God can write straight with crooked lines.

[malkie]

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.

I don’t think the value that we are supposed to learn is that Abraham was willing to do evil if commanded. Why? Because if that’s the case you get a God who can redefine evil as good. If that is the type of God we are talking about, then yes, I agree, that is morally repugnant.

Instead I think the lesson is—well at least for me—that Abraham trusted God for everything that He promised—Abraham’s future, his eternal life through his lineage. Abraham trusts that God can give life, not that killing is righteous.

I'm not sure that we can say that we "get a God who can redefine evil as good", rather that we get a God whose standards of evil and good are not the same as ours.

One of the points that apologists make when critics claim that "god" would or would not want something or another is that we are not entitled to make these claims, because "god's ways are not our ways". Of course, the apologists expect the critics to accept their claims about what their god wants. I seem to recall having - or attempting to have - a conversation about this point a couple of months ago, and being (in my opinion) blown off at the end.

So, how does the situation change if we consider that no redefinition is required: us humans simply didn't understand god's definition to begin with?

[Limnor]

I get it. But let’s introduce another thought—I think motive matters. If Abraham’s motive is “I will do evil because God commands it,” then the story implies that evil can be sanctified by command—even if we’re told not to repeat it.

If, however, Abraham’s motive is trust that God will remain faithful to His promise of life and not finally require evil, then the stopping of the sacrifice isn’t a side detail—it’s the key to how to understand it.

That's one way to look at it. However, if Abraham didn't actually believe that the sacrifice would be required in the end, then the whole thing is a charade. It was no test of loyalty at all, and is thus pointless. It's the actual belief and acceptance of the command to actually kill Isaac that is the point of the ordeal, as the text itself indicates.

"Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

I've heard theologians reason that since Isaac was the "miracle child" through whom God's promises would be fulfilled, that Abe believed God would raise Isaac from the dead or somehow remedy the situation. But Abe took out the knife. (Gen 22:10) The willingness to actually commit the killing is what was rewarded.

Sorry Bill, I missed this. This discussion is exactly the type of challenge to thinking that I appreciate.

I don’t think the alternative to “Abraham expected resurrection” is that the episode becomes a charade, but you raise an excellent point about why Abraham is praised.

The text never says Abraham concludes “killing Isaac is good because God says so.” It says he fears God because he does not withhold Isaac, and I think that is what theologians would say as well.

We could probably argue about the distinction between Abraham’s refusal to withhold Isaac and the morality of killing or intent to kill him, but the text itself doesn’t explicitly reward the act of intent to kill. What it does say is that Abraham did not hold Isaac back from God, which I think could be described as an act of trust and surrender, not endorsement of violence.

I think another important lesson can be seen in what follows. It’s not a new reward unlocked by willingness to kill, but confirmation that the promise stands—and that God, not Abraham, preserves life. Which I think is one source of the fear.

[Limnor]

So, how does the situation change if we consider that no redefinition is required: us humans simply didn't understand god's definition to begin with?

That’s possible, yes. I don’t think “God’s ways are not our ways” limits our ability to recognize good as good, nor do I think God asks us to suspend that recognition—even when we’re thinking about Him. It seems more meaningful to say that we may not grasp God’s purposes, without concluding that God would will or require what is not good. I think Jesus explains something along these lines when He says a good father does not give his child a snake.

[Limnor]

You know it’s funny, I reached “God” status but nothing seems to have changed…

[bill4long]

The text never says Abraham concludes “killing Isaac is good because God says so.”

Right. I don't mean to imply that the text indicates that he did. The text doesn't go that deep. It's not the point of the text.

We could probably argue about the distinction between Abraham’s refusal to withhold Isaac and the morality of killing or intent to kill him, but the text itself doesn’t explicitly reward the act of intent to kill. What it does say is that Abraham did not hold Isaac back from God, which I think could be described as an act of trust and surrender, not endorsement of violence.

Agreed. The text is not promoting child sacrifice. It's a loyalty test of a particular man who would have killed his son had the Entity not intervened. He had the knife in his hands ready to go.

I think another important lesson can be seen in what follows. It’s not a new reward unlocked by willingness to kill, but confirmation that the promise stands—and that God, not Abraham, preserves life. Which I think is one source of the fear.

If that's something you get out of it, okay. But for me, I can't look away from the basic plot:

1. Entity tells man to kill his son.
2. Man is willing to kill his son and would have done it had Entity not intervened.
3. Entity is pleased that man had knife in hand, about to kill his son because Entity demanded he do it.

There is a palpable derangement to this kind of test, and in the nature of both actors.

(Interesting aside: Joseph Smith used the essence of this story as a bullsh*t excuse in the matter of his
failed attempt at coercing Nancy Rigdon into becoming one of his harem.)

[bill4long]

You know it’s funny, I reached “God” status but nothing seems to have changed…

Exaltation party coming in the morning.

[Limnor]

If that's something you get out of it, okay. But for me, I can't look away from the basic plot:

1. Entity tells man to kill his son.
2. Man is willing to kill his son and would have done it had Entity not intervened.
3. Entity is pleased that man had knife in hand, about to kill his son because Entity demanded he do it.

There is a palpable derangement to this kind of test, and the nature of both actors.

The truth is Bill, is I don’t feel qualified to explain any of these things and certainly don’t feel qualified to defend God. But I do seek for the value in the stories.

I suppose the same could be said for the Book of Mormon or the whole of Mormonism but I just don’t see the depth or richness to be explored—I think maybe because the meaning is so tightly held and rigidly defined that it almost seems lifeless to me.

Edited: I should qualify that the book holds no interest to me outside of discovery of how the book was produced as related to the lives of the characters.

[Limnor]

You know it’s funny, I reached “God” status but nothing seems to have changed…

Exaltation party coming in the morning.

lol yes!!!

[Fence Sitter]

You know it’s funny, I reached “God” status but nothing seems to have changed…

Well, it could be worse. If you were Mormon, you could look forward to eternal baby-making and overseeing a system in which a large percentage of your offspring are condemned to eternal damnation—because you weren’t smart enough to figure out a better system.

For entertainment, you could even create one of those McDonald’s-style signs bragging about the numbers created (served?):

“Welcome to Limnor’s universe, where he and his wife (wives?) have created 2,584,698,543,549,798,352,142 spirit children.”

The Mormon view of eternal life looks ridiculous.

[bill4long]

You know it’s funny, I reached “God” status but nothing seems to have changed…

Well, it could be worse. If you were Mormon, you could look forward to eternal baby-making and overseeing a system in which a large percentage of your offspring are condemned to eternal damnation—because you weren’t smart enough to figure out a better system.

For entertainment, you could even create one of those McDonald’s-style signs bragging about the numbers created (served?):

“Welcome to Limnor’s universe, where he and his wife (wives?) have created 2,584,698,543,549,798,352,142 spirit children.”

The Mormon view of eternal life looks ridiculous.