunate that he used that idea. But the people of his time understood what he meant by that literary device in so far as it displayed a popular sense of power. However, as the bible develops we see how the depiction of Gods character changes.

The old testament depiction of God was largely a warrior God protecting the Israel people and commanding them to dispatch the enemy. We know that in real history that the Canaanites were not all wiped out; and there is no real evidence that a city called Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, at least not in the way depicted in the bible. So we cannot really take these stories as historical documents, but rather as the theological expression of the war on sin. Notice that Stories of great floods or wars or destructions of cities are always depicted in the sense of getting rid of “sin”. If you look at it in a theological sense, then i think it would be more accurate to view these stories as allegories depicting how much God hates sin, and that sin brings destruction, which is depicted as God bringing his terrible wrath, through floods and saving that which is holy and good, etc. *

God never commanded the human sacrifice of Abraham’s son; and those people who take the story literally, miss the point. There are many dimensions to this story that are revealed when you see it for what it is. At the end of the story God is depicted as saying to Abraham not to sacrifice his son, and the author concludes the story by saying that Abraham had great faith in God. In other words the story really isn’t about sacrificing children. That is merely a tool which the author uses in order to make his point. The main point the author is trying to make is that we should always have faith that God would never lead us astray; we should never question the good of God. This is a point which is evidently expressed when God tells Abraham to stop the sacrifice, revealing the fact that God is good and would never command us to kill our children like the “pagans” and other nations in that time who were practicing that evil act. So not only does the story teach us about having faith in God’s goodness, but it is also a moral attack on “human sacrifice”. Also there are other theological dimensions; such as the idea that you should love God more than your most treasured possession, and be willing to make sacrifices for God. But the author is certainly not trying to say that if God told us to do evil, that we should do it. But rather he is telling us that God would never tell us to do evil, and that we should trust the good of God. *

Hi MoM2,

I appreciate what you say about not all of the bible being taken literally. However this is the first time I’ve heard it said that the story of Abraham and Isaac should be taken as purely allegorical. Nor do I find anything in the story itself to suggest it is intended as such. Is there an authoritative source from which you take your view on this story or is it your own interpretation?*

For that matter is there such a source available generally? An official annotated bible or similar?*

In any case the point stands that the question “what would you do if God commanded X” remains valid as a hypothetical whether or not you believe God actually would command such a thing. If the answer is “I don’t know” then that’s fair enough.

 

[Spock]

If the answer is “I don’t know” then that’s fair enough.

Exactly. The “I don’t know” is always an acceptable answer. The presented evasions only show the reluctance of the posters to face the corollaries of their beliefs. No wonder, really.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The commandment to do no murder is as binding as any direct commandment to offer a human sacrifice would be.

God does not command what he is not. God commands what he is. Gods will is his nature. God would not command human sacrifice, for it is a contradiction to his nature. His will is not arbitrary. If the story had ended with Abraham killing his son, i must say that such a God is not worthy of being called Good or God. It would not be God.

You say it was a test of Abraham’s faith, and at first glance it would seem a reasonable conclusion. But given Gods natural attributes, it follows that God would already know if Abraham is loyal to him or not because he knows his heart. God knows how much love for God is in Abraham’s heart because God is love. Therefore the use of such ah test doesn’t seem necessary or meaningfully possible, since it would suggest that God has human contingencies, that he had to find out something from Abraham before he could “trust” him enough to use him. This doesn’t make sense of Gods perfect nature or knowledge if it really is a true story rather than an allegory.

There is no point ignoring the fact that there is very high degrees of anthropomorphism in the old testament, especially in Genesis. God is given emotions like a human being and behaves like a human being. He is expressed as if he has human limitations. That is how i know that the story in question is not meant to be taken literally. This is not to say there isn’t important history in the old testament, but its not history in the same sense that we understand the subject of history today. We are dealing with a different culture with a different style of writing and documentary. It makes more sense if the story was written to express certain aspects of the faith such as not loving created things more than God, that you should be willing to make sacrifices for God, and that you should ultimately have faith that God will never lead you astray; which is depicted in the story as God preventing Abraham for killing his son. The story is also a moral attack on human sacrifice, which was rife in those days. The genesis story of creation was also an allegorical attack on the pagan concepts of God which were very popular in those times.

The idea that much of the old testament is allegory is not a modern idea; although that style of approaching the bible has been eclipsed by Christian literalism in todays society.

This is the more sensible interpretation.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Exactly. The “I don’t know” is always an acceptable answer. The presented evasions only show the reluctance of the posters to face the corollaries of their beliefs. No wonder, really.

I am not evading anything. God would never ask me to sacrifice my son. The questions is meaningless to me. And if somebody claiming to be God asked me to, i would refuse.

 

[Mudgely]

Biology would suggest that that males are designed to spread their seed to many partners. Makes sense from an evolutionary point of view.

 

[Warrenton]

God does not command what he is not. God commands what he is. Gods will is his nature

 

[Nate13]

In essence, this was a response on a number of levels to claims I have seen made on these and various other forums. There are a number of people who have claimed here that they know their god exists, the implication being that this is some privileged form of knowledge to which only they are privy; the usual implication is that if people are ‘open’ to belief in God, the knowledge will come - as long as you believe first.

The other side of this coin is the claim I have often seen made, that in order to be a ‘real’ atheist, one must know that no gods exist, and must therefore be omniscient. Since no human can claim omniscience, there are no ‘real’ atheists, only agnostics. I think this cuts both ways - in order to know that that God of Classical Theism exists, possessing qualities such as omniscience, any person claiming to unequivocally know that such a being existed and knew everything would need to know everything known by God.

But at the end of the day, both those claims are deeply absurd, and miss the point altogether. Atheism and theism are both fundamentally matters of belief. It’s just that, unlike someone who believes in the existence and involvement of a personal god, my experience and study have led me to believe that the universe is godless - at least in the sense of being created and presided over by a being not of itself.

Given the choice to either believe in myself (imperfectly reasonable, not all knowing) or any other person as opposed to a God who is all knowing and all loving, I believe there is a lot of rationality in believing in God. Do I need complete proof that he exists? No, I do not. I need enough of a reason to believe he exists to make it worth giving up believing he doesn’t exists. I have to have a clear understanding of what it means if I don’t believe he exists. I think the “how much evidence” is different for every person depending on well they are able to hide themselves within their own pleasure with life here on Earth. Some even go as far as coming up with their own version of a life after death that has to do with accessing different dimensions and so on. In my mind this requires more faith than believing in God. The fact is you don’t have to “know” God exists with 100% percent certainty or anything close to that. Think of it in terms of economics and opportunity cost. You just have to be certain enough that it outweighs all the other options available to you. I have experienced the happiness that goes along with conforming to Catholic Church’s moral code and when I compare that to how empty it feels to pursue my own personal pleasure here on Earth, the Church wins. For me life is pointless without the Church and that it didn’t require anywhere near 100% proof that God exists to get to that point. The beauty, depth, and hidden meaning within scripture alone is almost enough in and of itself to allow me to believe in God.

 

[Nate13]

Another way of thinking about this would be to go and ask people how sure they would have to be that a country had nuclear weapons that they might use against us before they would vote to take military action against that country. 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%, 100%? Your answer would differ depending on who you ask. I bet you would find plenty of people though that wouldn’t even need above a 50% probability before they voted to go ahead with military action. I think the same way of thinking applies for believing in God.

I’d also point out that waiting for 100% knowledge is usually a very violent occurrence and will drastically change a person using the apostle Paul as an example. Don’t expect God to be gentle if your going to wait around for 100% assurance. I’m sure Padre Pio had 100% assurance as well, but I doubt many of us would have liked to experience the trials he had to go through in fighting the devil at night. Likewise waiting for 100% assurance, when the nuclear missile is launched and within your sight is going to be a violent way in which to come to belief.

 

[tdgesq]

In essence, this was a response on a number of levels to claims I have seen made on these and various other forums. There are a number of people who have claimed here that they know their god exists, the implication being that this is some privileged form of knowledge to which only they are privy; the usual implication is that if people are ‘open’ to belief in God, the knowledge will come - as long as you believe first.

Interesting. If these are the arguments for knowledge of the existence of God then I am on your side. I tend to think though that the brief statements you have seen here that “I know God exists” were in response to equally conclusive and dismissive statements that “no one knows” or that “no one can know” if God exists.

The other side of this coin is the claim I have often seen made, that in order to be a ‘real’ atheist, one must know that no gods exist, and must therefore be omniscient. Since no human can claim omniscience, there are no ‘real’ atheists, only agnostics. I think this cuts both ways - in order to know that that God of Classical Theism exists, possessing qualities such as omniscience, any person claiming to unequivocally know that such a being existed and knew everything would need to know everything known by God.

If you want to be an atheist then you need to demonstrate that God (a certain god) does not exist. There are many ways to do this without being omniscient. You can show that the evidence available supports a conclusion that it is more likely that God does not exist than otherwise. You can point out internal inconsistencies in the arguments of the theist that demonstrate the attributes of his God are logically impossible. Similarly, a theist doesn’t need to be omniscient to have evidence that there indeed exists an omniscient God. He would have to provide good evidence that God created the universe and has actually revealed Himself as omniscient. I don’t think these things are as impossible to know as you suggest.

But at the end of the day, both those claims are deeply absurd, and miss the point altogether. Atheism and theism are both fundamentally matters of belief. It’s just that, unlike someone who believes in the existence and involvement of a personal god, my experience and study have led me to believe that the universe is godless - at least in the sense of being created and presided over by a being not of itself.

That may be your opinion (I get it that you are a pantheist), but even the proposition that “God is everything and everything is God” or that “God and the universe are one” requires a demonstration of evidence and reason (logic) that supports the conclusion. Maybe that is how things should proceed, rather than counter-factuals and conditional propositions that lead us nowhere.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This does not follow, because the allegory cannot rise higher than the actual facts.

But you are assuming that our theological facts begin with the face value of the bible.

If the facts make no sense, neither does the allegory. .

We have to know what the facts are first.

It makes us look at the story from the wrong viewpoint. When we say “God tested Abraham,” we mean “Abraham felt tested,” not “Did God need to know Abraham’s faith?” .

Here you are changing the face value of scripture to make sense of it, and then hypocritically saying that I am changing the truth.

But if we take the story as historical it would make more sense to say that God wanted to know if Abraham would be faithful, which is made clear when God stops the sacrifice, and does so because he is satisfied that Abraham is obedient. Thats how its depicted. Other-wise, what is the point of the test? It makes no sense.

So no, God didn’t need to know or make a test because God already knows Abraham’s heart; that’s why the idea that the story should be taken literally is to me ridiculous and pointless. What was the point of asking Abraham to slay his son and then save him, if it was not to test his faith in order to gain knowledge of his faithfulness? This is what i mean when i say that God is depicted as being like a human. When we accept Gods omniscience, the story becomes pointless. If we take it literally and bring Gods omniscience in to the question, then it looks as if God is sadistically playing with Abraham’s head.

Your interpretation does us no favors.

Further, when we reduce a factual event to an allegory, we limit it. .

We limit the impact of myth on the underlying truth of the story.

Your framework overlooks the chance that God put Abraham to the test in order to create a historical event that people would remember, and apply to other situations. .

If a super powerful being told me to kill my son; on a psychological level that to me would be a terrible and horrifying experience. It doesn’t make sense to me that God would put Abraham through such a harrowing and horrific experience just to prove a point to future generations. It suggests that God does not care about the psychological well being of either Abraham or the child. The idea is sadistic to me. Its, abuse. If somebody put a knife to your throat to teach you and future generations the virtue of fear, i don’t think you would be very grateful; in fact you would feel humiliated and demoralized; and you would probably call the police to tell them that psychopath is on the loose, not welcome him in to your house.

A better interpretation is that an author skilled at parable and allegory fashion a fictional story.

But of course, since we are made in God’s image (cf Genesis). There is a lot of similarity between the created and the Creator. It was meant to be that way. .

That we are made in God’s image doesn’t mean that we should expect to share the same limitations. Your interpretation of scripture conflicts with Gods omniscience and charity.

do you think the events actually occurred? .

No. Neither do I believe the world was created in seven days. Neither do I believe in Noah’s ark. I believe the stories are loosely based on real holy people who worshiped God, and to some extent, perhaps the stories were written in honor of them. This is not to say that the entire old testament is an allegory; that is not my view either.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The traditional interpretation makes more sense, and I am sure our atheist friends would agree.

If we are trying to gain a rational understanding of scripture and not just a blind adherence to literalism then I must say I have to disagree. Your interpretation is actually limiting God’s nature. Neither is it clear to me that literalism was always the norm; in fact some say it is a recent phenomena. Saint Augustine said the whole world was created instantaneously, rather than in seven days. He even had some opinions that sound suspiciously like evolution. The point is, not all Christians took a literal approach to the bible.

…and I will reply that I believe the testimony. They do not believe the report, and I do. What of it? We can proceed to discuss why the report is credible, or why not. .

Is it a testimony of historical events? I don’t see it as necessary to view it as such.

Making sense is not the same thing as agreeing, of course. The atheists may agree with you that Abraham is nothing but a story. But they will agree with me that it is sensible to believe someone that who is trustworthy. .

I never said that Abraham is nothing but a story. The problem people have with the story is Abraham’s blind unquestioning adherence to an act that will lead to the death of his son. This attitude is clearly dangerous to teach as okay. Deadly Cults are born because of that kind of attitude. If a being or a voice in my head, claiming to be God, told me to jump of a building, I would not do it. That is the rational decision. What Abraham did was irrational if taken literally because his unquestioning actions are clearly unreasonable and careless of his sons well being. If scripture had said that Abraham had sacrificed his son, I dare say that you would believe it, because you think that you have to, and that there is something wrong with questioning the nature of scripture. That you are willing to believe some interpretation blindly without question says more about you then it does about the true nature of scripture. Faith is not an excuse to be ignorant.

As a rule, God did not just create stories to tell people. God created people who lived, and about whom stories were told. In contrast, when Christ spoke in parables, he let them know it.

Jewish people, inspired by the holy spirit, wrote the bible. God did not dictate word for word what was written or the rules by which the authors expressed themselves. That is not my understanding. We are not Muslims.

 

[Warrenton]

No. Neither do I believe the world was created in seven days. Neither do I believe in Noah’s ark. I believe the stories are loosely based on real holy people who worshiped God, and to some extent, perhaps the stories were written in honor of them.

You wrote a lot of interesting things in this post, but this brings us to the point so I’ll address it.

We disagree totally, and our disagreement admits no middle ground. I believe that the events that are recorded in the Bible occurred as written, or to put it diffrently, that the Bible accurately recites the facts of what it purports to relate.

Here you are changing the face value of scripture to make sense of it, and then hypocritically saying that I am changing the truth.

You may disagree with my interpretation of the story, but that is certainly no grounds to accuse me of hypocrisy. I gave you the cite to Genesis Chapter 22. It says “God tested Abraham.” It does not say why. Then it says that God said because Abraham passed the test, God will bless Abraham and his descendants. The account is entirely objective.
I am no more changing the value of scripture than if I said since Pilate crucified Christ, Christ suffered as a result. On the contrary, your allegory theory is the method that requires us to posit God’s ratiocinations.

But if we take the story as historical it would make more sense to say that God wanted to know if Abraham would be faithful, which is made clear when God stops the sacrifice, and does so because he is satisfied that Abraham is obedient. Thats how its depicted. Other-wise, what is the point of the test? It makes no sense.

Q.E.D.

The point of the test is that Abraham passed it and God rewarded him by blessing him and all his descendants, of whom we are numbered as Christians. As far as we know, no one else had faith like that.

So no, God didn’t need to know or make a test because God already knows Abraham’s heart; that’s why the idea that the story should be taken literally is to me ridiculous and pointless.

Our atheist friends will agree with you. They will also point out that God does not “need” anything, and therefore the entire Bible, and sin, and damnation, and reward, and redemption is all ridiculous and pointless.

It doesn’t make sense to me that God would put Abraham through such a harrowing and horrific experience just to prove a point to future generations. It suggests that God does not care about the psychological well being of either Abraham or the child. The idea is sadistic to me. Its, abuse.

Yes. The question has been posed before. The answer God gave Job is familar to everyone.

Your interpretation of scripture conflicts with Gods omniscience and charity.

I am acquainted with your argument: it mirrors what the the Romans said when they wanted to ditch the Old Testament as conflicting with the New. The mind of the Church was clear: the Old Testament is true.

 

[Warrenton]

I never said that Abraham is nothing but a story

This illustrates the difficulty I have with your approach. In truth, I find the difficulty insurmountable. I asked you point blank if you believed the account of Abraham and Isaac, and you to your credit answered no. You included Noah and Creation also. Again, I credit your intellectual honesty.

However, then you claim that Abraham is “not just a story.” But it has to either true, or it has to be a story. I trust we agree that 'story" is synonomous with “fictional” in this context. There is no such thing as “true fiction.”

I understand the desire to hold the moderate position that Abraham is “like” a parable, namely, a fictional story that expresses a true moral. Somewhat like the Great Gatsby.

However, trying to marry to contradictory concepts leads to further and further equivocation, and leads us to the pass to which Bishop Spong came, where the entire resurrection and ascension is another “true fiction.” What happens then? Up rises St. Paul, who clearly tells us that if Christ did not rise, our faith is in vain. Then we have to reduce St. Paul to another “true fiction.” There’s no end to it, until one just chucks it all as myth.

That’s where we finally agree with our atheist friends.

Let’s look at your problems with the story and see if they are as serious as they seem:

The problem people have with the story is Abraham’s blind unquestioning adherence to an act that will lead to the death of his son. This attitude is clearly dangerous to teach as okay. Deadly Cults are born because of that kind of attitude. If a being or a voice in my head, claiming to be God, told me to jump of a building, I would not do it. That is the rational decision. What Abraham did was irrational if taken literally because his unquestioning actions are clearly unreasonable and careless of his sons well being.

Why do you have a problem with the story when God Himself does not? God actually did carry out the exact sacrifice with which He tested Abraham. He sacrficed Christ. The rational decision was not to do it. Even the the Jews who abused our Lord at Calvary recognised as much: “If he is the Son of God, let him come down from that cross!”

If scripture had said that Abraham had sacrificed his son, I dare say that you would believe it, because you think that you have to, and that there is something wrong with questioning the nature of scripture. That you are willing to believe some interpretation blindly without question says more about you then it does about the true nature of scripture. Faith is not an excuse to be ignorant.

Now we’re just guessing at what scripture might have said if things were different, but really, who is ignorant? Don’t you see what would have happened if Abraham had actually killed the boy? The same thing that would have happened if Adam had not eaten the fruit. When God told him a life needed to be forfeited, Adam would have paid the price out of love for Eve, as Christ paid it out of love for us. In both cases, God would have done exactly what He did when Christ made the sacrifice Adam ought to have: He raised him. He was foreshadowing what He would do when He tested Abraham. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son for the love of God parallels what God would later do. If Abraham had actually slain Issac, then God would have raised Isaac, too.

Jewish people, inspired by the holy spirit, wrote the bible. God did not dictate word for word what was written or the rules by which the authors expressed themselves. That is not my understanding. We are not Muslims.

I don’t disagree with any of this, except I don’t know about the Muslims. But God need not dictate the words in order for the story to be true.

 

[Nate13]

But if we take the story as historical it would make more sense to say that God wanted to know if Abraham would be faithful, which is made clear when God stops the sacrifice, and does so because he is satisfied that Abraham is obedient. Thats how its depicted. Other-wise, what is the point of the test? It makes no sense.

So no, God didn’t need to know or make a test because God already knows Abraham’s heart; that’s why the idea that the story should be taken literally is to me ridiculous and pointless. What was the point of asking Abraham to slay his son and then save him, if it was not to test his faith in order to gain knowledge of his faithfulness? This is what i mean when i say that God is depicted as being like a human. When we accept Gods omniscience, the story becomes pointless. If we take it literally and bring Gods omniscience in to the question, then it looks as if God is sadistically playing with Abraham’s head.

This is not true. I can think of one big thing that could have been gained from God asking Abraham to kill his son. Whether God knew what he would do or not, someone who didn’t know was Abraham.

This is an important point as well. For instance lets say a guy walked up to me stuck a gun to my head and told me he would kill me unless I forsook God and worshiped the devil. Now before that point I think most of us would say that we would allow ourselves to be killed before we did that. Its one thing to say that though and another to actually follow through. By God putting Abraham to the test he allowed Abraham to prove to himself that he did completely love and trust that God was looking after him. I think it was important for Abraham to know this considering the plans God had for him.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This illustrates the difficulty I have with your approach. In truth, I find the difficulty insurmountable. I asked you point blank if you believed the account of Abraham and Isaac, and you to your credit answered no. You included Noah and Creation also. Again, I credit your intellectual honesty.

However, then you claim that Abraham is “not just a story.” But it has to either true, or it has to be a story. I trust we agree that 'story" is synonomous with “fictional” in this context. There is no such thing as “true fiction.”

Then there is no such thing as truth in allegories or parables if we have to go by your standard of truth alone.

I understand the desire to hold the moderate position that Abraham is “like” a parable, namely, a fictional story that expresses a true moral. Somewhat like the Great Gatsby.

However, trying to marry to contradictory concepts leads to further and further equivocation

You have shown no evidence of equivocation or contradiction; you are merely making assertions. I have explained my position, and you have ignored it, and instead tried to present a straw-man in its place.

He sacrficed Christ.

Now you are making an equivocation. It is evidently not the same thing. Abraham took his son and attempted to kill him in honour of the Gods. Christ, who is God, came with the gospel of salvation and was killed by Gods children, and Christ accepted it for our sake. Human sacrifice in the first sense is unacceptable. Human sacrifice in the sense of what Jesus did is acceptable.

 

[Warrenton]

Then there is no such thing as truth in allegories or parables if we have to go by your standard of truth alone.

Perhaps you did not understand my statement?

Instead of “true or false” or “true or allegory” let’s use the terms “historical and fictional.” I contend that Abraham and Isaac is historical, and you contend it is fictional.

I explicitly said that a parable can have a true moral. But the parable is still fictional. Can we agree on that much?

You have shown no evidence of equivocation or contradiction; you are merely making assertions. I have explained my position, and you have ignored it, and instead tried to present a straw-man in its place

Again, I fear you misunderstand what I see as a contradiction. But let’s make sure we understand each other:

You say that the story of Abraham and Isaac is fictional, but expresses a moral truth.

Is that a fair restatement?

If it is, my problem with it is where do we stop? If we say Abraham and Isaac is a fictional parable, why can’t Bishop Spong say the resurrection is a fictional parable?

Now you are making an equivocation. It is evidently not the same thing. Abraham took his son and attempted to kill him in honour of the Gods. Christ, who is God, came with the gospel of salvation and was killed by Gods children, and Christ accepted it for our sake. Human sacrifice in the first sense is unacceptable. Human sacrifice in the sense of what Jesus did is acceptable.

Abraham did not attempt to kill is son in honor of the “gods.” He was obeying God, your God and my God, out of obedience to Him. That is what Genesis states. It states that the angel says “now I know that you fear the Lord.” Then it says that the angel told Abraham that because he obeyed and did not withhold, the Lord will bless him.

In both the case of Jesus Christ and Abraham, a sacrifice was made out of love for and obedience to the Father. In one instance, the sacrifice was consummated. In the other, it was not. In both cases, a beloved son was sacrificed. Remember the words that sounded at Christ’s baptism?

Why does the parallel seem so strange? It’s not mere coincidence.