... malevolent bully.

[Pappa]

I understand your point, but I think if your view is that you're taking the "basic crux" of Jesus' teaching as your morality, then that's no different to taking the "basic crux" of your morality from evolutionary biology, which has shown we have evolved morality. Humans are born with a basic sense of right and wrong, a morality which culture or religion moulds into whichever pattern is the local norm. Every self-labeled atheist I know, and also any Humanist, etc. seems to have a perfectly acceptable form of morality. This may differ from person to person, but the basic elements of right and wrong are the same. And the basic elements are also recognizable and acceptable to a moderate Christian.

OK. So we shouldn't have any problem being neighbors, then.

Yeah I promise I won't try to kill you or eat your kids.

[dj357]

Abraham thought that is what God told him.

The bible says otherwise. So, as soon as you admitted this your logic fell apart.

[Coito ergo sum]

Right, exactly. And, in OT days the Jews sacrified to Yahweh like the pagans sacrificed to their gods, and the Jews wrote in the Old Testament that it was their god that demanded sacrifices. Exhibit A: Abraham was specifically asked to take his son Isaac up to a blood soaked and reeking alter where other sacrifices had been made to the god, and slit his son's throat and bleed him to death. The god supposedly demanded that, not the people.

Abraham thought that is what God told him. It was really his own impulse to sacrifice. Then God accommodated the Jews by giving them his son, whom they sacrificed. It wasn't that God demanded it - it is that God accommodated the Jewish impulse to sacrifice. Under my theology, in any event.

Of course, that's not what the Bible says.

Also, God created man, including his impulses.

Of course it was demanded by god. Nobody else demanded it. god needed sacrifices in OT days in order for people to atone for sins. The metaphor of the Jesus sacrifice is that Jesus becaem the "Lamb of God" that was a collective sacrifice atoning for all of our sins. The only one who needs that is the supposed god.

God didn't need it.

How can an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being "need" anything at all?

The people needed to have a symbol, an ultimate sacrifice to be sure their sins were covered.

Why? I don't think most people were going around saying, "you know what? We need an ultimate sacrifice to make sure our sins are covered." Heck, hardly anybody really thinks that you can cover your sins by someone else's sacrifice.

So Jesus allowed them to kill him, knowing that his death would move his people past the primal urge to kill animals into a deeper spiritual relationship with him.

People were already moving away from animal sacrifices, and different people around the world did it at different times. Some people continued to do it, and animal sacrifice goes on to this day.

[Bruce Burleson]

Abraham thought that is what God told him.

The bible says otherwise. So, as soon as you admitted this your logic fell apart.

Why did my logic fall apart? I am not relying here on the authority of the bible.

[Bruce Burleson]

Of course, that's not what the Bible says. Also, God created man, including his impulses.

Yes, I know that is not what the Bible says, but I am not basing my argument on any concept of inerrancy of scripture.

How can an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being "need" anything at all?

He doesn't. But, technically he is not omnipotent, because even the Bible indicates that there are certain things that he cannot do, such as deny himself (act in a way that is contrary to his nature).

I don't think most people were going around saying, "you know what? We need an ultimate sacrifice to make sure our sins are covered." Heck, hardly anybody really thinks that you can cover your sins by someone else's sacrifice.

They didn't consciously think this, but my argument is that there was a psychological need for it, perhaps mostly or entirely subconscious.

People were already moving away from animal sacrifices, and different people around the world did it at different times. Some people continued to do it, and animal sacrifice goes on to this day.

The Jews were still doing it, as were the Greeks and Romans. The Passover feast during Jesus' day was pretty bloody. That impulse is largely gone now, except among more primitive peoples.

[Coito ergo sum]

Abraham thought that is what God told him.

The bible says otherwise. So, as soon as you admitted this your logic fell apart.

Why did my logic fall apart? I am not relying here on the authority of the bible.

Well, the story comes from the Bible, and either it's in the Bible or it isn't. If it isn't, then you are just making up in your head what Abraham did or did not think.

As far as we know, outside of the Bible, there may not even have been an Abraham. Generally, when you read a story about what someone did, the story is what the words of the story are.

For example, if I say that in the Lord of the Rings, Frodo didn't really go on his quest to destroy the ring but rather for some other purpose, like personal glory, I am free to think that, but I'm just making it up. I'm changing the story. Anyone can make anything up. That's not a "theology" - that's just making stuff up, isn't it?

Or, can my "theology" be that Abraham was really talking to Satan, and Satan tricked him into believing that God was telling him to kill his son when it was really Satan since a good god would never tell a father to kill his own son by slicing his throat and bleeding him to death on a blood soaked and reeking altar stained with decaying animal flesh from prior sacrifices.....

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course, that's not what the Bible says. Also, God created man, including his impulses.

Yes, I know that is not what the Bible says, but I am not basing my argument on any concept of inerrancy of scripture.

Ah, so you're making up your own version, which has no support in anything but your brain's synapses. We can classify your version of the story as about as likely as a version that says that Abraham really disobeyed God when he refrained from killing Isaac and killed the sheep instead because his human frailty would not let him kill his own son in order to obey his God's commands. Right? Or, is there some way for us to distinguish which is the true version, if any?

How can an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being "need" anything at all?

He doesn't. But, technically he is not omnipotent, because even the Bible indicates that there are certain things that he cannot do, such as deny himself (act in a way that is contrary to his nature).

O.k. - but, where does it say that?

I don't think most people were going around saying, "you know what? We need an ultimate sacrifice to make sure our sins are covered." Heck, hardly anybody really thinks that you can cover your sins by someone else's sacrifice.

They didn't consciously think this,

You don't know one way or the other, right?

but my argument is that there was a psychological need for it, perhaps mostly or entirely subconscious.

Do you have any evidence for this?

People were already moving away from animal sacrifices, and different people around the world did it at different times. Some people continued to do it, and animal sacrifice goes on to this day.

The Jews were still doing it, as were the Greeks and Romans. The Passover feast during Jesus' day was pretty bloody. That impulse is largely gone now, except among more primitive peoples.

Some Muslims and Jews still sacrifice, and people sacrificed all over the world quite commonly for 1,000 years after Christ supposedly died. Even human sacrifices continued after Jesus came and went.

But, it really doesn't matter, does it? After all, the whole idea that Jesus was sent by God to feed a psychological need, and ultimately ended the human need to sacrifice is supported by as much evidence as the idea that Jesus was really sent by Satan to trick the world. Yes? Or, is there something we can look to in order to distinguish the Bible's version or your version or some other version being true, if any?

[charlou]

How can an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being "need" anything at all?

He doesn't. But, technically he is not omnipotent, because even the Bible indicates that there are certain things that he cannot do, such as deny himself (act in a way that is contrary to his nature).

FFS, you're talking as though you actually believe this thing exists. Incredible.

[Bruce Burleson]

Well, the story comes from the Bible, and either it's in the Bible or it isn't. If it isn't, then you are just making up in your head what Abraham did or did not think.

As far as we know, outside of the Bible, there may not even have been an Abraham. Generally, when you read a story about what someone did, the story is what the words of the story are.

I separate the story from the interpretation of the story. The story is that Abraham took Isaac up to Mount Moriah and was about to sacrifice him, but then stopped and sacrificed a ram instead. That is presented as an historical event, something that either happened or didn't, and I see no reason to think it did not happen. The part that deals with interpretation is what went on in Abraham's head. When it is said that "God said" X to someone, that is an event that is going on in the brain. The question is whether that was God talking or Abraham thinking. Abraham interpreted God as wanting animal sacrifices, and then a child sacrifice. From a Christian perspective, when Jesus came he didn't ask anyone for animal sacrifices, and certainly not child sacrifices. If he was the more perfect reflection of God, that suggests to me that Abraham had it wrong.

So generally, I accept the account of Abraham, but question Abraham's interpretation of his own experience, and his interpretation of God.

[Bruce Burleson]

Ah, so you're making up your own version, which has no support in anything but your brain's synapses. We can classify your version of the story as about as likely as a version that says that Abraham really disobeyed God when he refrained from killing Isaac and killed the sheep instead because his human frailty would not let him kill his own son in order to obey his God's commands. Right? Or, is there some way for us to distinguish which is the true version, if any?

My version is no more authoritative than anyone else's. I'm simply presenting a different interpretation of some recorded events, an interpretation that is not based on authority of scripture.

O.k. - but, where does it say that? (about God not being omnipotent).

In II Timothy 2:13 it says that God cannot deny himself, which means that he cannot act contrary to his nature. That passage is no more authoritative than any other passage, but it does present a picture of a God who is something less than absolutely omnipotent. There is something that he "cannot" do.

You don't know one way or the other, right?

No. I'm simply presenting an alternate interpretation. The evidence that I have for the psychological need of primitive people to sacrifice is that it is basically a worldwide phenomenon. It's been around a long time in many cultures and religions. It was basically eliminated from Christianity because the crucifixion of Jesus was significant enough that it satisfied the impulse, although there are a few Christians that now think they have to literally crucify themselves, like some in the Philippines.

[Bruce Burleson]

How can an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being "need" anything at all?

He doesn't. But, technically he is not omnipotent, because even the Bible indicates that there are certain things that he cannot do, such as deny himself (act in a way that is contrary to his nature).

FFS, you're talking as though you actually believe this thing exists. Incredible.

No, it's quite credible. Most people believe that God exists in some form. Most people always have.

[dj357]

How can an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being "need" anything at all?

He doesn't. But, technically he is not omnipotent, because even the Bible indicates that there are certain things that he cannot do, such as deny himself (act in a way that is contrary to his nature).

FFS, you're talking as though you actually believe this thing exists. Incredible.

No, it's quite credible. Most people believe that God exists in some form. Most people always have.

Most people used to the believe the world was flat. Most people believed the Sun was God. Most people were wrong. You know that phrase "2 million can't be wrong"? Fucking yeah they can be wrong.

[Feck]

How can an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being "need" anything at all?

He doesn't. But, technically he is not omnipotent, because even the Bible indicates that there are certain things that he cannot do, such as deny himself (act in a way that is contrary to his nature).

FFS, you're talking as though you actually believe this thing exists. Incredible.

No, it's quite credible. Most people believe that God exists in some form. Most people always have.

Since when is truth a Democratic thing "most people " believe lots of silly things and a few hundred years ago almost everything people believed was rubbish .
Lots of people believing in god doesn't mean there is one and I doesn't mean you have any concept of what god is like. Your book is obviously total gobshite

Just give it up Bruce you KNOW you don't need this stupid belief the insane mental hoops you have to jump through to to sustain it are not worth it .

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, the story comes from the Bible, and either it's in the Bible or it isn't. If it isn't, then you are just making up in your head what Abraham did or did not think.

As far as we know, outside of the Bible, there may not even have been an Abraham. Generally, when you read a story about what someone did, the story is what the words of the story are.

I separate the story from the interpretation of the story.

Interpretation has to do with finding the meaning of the words, or the larger meaning of the story. You're changing the words and the events.

In other words, you're change what happened, and not just re-interpreting "why" it happened.

The story is that Abraham took Isaac up to Mount Moriah and was about to sacrifice him, but then stopped and sacrificed a ram instead.

The Bible is quite clear:

Genesis 22: God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." 3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you." 6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" 8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together. 9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. 12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." 13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram [a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided." 15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." 19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.

Note - God instructed him specifically what to do, and ultimately what not to do, and the story specifically states that it was Abraham's willingess to obey that was the virtue here....

That is presented as an historical event, something that either happened or didn't, and I see no reason to think it did not happen.

The whole conversation between God and Abraham is presented as a historical event. But, there is plenty of reason to suspect it did not happen: (1) it was written long after the purported events supposedly occurred by someone who was not there and who must have, therefore, received the information through word of mouth, (2) there is no corroborating evidence for any of the players actually having existed.

The part that deals with interpretation is what went on in Abraham's head. When it is said that "God said" X to someone, that is an event that is going on in the brain.

That's what you think. But, the Bible doesn't say that, and there is no reason to think that it's meant as something wholly within Abraham's brain. It is just as likely that it was an actually voice of God that was intended by the writer of the book of Genesis.

The question is whether that was God talking or Abraham thinking.

Quite, but there is no clue from the text what that would be. However, the text does use quotes, and specifically refers to God speaking, in the active voice, and not Abraham thinking or perceiving something. Certainly, it is allowable for you to read the passage not as literally meaning God said X, Y or Z but rather Abraham thinking it. But, I wonder, why would a god inspire a book in that way? We can't know for sure, or even surmise that more likely than not, that your version is correct. As far as we can tell, it might be referring to a literal event and literal words spoken by God, or it could be referring to thoughts in Abraham's head. Or, it could be referring to something Abraham dreamed, or something Abraham imagined altogether. Is there a way to distinguish which one, if any, are correct? If so, let me know.

Abraham interpreted God as wanting animal sacrifices,

In the Book of Genesis, God is quite clear that he does want animal sacrifices. In Genesis 4, we read of the story of Cain and Abel, in which Abel offers an animal sacrifice which is preferred to Cain's plant sacrifice. "In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering..." Leviticus 1: "1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting. He said, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any of you brings an offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock.," Leviticus 3: "The priest shall burn them on the altar as food, an offering made by fire, a pleasing aroma. All the fat is the LORD's." God commands them not to eat fat or blood. All the fat is the Lord's.

Now you can interpret that, I suppose, as Moses just dreaming or surmising that God is speaking to him, but really Moses is just making it up in his head.

However, how are we to know? Are sacrifices desired by God or not? A whole bunch of people trying to be faithful to God sure thought they were back in the day, right? Now, however, since culturally we don't do the animal sacrifices anymore, we are prone to view the Bible passages as saying something other than they actually say. That's fine, but how are we to know? And, why would a God make it so that we have to "interpret" these stories in the dramatic fashion that you do - especially when, clearly, reasonable minds can differ as to your interpretation?

and then a child sacrifice. From a Christian perspective, when Jesus came he didn't ask anyone for animal sacrifices, and certainly not child sacrifices. If he was the more perfect reflection of God, that suggests to me that Abraham had it wrong.

Perhaps, but quite possibly, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had it wrong....how are we to tell?

So generally, I accept the account of Abraham, but question Abraham's interpretation of his own experience, and his interpretation of God.

Why do you find that to be a reasonable interpretation, but my suggestion that the whole thing could have been an invention of the author as an illustration, and that Abraham may never have existed, why do you find that to be something you are unwilling to entertain? Or, are you willing to entertain that notion? You said that you saw no reason to believe that Abraham did not exist - but, by the same token, is there any reason to believe he did? Or, if he did exist is there any reason to believe he talked to God? Or, is there any reason to believe that he got it wrong and was only thinking things in his head?

I am confused by your decisions as to what to believe and what not to believe. On what basis have you made these choices?

[Coito ergo sum]

Ah, so you're making up your own version, which has no support in anything but your brain's synapses. We can classify your version of the story as about as likely as a version that says that Abraham really disobeyed God when he refrained from killing Isaac and killed the sheep instead because his human frailty would not let him kill his own son in order to obey his God's commands. Right? Or, is there some way for us to distinguish which is the true version, if any?

My version is no more authoritative than anyone else's.

You'll agree, it's not authoritative at all, right? It has no authority?

I'm simply presenting a different interpretation of some recorded events, an interpretation that is not based on authority of scripture.

Fair enough.

One may, of course, also interpret the human belief in gods much in the way you interpret the human belief in sacrifices. You cited a psychological need to sacrifice to the deity. Perhaps we can interpret all the references to a God in the Bible as just thoughts in people's heads, reflecting a psychological need to believe in some sort of supernatural higher power.

Is that an equal interpretation, no more or less authoritative than yours?

O.k. - but, where does it say that? (about God not being omnipotent).

In II Timothy 2:13 it says that God cannot deny himself, which means that he cannot act contrary to his nature. That passage is no more authoritative than any other passage, but it does present a picture of a God who is something less than absolutely omnipotent. There is something that he "cannot" do.

In other words, that passage is, like all others, not at all authoritative. Thanks for the cite.

You don't know one way or the other, right?

No. I'm simply presenting an alternate interpretation. [/quote]

The way I see it, there can be many alternative interpretations. We can even view the Jesus dying and rising again story as metaphorical, can't we? We could even interpret the existence of God as metaphorical, yes?

The evidence that I have for the psychological need of primitive people to sacrifice is that it is basically a worldwide phenomenon.

Yes, it is. And, the same evidence would suggest a psychological need to believe in gods, yes?

It's been around a long time in many cultures and religions.

As has the belief in gods.

It was basically eliminated from Christianity because the crucifixion of Jesus was significant enough that it satisfied the impulse, although there are a few Christians that now think they have to literally crucify themselves, like some in the Philippines.

It just goes to show that people will believe just about anything, if they are not careful.