In Genesis, God appears to Abraham and tests him. And if you’re familiar with Christianity, you know that test involved God telling Abraham to kill his son, Isaac. This was to be carried out as a burnt offering, or so God called it in order to test Abraham’s faithfulness and willing to obey.
So, the next time someone wants to debate me about salvation (such as those on the city streets that heckle me). I think I will bring up Genesis 22 and ask them if they would do the same to prove their faithfulness; if not, I would ask if that means they are not as “saved” as they thought. Now, they could readily dismiss it, stating it is the Old Testament and that would not be a requirement now since Jesus came and died for them. However, I would still explain that it still is there in the Bible and absolutely represents the character of their God–why does he require death for love, whether it be testing Abraham or requiring Jesus to die?
I’m not quite as worried about people who dismiss this as I am the ones who say, yes. And there number is not small enough. There are still people who believe they chat with God.
I’m doing a talk at my local Freethinkers next month about fundamentalism. I define it in the broadest sense as taking any stand on a complex issue using limited data. Basically dogmatism is the key to me. So this includes even the most liberal interpretation of the Bible, no matter how peaceful or how socialist you think Jesus was. If you think the resurrection matters and that having some kind of relationship to Christ makes you better, you’re potentially just as dangerous as a Westboro Baptist. I’m still okay with UU churches or Marcus Borg or whomever giving people a transitional way out of Christianity and into modernity, but they have to make that final step into reasonableness or they aren’t going to contribute to progress.
I'm not quite as worried about people who dismiss this as I am the ones who say, yesCertainly, I just want to be able to ask questions that require thought; and most specifically, thought about the character of god. Because the OT is full of events that I think Christians need to be able to actually consider: wiping out all humanity by a flood; manipulating Pharaoh to perform evil; the notion of Satan etc. There is always talk about the "love" of god but no one actually compares this love to the actual events that are portrayed. Often Christians reference character, but never the character of their god. I simply cannot wrap my head around not questioning the goodness of a god who says kill your son as a sacrifice and as proof of your faithfulness...haha...I was joking...just checking to see if you'd listen.
Right. The son killing thing is complicated because most people accept it as allegory. And of course, he doesn’t actually die. Slavery is one that most people just know, as well as genocide. But the ark thing is universally known and one of the earliest stories kids get taught. Can’t figure out why people accept that one.
In Genesis, God appears to Abraham and tests him. And if you're familiar with Christianity, you know that test involved God telling Abraham to kill his son, Isaac. This was to be carried out as a burnt offering, or so God called it in order to test Abraham's faithfulness and willing to obey. So, the next time someone wants to debate me about salvation (such as those on the city streets that heckle me). I think I will bring up Genesis 22 and ask them if they would do the same to prove their faithfulness; if not, I would ask if that means they are not as "saved" as they thought. Now, they could readily dismiss it, stating it is the Old Testament and that would not be a requirement now since Jesus came and died for them. However, I would still explain that it still is there in the Bible and absolutely represents the character of their God--why does he require death for love, whether it be testing Abraham or requiring Jesus to die?I think the best answer to that question is what Christoper Hitchen said his reply to god would have been. "Go f--k yourself"
Right. The son killing thing is complicated because most people accept it as allegory. And of course, he doesn't actually die. Slavery is one that most people just know, as well as genocide. But the ark thing is universally known and one of the earliest stories kids get taught. Can't figure out why people accept that one.The entire allegory, poetic and metaphorical stance on the Bible is another challenge because we're told the Bible is intended to be a universal message, but we know that the ability to understand and interpret hidden meanings via extrapolation from metaphors etc depends on cognitive ability and even then some people cannot read at all. It raises the question of why a god would only reveal himself through text that is not universally understood or available.
Right. The son killing thing is complicated because most people accept it as allegory. And of course, he doesn't actually die. Slavery is one that most people just know, as well as genocide. But the ark thing is universally known and one of the earliest stories kids get taught. Can't figure out why people accept that one.The entire allegory, poetic and metaphorical stance on the Bible is another challenge because we're told the Bible is intended to be a universal message, but we know that the ability to understand and interpret hidden meanings via extrapolation from metaphors etc depends on cognitive ability and even then some people cannot read at all. It raises the question of why a god would only reveal himself through text that is not universally understood or available. As long as gods were local, that made sense, that is, god spoke to only us because we're special. Then it became, we won the war because we understood god correctly. How that has survived since mid 17th century, since we have elected leaders and nations and agreed upon laws, is a total mystery to me.
In Genesis, God appears to Abraham and tests him. And if you're familiar with Christianity, you know that test involved God telling Abraham to kill his son, Isaac. This was to be carried out as a burnt offering, or so God called it in order to test Abraham's faithfulness and willing to obey. So, the next time someone wants to debate me about salvation (such as those on the city streets that heckle me). I think I will bring up Genesis 22 and ask them if they would do the same to prove their faithfulness; if not, I would ask if that means they are not as "saved" as they thought. Now, they could readily dismiss it, stating it is the Old Testament and that would not be a requirement now since Jesus came and died for them. However, I would still explain that it still is there in the Bible and absolutely represents the character of their God--why does he require death for love, whether it be testing Abraham or requiring Jesus to die?I think the best answer to that question is what Christoper Hitchen said his reply to god would have been. "Go f--k yourself" There are plenty of people who think their child would not actually die if the parent murders the child. They convince themselves that the child will go to a "better place." That's theism for you! Check out Andrea Yates and the reason she killed her five children. Lois
Also check out the movie “The Rapture”. This is set in modern time and is not a “Left Behind” thing, in fact very little magical stuff happens in the movie. It’s a promiscuous woman who starts hearing about prophecies and turns Christian, then it gets really weird. It’s a long answer to the question, would you want to be with God if you found out he was a jerk?
No. That’s insane. There seems to be a lot of insanity in the Bible, to be fair I take it on advisement as I’ve never read it but still… insane shit.
MzLee
Also check out the movie "The Rapture". This is set in modern time and is not a "Left Behind" thing, in fact very little magical stuff happens in the movie. It's a promiscuous woman who starts hearing about prophecies and turns Christian, then it gets really weird. It's a long answer to the question, would you want to be with God if you found out he was a jerk?Weirder than Christianity? Lois