God can write straight with crooked lines.

[bill4long]

But I read the Abrahamic test as epistemic—concerned with Abraham’s belief and trust in God—not whether child sacrifice is something to be obeyed and instituted. The epistemic, prophetic model of the type that Jesus fulfills only works if the test is singular, the sacrifice is completed as Abraham expected—that God Himself would provide the sacrifice—and no human gets to replay the event.

Isn't that kind of like God telling Evil Knievel he's got to be the one guy to jump the grand canyon and then no more, but then it's televised worldwide and doesn't even come with the disclaimer, "kids, do not try this at home?" In the paragraph before this one, you explained that Joseph Smith got his devious idea from the story. Again, it's the moral hazard of having this most-publicized-story-ever being so easy to misinterpret; and if it's a one-off thing that nobody else ever needs to worry will happen to them, why even print it?

I’ve wondered if there would be a better way for God to test and see if Abraham truly believed God.

I think this is an extraordinarily complicated question. What did it mean that Abraham believed God in the first place? He was brought up to believe the way that he did. It's just as luck would have it, he was born into the right lineage. The guy in the tribe across the river believed Molech enough to sacrifice his kid also. But at face value, it's fantastic material for constructing loyalty tests. So I have no problem giving it an "A" for satisfying its intent.

My number one issue with the test is why does it matter to God that Abraham believe or love God? I understand the pragmatic origins of tribal loyalty, but tribal loyalty is the antithesis of the way love should be understood. Even the New Testament shows this with the Good Samaritan and other examples of outsiders throwing a wrench into in-group social norms. Even Jesus is from the wrong town. If I were God, I can't see the big deal about my creations believing me or loving me and especially worshipping me. I'd be more concerned about the welfare of the creations. If I get a fish tank, I'm going to set it up the best I can to give them the best lives possible. My happiness is seeing them happy, I have no need for them to come to the glass and thank me.

The Abrahamic god is fascinating. He creates the world and humans, and is so taken aback that he "is sorrry" that he did it. And is "grieved in his heart." (Genesis 6:6, my favorite verse in the Bible.) So much that he decides to "kill them all!" including all land animals except for a few humans.

The Big Reset. (Why not use a well crafted virus to do the job?)

Come on, does any sane person believe that tale? Especially in light of historical and scientific evidence that absolutely invalidates the possibility?

Time to grow out of Bronze Age kindergarten belief systems.

[bill4long]

Treating the Abrahamic test as epistemic and a test of trusting God results in exposing the falseness of Joseph’s use of it, because Abraham’s test ends before anything bad happens to Isaac. So the problem isn’t the Abrahamic test, it’s Joseph’s hijacking of it.

Here's the thing about the "Test of Abraham." It affirms human sacrifice, including murdering of one's own child. At very least the willingness to commit human sacrifice. Which is bad enough.

Any god that would require such a thing is affirming this:

1. A "god" can show up, demand you murder another human, even your own child.
2. If you are willing to obey, you are "good."

As the story goes, Abraham was patted on the head as a good boy to being willing to murder his own son because some "god" showed up and told him to do it.

Who the hell in this day and age would be willing to do that?

Only a mentally deranged person. A seriously mentally ill person. Someone who should be taken out of society and locked up.

Everyone reading this knows it's true.

[Limnor]

Time to grow out of Bronze Age kindergarten belief systems.

I think there is value in exploring the meaning of these stories.

[Limnor]

Treating the Abrahamic test as epistemic and a test of trusting God results in exposing the falseness of Joseph’s use of it, because Abraham’s test ends before anything bad happens to Isaac. So the problem isn’t the Abrahamic test, it’s Joseph’s hijacking of it.

Here's the thing about the "Test of Abraham." It affirms human sacrifice, including murdering of one's own child. At very least the willingness to commit human sacrifice. Which is bad enough.

Any god that would require such a thing is affirming this:

1. A "god" can show up, demand you murder another human, even your own child.
2. If you are willing to obey, you are "good."

As the story goes, Abraham was patted on the head as a good boy to being willing to murder his own son because some "god" showed up and told him to do it.

Who the hell in this day and age would be willing to do that?

Only a mentally deranged person. A seriously mentally ill person. Someone who should be taken out of society and locked up.

Everyone reading this knows it's true.

Yes that read is morally intuitive. I’d only add that if the story really did affirm child sacrifice, it wouldn’t need to end with God stopping it.

[Gadianton]

The Abrahamic god is fascinating. He creates the world and humans, and is so taken aback that he "is sorrry" that he did it. And is "grieved in his heart." (Genesis 6:6, my favorite verse in the Bible.) So much that he decides to "kill them all!" including all land animals except for a few humans.

The Big Reset. (Why not use a well crafted virus to do the job?)

Come on, does any sane person believe that tale?

Why yes, Bill they do. People actually believe that wealthy liberals colluded with the Chinese to construct the Covid-19 virus and wipe out most of the planet as a "reset". These are the same people who believe in the most literal reading of Genesis and the tribal God of Abraham who today, favors white retired Americans like you and wants to protect them from foreigners with their false gods. Wait, you asked if they're sane. I don't know, but they are the best kind of neighbors a man like you can hope for.

[Gadianton]

I think God allows false prophets who act crookedly to rise as a further test and refinement of believers. I’m still thinking about this, because you make a good point that I can’t quite put a bow on in my own thinking.

Possibly, but we're again in crooked line territory. When it comes to straight and crooked lines, my position is that perception is reality. If a line looks crooked to a person who is morally culpable, then it's a crooked line despite any technical difference a theologian might figure out. It wouldn't be much of a test if it weren't.

One small correction—Abraham wasn’t born into it. He left everything. That doesn’t answer your larger concern about why belief should matter to God at all, but it does imply the test wasn’t related to tribal loyalty that his father was aligned to.

—Long ago, your ancestors—Terah, the father of Abraham and Nahor—lived beyond the Euphrates and served other gods. (Joshua 24:2)

Great point and I've forgotten about the story. But I'm stuck on your conclusion -- seems like this is integral to the loyalty test. If the narrative were that Abraham simply grew up as a TBM Hebrew, then the narrative would need something to challenge that. In fact, having Abraham caught between two worlds seems to be the very point of needing a test for who Abraham really serves.

The number one issue, as I see it, is the opposite as you described. It’s not that God demanded belief or worship, He was testing Abraham’s belief, and to me it was more a testing that Abraham believed God loved him more so than the other way around. John says it this way—it’s not that we love God, it’s that He loved us first.

I wonder if this means the Abraham story only survives ethically if read backwards through the New Testament.

It's a creative suggestion, as I'm looking at my fish tank and become really fond of the clown fish. I wonder if the clown fish really trusts that I will keep the bubble generator going and won't suffocate him? How might I test it?

Yeah, it would seem there is a "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" thing going on, doesn't it? We may even jump forward to modern times and wonder how to read our modern values back into the entire thing. More to the point: thesis: love loyalty to the tribe, anti-thesis: all tribes believe the same thing , synthesis: love is loyalty to all equally

[bill4long]

I’d only add that if the story really did affirm child sacrifice, it wouldn’t need to end with God stopping it.

That's what apologists like to focus on, but (what Abraham assumed was) God stopping the child sacrifice is not the point of the story. It's that Abraham was willing to commit child sacrifice, and "God" rewarding him for being willing to do it.

[bill4long]

they are the best kind of neighbors a man like you can hope for.

[bill4long]

Why yes, Bill they do. People actually believe that wealthy liberals colluded with the Chinese to construct the Covid-19 virus and wipe out most of the planet as a "reset".

Never heard that one.

These are the same people who believe in the most literal reading of Genesis and the tribal God of Abraham who today, favors white retired Americans like you

Same.

and wants to protect them from foreigners with their false gods.

They do?

Wait, you asked if they're sane. I don't know,

Apparently.

but they are the best kind of neighbors a man like you can hope for.

I suspect they wouldn't be.

Bizarre post, Gadianton

[Limnor]

It's a creative suggestion, as I'm looking at my fish tank and become really fond of the clown fish. I wonder if the clown fish really trusts that I will keep the bubble generator going and won't suffocate him? How might I test it?

Well I mean there is a bit of a difference here—you can’t deliver on a promise to give your fish eternal life, which is essentially what God promised Abraham. Your fish is dependent upon you for life, and presumably you love it, or at least care enough about it to keep it alive, so let’s work with that analogy.

The thing I think about is what is actually being tested. If the test is “who do you obey,” then love isn’t a part of it—it’s power and authority. Reading it backwards through the New Testament changes the test from “will you prove loyalty to God through obedience no matter what,” to “do you trust that God is not cruel, and that He actually loves you enough to give you eternal life?” Sacrificing the seed that would provide that eternal life doesn’t make sense unless the seed could be brought back to life.

I think we could make some distinctions about teaching obedience rather than trust. The best military leaders are trusted by their subordinates who command through establishing that trust. Although it would be fair to say that sometimes obedience to orders will not make sense at all—I’ve had to convey orders that I knew didn’t make sense. For example, during one exercise we were tasked with targeting icebreakers, which I and other subordinates thought was absurd. But we did it—I just confessed to my guys that I thought it was absurd. Generally I try to instill trust, and think that honesty is a large part of that effort.

Ok rambled on a bit there sorry. But bringing it back to your fish. Your fish is dependent on you for life, that’s true. So shutting off the bubbler to see if it still believes in you would betray that trust, not test it. Your fish trusts you because you are consistent in demonstrating faithfulness. If you promised your fish life, then telling the fish cut off that life could only make sense if you were also able, and intended, to restore it. Otherwise, it isn’t a test of trust at all—it’s just a cessation of care.

If God is promising Abraham life, then the test couldn’t be about Abraham ending that life—it would be about whether Abraham trusts that God will not betray that promise and was able, and intended, to restore it.