independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Tue 25th Sep 2018 8:33am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Is the Religious Sphere Higher than the Ethical?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 4 of 4 <1234
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #90 posted 05/23/17 9:13am

morningsong

Dasein said:



morningsong said:




Dasein said:






It is dumb for God to ask God's followers to prove their faithfulness to God. Either you believe or you
don't. And a God who asks you to prove your belief is an insecure and faithless God playing games
with stooges and pawns and the unthinking. So, I hold the binding of Isaac as mostly an ancient story
meant to depict the primacy of faith above all else but told without too much thought on the following:





Which brings me back to the concept of people standing up infront of other people making pledges, why should any one ask another to prove their fidelty or love or anything by any gesture? Obviously such thing are dumb by this logic. Either you love somebody or not, why bother with proof?




Humans ask one another to prove their fidelity or love or anything by any gesture because humans
often require some type of reassuring in a concrete fashion; apparently, so does God.

Or, humans ought to stop conceptualizing God anthropomorphically, because a God asking a man to
kill his own kid in order to prove his fidelity to God isn't fit for worship. If God "knew the heart and
mind of Abraham," then he wouldn't have had to test his faithfulness.




You complaining about people applying their own spin to explain God's action as you apply your own. Ok. You want to speculate, I'm not convinced it was just about God needing to know the depths of Abraham's fidelity but possibly showing Abraham who he himself was because few of us truly realize who we really are until we have had our feet held to the fire, so to speak.

It's one thing to talk big about who you are it's another to act on who you are. We live in a world where people claim a whole lot of things but breakdown and fall apart at the slightest diturbance.

No matter how you slice it you have a man who stood by his talk even when it brought him to the most heartwrenching crossroad.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #91 posted 05/23/17 9:14am

morningsong

Dasein said:



morningsong said:




Dasein said:






It is dumb for God to ask God's followers to prove their faithfulness to God. Either you believe or you
don't. And a God who asks you to prove your belief is an insecure and faithless God playing games
with stooges and pawns and the unthinking. So, I hold the binding of Isaac as mostly an ancient story
meant to depict the primacy of faith above all else but told without too much thought on the following:





Which brings me back to the concept of people standing up infront of other people making pledges, why should any one ask another to prove their fidelty or love or anything by any gesture? Obviously such thing are dumb by this logic. Either you love somebody or not, why bother with proof?




Humans ask one another to prove their fidelity or love or anything by any gesture because humans
often require some type of reassuring in a concrete fashion; apparently, so does God.

Or, humans ought to stop conceptualizing God anthropomorphically, because a God asking a man to
kill his own kid in order to prove his fidelity to God isn't fit for worship. If God "knew the heart and
mind of Abraham," then he wouldn't have had to test his faithfulness.




You complaining about people applying their own spin to explain God's action as you apply your own. Ok. You want to speculate, I'm not convinced it was just about God needing to know the depths of Abraham's fidelity but possibly showing Abraham who he himself was because few of us truly realize who we really are until we have had our feet held to the fire, so to speak.

It's one thing to talk big about who you are it's another to act on who you are. We live in a world where people claim a whole lot of things but breakdown and fall apart at the slightest diturbance.

No matter how you slice it you have a man who stood by his talk even when it brought him to the most heartwrenching crossroad.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #92 posted 05/23/17 10:59am

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


What informs your understanding of "special pleading"? I'd like to know your source. Here is mine,
and you've done just that: you make an exception to the driver from NYC because he is not showing
the Way and was not shown the Way as far as we know. Otherwise, your rule of thumb for so charit-
ably understanding the actions of a father with the intent to murder his son is excused. What's your
rule of thumb? Why, if it can be shown, conclusively, that you know the Way and have been shown
the Way, then Ian will tenderheartedly reason that your murderous intention to kill your own son as
a way to indicate the Way to all others is ultimately justified.

But, what happened to Isaac afterwards, Ian? If your dad strapped you onto kindling to kill you as a
sacrifice to his God, and then stopped short of doing so at the last second only to sacrifice something
else in your stead, how do you think you would respond? Even if your dad ultimately was showing
us the Way and was shown the Way, how would you feel about him afterwards?

There is no scripture from the New Testament which supports the notion that "There is nothing that
makes how people were written about in Genesis into a set of rules by which modern Christians should
live." Jesus, who was a Jew, would never utter such a thing. So, you merely pulled that outta your
butt to soften the theological difficulties of explaining a God who asked Abraham to kill his own son as
a way to show his faithfulness, among other difficult Old Testament passages.

It is dumb for God to ask God's followers to prove their faithfulness to God. Either you believe or you
don't. And a God who asks you to prove your belief is an insecure and faithless God playing games
with stooges and pawns and the unthinking. So, I hold the binding of Isaac as mostly an ancient story
meant to depict the primacy of faith above all else but told without too much thought on the following:

1) how the construct of directly communicating with God is fraught with difficulties as individuals can
claim God as a motivating influence for any agential performance which may traverse the community's
safety and cohesion

2) how those unwittingly involved in those agential performances of the religious adherent who
believes s/he is functioning under the auspices of God's traversing of the ethical sphere may have an
adverse impact upon the mental health of his/her community. Here, I am speaking to and thinking of
Isaac's well being after his father untied him from the altar moments after his near-death experience.

. . . . .

I seriously doubt that the author of all that is needs to test us for anything and my heart breaks for
Jews and Christians who read the binding of Isaac too charitably and unthinkingly; do we really think
the author of love who argues for the primacy of love (not faith) really goes about putting tests in
front of us to test our mettle? I have no malice in my heart towards Christianity . . . ask God!

wink

.

It does not matter what my source is - your source (and any other good source) confirms my understanding and is contrary to your's.

Rule: Xs are generally Ys.
x is an X.
x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic).
Therefore, x is not a Y.

The relevant characteristics that make this not a special pleading is that a drug using person with mental health issues is different from a person in Genesis - These are the relevant differences are what I gave as substantiation for why Abraham is different from a person with mental health issues and a user of PCP.

.

As to anyone pulling anything out from a butt - show me where in the OT or the NT that the Bible instructs people to emulate Abraham by offering their child as burnt sacrifice to prove their fidelity. Hint - you can't because this is a fabrication that is counter to the rest of the Bible and indeed, counter to the outcome of this specific story. There are no Jews today or back then who would say "You know what, I should seek to try to kill my son just to test my faith in God and God's reaction". Indeed, Jesus did say to NOT put God to the test and said a lot of other things against the deontological adherence to the laws and traditions. This was a prime reason for him being crucified. So there is absolutely no reason to assume Jesus would just be a subservient little Jew never questioning when people doing things to emulate what all the people in Genesis did.

.

Your points continue to be poorly made because they are based on assumptions that are based you claiming to know what God thinks. Your malice is shown in your shameful misuse of this tragedy to seek to push your anti-Christian agenda. If you were not seeking to push this agenda, why are you almost exclusively targeting Christians when it is from the Hebrew Bible?

[Edited 5/23/17 3:05am]


Abraham gets a pass for his murderous intentions because he was in custody of the Way as God
selected him as the human conduit who would then reveal the Way to the rest of God's humanly
creatures, and that is the exception you're making for Abraham's murderous intention when
comparing the murderous intention of the NYC driver, regardless of the eventual source of his
own intention and motivation? Okay, so, being willing to kill your son in order to reveal God's
plan is permissible; what other criterion are you willing to accept and excuse the followers of God
being able to traverse the community's standards and/or traumatize innocents in an effort for
God to show us the Way? And God could only reveal the Way by asking a man to murder his son
and place his son in the arms of trauma? Surely God could've devised an altogether different
test for having Abraham reveal the true nature of his faith that didn't require harming the psyche
of an innocent, right?

I don't think I have ever argued in this thread that the OT or NT asks it readers to emulate
Abraham by offering their child as a burnt sacrifice to prove their fidelity. I am arguing, how-
ever, that the OT clearly illustrates to its readers that God can make demands of God's
followers by testing their faith which could result in a practice that traverses what is moral or
ethical; this then reveals that the OT places the religious sphere higher than the ethical, and
that God favors faith above all else in the OT; I do not recall reading or studying anything from
the NT which suggests that faith is no longer an integral and featured component of true dis-
cipleship. So, your idea that there is "nothing that makes how people were written about in
Genesis into a set of rules by which modern Christians should live" is not entirely true if Jesus
doesn't tell us to neglect the value of faith. It is only in the Gospel of John where we find
Jesus mentioning Abraham, and there, he says to the scribes and Pharisees that if they were
truly the descendants of Abraham, they would "do what he did." Well, what did Abraham do?

He chose faith to God over all else, including the life of his son . . .

The only agenda I have here is to have an honest discussion about the binding of Isaac; I am
not trying to disparage anyone's faith. I guess if it makes it easier for you to conceptualize my
posts in this thread as being anti-Christian, you can; it's not like I can force you to not do that
anyways. I do think that Christian theology features the most aesthetically pleasing value/truth
system in the west, and my intellectual heroes are mostly those who were overtly Christian, so
again, I know for certain I'm not anti-Christian, but whatevez.






  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #93 posted 05/23/17 11:05am

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


Humans ask one another to prove their fidelity or love or anything by any gesture because humans
often require some type of reassuring in a concrete fashion; apparently, so does God.

Or, humans ought to stop conceptualizing God anthropomorphically, because a God asking a man to
kill his own kid in order to prove his fidelity to God isn't fit for worship. If God "knew the heart and
mind of Abraham," then he wouldn't have had to test his faithfulness.

.

Unless, of cause, you are the one anthropomorphising by how you imagine you know the mind of God and God's needs. Perhaps all that was happening was only what was said to be happening - Abraham, a person with free will, was being asked to demonstrate that he could choose the future benefit for all over immediate for just him and his family. Having chosen the future for all, he chose to be father of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and a variety of related religions.


My anthropomorphizing of God follows the Judaic anthropomorphizing of God. If the author of the
Abraham's murderous intention didn't frame it as God testing Abraham's faith, then I would not have
the warrant nor the justification for speculating as to why God needed to test Abraham's faith in the
first place.

And in "choosing the future for all, and choosing to become the father of Judaism, Christianity, Islam,
and a variety of related religions," Abraham chose to place the mental health of his son, Isaac, in jeo-
pardy. And you still have not answered my questions to you directly:

If your dad strapped you onto kindling to kill you as a sacrifice to his God, and then stopped short of
doing so at the last second only to sacrifice something
else in your stead, how do you think you would
respond? Even if your dad ultimately was showing
us the Way and was shown the Way, how would
you feel about him afterwards?



  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #94 posted 05/23/17 11:19am

Dasein

morningsong said:


You complaining about people applying their own spin to explain God's action as you apply your own. Ok. You want to speculate, I'm not convinced it was just about God needing to know the depths of Abraham's fidelity but possibly showing Abraham who he himself was because few of us truly realize who we really are until we have had our feet held to the fire, so to speak. It's one thing to talk big about who you are it's another to act on who you are. We live in a world where people claim a whole lot of things but breakdown and fall apart at the slightest diturbance. No matter how you slice it you have a man who stood by his talk even when it brought him to the most heartwrenching crossroad.


No. I am not complaining about people applying their own spin to explain God's actions while
I get to happily apply my own. That is not what I'm doing here; stop mischaracterizing my posts,
Morning.

And no matter how rhapsodically you present Abraham, he was going to kill an innocent person in
an effort to stand by his talk. I would not have faulted Abraham if he answered God's test by abso-
lutely breaking down and falling apart:

"I'm sorry God; I'm not as faithful as I thought I was because I cannot kill my son to prove my faith-
fulness to you; and to also prove to you that when my feet are held to the fire, I can talk big about who
I am as a faithful person and act out that idea concretely by murdering an innocent child."

God could have devised a better plan than this, eh? If so, that means that "other" sacrificing of an
innocent son could be similarly ill-conceived . . .


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #95 posted 05/23/17 11:29am

morningsong

Nope the sky is not green. Or rather I say, "There are 4 lights!"


Argument hacks: "But the sky is green!"

If you ever find you've argued yourself into a corner, you may want to use an argument hack like this one to daze your opponent temporarily and get out of it. After all, you wouldn't want to actually, like, actively rethink your opinion or anything... thinking is for people who don't already know everything...

If you feel you are about to lose an argument, try blurting out something both completely unrelated and (seemingly) quite wrong, for example:
"Yeah, well, the sky is green!"
Your opponent's response is likely to be something along the lines of:
"Ugh... erm... bu-... what does that even-... No it's not! It's blue!"

At this point, you have him where you want him: confused, distracted from the actual topic, and frustrated at the lack of logic you are displaying.

The important thing is to pick a statement that, while clearly wrong, gives you enough wiggle room to be able to talk about it in a manner that continuously provokes responses.
In the "sky is green" example, you could concentrate on twisting the definitions of "green" and "blue" and, for that matter, colors in general, then switch gears suddenly to talking about the different colors the sky can be, then perhaps try to redefine "sky" altogether. If you use enough long words, your opponent will soon get either more confused or more frustrated (especially if you use them in the wrong way).

Eventually, you may be able to make him concede that there are certain circumstances, caveats and definitions under which the sky can, in fact, be loosely interpreted to be green. Either that or make him give up talking to you altogether in frustration.

At this point, you've won! Congratulations! Now what was this argument about, in the first place?..



99% of these debates are just trying to corner people with invalid arguments, so somebody tote about how right they are.

[Edited 5/23/17 11:32am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #96 posted 05/23/17 11:37am

morningsong

Dasein said:

morningsong said:


You complaining about people applying their own spin to explain God's action as you apply your own. Ok. You want to speculate, I'm not convinced it was just about God needing to know the depths of Abraham's fidelity but possibly showing Abraham who he himself was because few of us truly realize who we really are until we have had our feet held to the fire, so to speak. It's one thing to talk big about who you are it's another to act on who you are. We live in a world where people claim a whole lot of things but breakdown and fall apart at the slightest diturbance. No matter how you slice it you have a man who stood by his talk even when it brought him to the most heartwrenching crossroad.


No. I am not complaining about people applying their own spin to explain God's actions while
I get to happily apply my own. That is not what I'm doing here; stop mischaracterizing my posts,
Morning.

And no matter how rhapsodically you present Abraham, he was going to kill an innocent person in
an effort to stand by his talk. I would not have faulted Abraham if he answered God's test by abso-
lutely breaking down and falling apart:

"I'm sorry God; I'm not as faithful as I thought I was because I cannot kill my son to prove my faith-
fulness to you; and to also prove to you that when my feet are held to the fire, I can talk big about who
I am as a faithful person and act out that idea concretely by murdering an innocent child."

God could have devised a better plan than this, eh? If so, that means that "other" sacrificing of an
innocent son could be similarly ill-conceived . . .





Says the guy who stands on 5,000+ years of laws that condemn such behavior. You have really exerted yourself there.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #97 posted 05/23/17 12:15pm

Dasein

morningsong said:

Dasein said:


No. I am not complaining about people applying their own spin to explain God's actions while
I get to happily apply my own. That is not what I'm doing here; stop mischaracterizing my posts,
Morning.

And no matter how rhapsodically you present Abraham, he was going to kill an innocent person in
an effort to stand by his talk. I would not have faulted Abraham if he answered God's test by abso-
lutely breaking down and falling apart:

"I'm sorry God; I'm not as faithful as I thought I was because I cannot kill my son to prove my faith-
fulness to you; and to also prove to you that when my feet are held to the fire, I can talk big about who
I am as a faithful person and act out that idea concretely by murdering an innocent child."

God could have devised a better plan than this, eh? If so, that means that "other" sacrificing of an
innocent son could be similarly ill-conceived . . .





Says the guy who stands on 5,000+ years of laws that condemn such behavior. You have really exerted yourself there.


So, my argument is to be criticized for when it was made? I've always found retorts such as the one
you've fashioned here as being useless and unfair. I guess if I build a time machine, fly back to the
Saudi Arabian peninsula to the time appropriate and chastise Abraham personally then you would
be reluctant to find fault in my gripes about Abraham's traversing of the ethical sphere in an effort
to prove faith to a God who is ironically faithless. I mean, what else do you want me to stand on?

But, we all know what you would do if today, God asked you to kill your kid to prove your faith to your
God. You said you would:

"Pray until I sweat blood. Seek the counsel of many whose faith I admire and respect because I know
for a fact my piety is nowhere near as firm to be taking random instructions from my head that goes
against what I discern to be correct
pray until you bled, and then consult members of your community
for guidance."

Oh really? Well, why shouldn't I be as dismissive here as you have been to me? I continue to be
amused by your and Ian's utter churlishness and coarseness in having discussions that you two in-
sist upon interpreting only as an attack on your faith.

You two ought to lighten up a bit; Christianity is so serious that it must not be taken as such!

(kierkegaard would be proud of me for saying that)




  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #98 posted 05/23/17 12:21pm

Dasein

morningsong said:

Nope the sky is not green. Or rather I say, "There are 4 lights!"


Argument hacks: "But the sky is green!"

If you ever find you've argued yourself into a corner, you may want to use an argument hack like this one to daze your opponent temporarily and get out of it. After all, you wouldn't want to actually, like, actively rethink your opinion or anything... thinking is for people who don't already know everything...

If you feel you are about to lose an argument, try blurting out something both completely unrelated and (seemingly) quite wrong, for example:
"Yeah, well, the sky is green!"
Your opponent's response is likely to be something along the lines of:
"Ugh... erm... bu-... what does that even-... No it's not! It's blue!"

At this point, you have him where you want him: confused, distracted from the actual topic, and frustrated at the lack of logic you are displaying.

The important thing is to pick a statement that, while clearly wrong, gives you enough wiggle room to be able to talk about it in a manner that continuously provokes responses.
In the "sky is green" example, you could concentrate on twisting the definitions of "green" and "blue" and, for that matter, colors in general, then switch gears suddenly to talking about the different colors the sky can be, then perhaps try to redefine "sky" altogether. If you use enough long words, your opponent will soon get either more confused or more frustrated (especially if you use them in the wrong way).

Eventually, you may be able to make him concede that there are certain circumstances, caveats and definitions under which the sky can, in fact, be loosely interpreted to be green. Either that or make him give up talking to you altogether in frustration.

At this point, you've won! Congratulations! Now what was this argument about, in the first place?..



99% of these debates are just trying to corner people with invalid arguments, so somebody tote about how right they are.

[Edited 5/23/17 11:32am]


This is hogwash.

My original post features six questions. Conversations, inherently, are tangential and digressive with
nuances and sub-contexts spilling out and about, over and under the original question(s) posed. No-
thing in my posts collectively reveals me slipping a red herring into the bunch so as to prevent my
conversation partners from waylaying my arguments or to cause a distraction due to my perception of
being overwhelmed.

This is a purposeful mischaracterization on your part so as to impugn my intellectual honesty and I
think it's fucking reprehensible, Morning. I've lost some respect for you, truthfully.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #99 posted 05/23/17 12:27pm

morningsong

Dasein said:

morningsong said:

Nope the sky is not green. Or rather I say, "There are 4 lights!"


Argument hacks: "But the sky is green!"

If you ever find you've argued yourself into a corner, you may want to use an argument hack like this one to daze your opponent temporarily and get out of it. After all, you wouldn't want to actually, like, actively rethink your opinion or anything... thinking is for people who don't already know everything...

If you feel you are about to lose an argument, try blurting out something both completely unrelated and (seemingly) quite wrong, for example:
"Yeah, well, the sky is green!"
Your opponent's response is likely to be something along the lines of:
"Ugh... erm... bu-... what does that even-... No it's not! It's blue!"

At this point, you have him where you want him: confused, distracted from the actual topic, and frustrated at the lack of logic you are displaying.

The important thing is to pick a statement that, while clearly wrong, gives you enough wiggle room to be able to talk about it in a manner that continuously provokes responses.
In the "sky is green" example, you could concentrate on twisting the definitions of "green" and "blue" and, for that matter, colors in general, then switch gears suddenly to talking about the different colors the sky can be, then perhaps try to redefine "sky" altogether. If you use enough long words, your opponent will soon get either more confused or more frustrated (especially if you use them in the wrong way).

Eventually, you may be able to make him concede that there are certain circumstances, caveats and definitions under which the sky can, in fact, be loosely interpreted to be green. Either that or make him give up talking to you altogether in frustration.

At this point, you've won! Congratulations! Now what was this argument about, in the first place?..



99% of these debates are just trying to corner people with invalid arguments, so somebody tote about how right they are.

[Edited 5/23/17 11:32am]


This is hogwash.

My original post features six questions. Conversations, inherently, are tangential and digressive with
nuances and sub-contexts spilling out and about, over and under the original question(s) posed. No-
thing in my posts collectively reveals me slipping a red herring into the bunch so as to prevent my
conversation partners from waylaying my arguments or to cause a distraction due to my perception of
being overwhelmed.

This is a purposeful mischaracterization on your part so as to impugn my intellectual honesty and I
think it's fucking reprehensible, Morning. I've lost some respect for you, truthfully.



Your OP was basing Abraham's actions against the commandments. They didn't exist for Abraham. So you've kept flipping your argument to show the great extent of your own morality. Which honestly isn't impressive because you are living in an age where you don't really have to weigh what is right or wrong those decisions have been made for you. You just have to chose to follow them or not. Most of us chose to follow them.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #100 posted 05/23/17 12:56pm

Dasein

morningsong said:

Dasein said:


This is hogwash.

My original post features six questions. Conversations, inherently, are tangential and digressive with
nuances and sub-contexts spilling out and about, over and under the original question(s) posed. No-
thing in my posts collectively reveals me slipping a red herring into the bunch so as to prevent my
conversation partners from waylaying my arguments or to cause a distraction due to my perception of
being overwhelmed.

This is a purposeful mischaracterization on your part so as to impugn my intellectual honesty and I
think it's fucking reprehensible, Morning. I've lost some respect for you, truthfully.



Your OP was basing Abraham's actions against the commandments. They didn't exist for Abraham. So you've kept flipping your argument to show the great extent of your own morality. Which honestly isn't impressive because you are living in an age where you don't really have to weigh what is right or wrong those decisions have been made for you. You just have to chose to follow them or not. Most of us chose to follow them.


I've argued, reasonably, that it is likely that Abraham wasn't practicing child sacrifice as sometimes
what is a law is only promulgated officially after the practice has been established; and that Abraham's
reluctance to be honest with Isaac about the true nature of the sacrifice in addition to his purposeful
fabrication to the two servants who accompanied him are both an indication that Abraham knew he
was traversing the ethical. In other words, if Abraham was ethically permitted to sacrifice his son, he
would have told Isaac: "You're going to die today" and he would have told the two servants: "I'm
sacrificing Isaac. When I return from the mountaintop, I will be alone" - if you remember the story,
Abraham tells the two servants that he and Isaac will return from the sacrificial ceremony:

Genesis 22:5 (NRSV)

"Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come
back to you."


Well, he says this to them because he knows if he told them what he was doing, they would probably
accuse him of being a child-killer. But nowhere have I flipped my argument; that's bullshit. If there is
a criticism that I have towards those who are faithful, it's that religious adherents seem to choose
to follow decisions made for them by men who lived thousands of years ago without any critical reflect-
ion.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #101 posted 05/23/17 1:19pm

morningsong

Dasein said:

morningsong said:



Your OP was basing Abraham's actions against the commandments. They didn't exist for Abraham. So you've kept flipping your argument to show the great extent of your own morality. Which honestly isn't impressive because you are living in an age where you don't really have to weigh what is right or wrong those decisions have been made for you. You just have to chose to follow them or not. Most of us chose to follow them.


I've argued, reasonably, that it is likely that Abraham wasn't practicing child sacrifice as sometimes
what is a law is only promulgated officially after the practice has been established; and that Abraham's
reluctance to be honest with Isaac about the true nature of the sacrifice in addition to his purposeful
fabrication to the two servants who accompanied him are both an indication that Abraham knew he
was traversing the ethical. In other words, if Abraham was ethically permitted to sacrifice his son, he
would have told Isaac: "You're going to die today" and he would have told the two servants: "I'm
sacrificing Isaac. When I return from the mountaintop, I will be alone" - if you remember the story,
Abraham tells the two servants that he and Isaac will return from the sacrificial ceremony:

Genesis 22:5 (NRSV)

"Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come
back to you."


Well, he says this to them because he knows if he told them what he was doing, they would probably
accuse him of being a child-killer. But nowhere have I flipped my argument; that's bullshit. If there is
a criticism that I have towards those who are faithful, it's that religious adherents seem to choose
to follow decisions made for them by men who lived thousands of years ago without any critical reflect-
ion.



Now you are flipping it to whether Abraham the individual was/wasn't in the habit of practicing child sacrafice, yet this whole time the argument turned into whether the surrrounding community might have been. Show you evidence that there were other people in the region who did and now you flip to how Abraham should have just known better. This is a waste of my time because all you want is to be right about anything, and I've said it before I don't care about you being right. Your OP is completely proven unvalid by one sentence and you can't admit it. I've got work to do. See ya.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #102 posted 05/23/17 1:46pm

Dasein

morningsong said:

Dasein said:


I've argued, reasonably, that it is likely that Abraham wasn't practicing child sacrifice as sometimes
what is a law is only promulgated officially after the practice has been established; and that Abraham's
reluctance to be honest with Isaac about the true nature of the sacrifice in addition to his purposeful
fabrication to the two servants who accompanied him are both an indication that Abraham knew he
was traversing the ethical. In other words, if Abraham was ethically permitted to sacrifice his son, he
would have told Isaac: "You're going to die today" and he would have told the two servants: "I'm
sacrificing Isaac. When I return from the mountaintop, I will be alone" - if you remember the story,
Abraham tells the two servants that he and Isaac will return from the sacrificial ceremony:

Genesis 22:5 (NRSV)

"Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come
back to you."


Well, he says this to them because he knows if he told them what he was doing, they would probably
accuse him of being a child-killer. But nowhere have I flipped my argument; that's bullshit. If there is
a criticism that I have towards those who are faithful, it's that religious adherents seem to choose
to follow decisions made for them by men who lived thousands of years ago without any critical reflect-
ion.



Now you are flipping it to whether Abraham the individual was/wasn't in the habit of practicing child sacrafice, yet this whole time the argument turned into whether the surrrounding community might have been. Show you evidence that there were other people in the region who did and now you flip to how Abraham should have just known better. This is a waste of my time because all you want is to be right about anything, and I've said it before I don't care about you being right. Your OP is completely proven unvalid by one sentence and you can't admit it. I've got work to do. See ya.


Why are you struggling with this?

In the post above, I'm not "flipping it to whether Abraham the individual was/wasn't in the habit of
practicing child sacrafice." Instead, I was merely responding to you stating:

"Your OP was basing Abraham's actions against the commandments. They didn't exist for Abraham."

Your argument is that I can only conceptualize Isaac's binding as being unethical through the lens of
Mosaic law, but that didn't exist at the time of this particular narrative which then makes my original
post null and void. But I'm saying that despite this fact, it is likely that Abraham was already
practicing ethics related to what would soon be Mosaic as what is indicated in his deceit in the narra-
tive itself. I also remember challenging you on some weird attempt of yours to make a distinction
between 'ethic' and 'morality' so that even if Abraham was culturally permitted to murder and sacrifice
his son, that his morality, if placed within that weird distinction you tried to make between the afore-
mentioned, should have prevented him from committing what would be considered ethical.

And I was the first one in this thread who fully acknowledged that child sacrificing was a norm for
other cultures in the region, not you. Yet, there is nothing in my posts, in their sum total, that can
be said to reveal me "flipping" my arguments around for the purposes of my own deceit.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #103 posted 05/23/17 2:21pm

Dasein

I'm looking over my posts and I don't see anywhere I've been purposefully distractive, inconsistent,
or even grossly inappropriate or disrespectful save for one crack I made about Abraham being totally
nuts that was clearly a joke.

So, I don't quite understand your charge against me, Morning, but I do understand why you and Ian
have been kinda discourteous; nobody likes having their faith questioned as pugnaciously as I can
come across, so I'm sorry for being so.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #104 posted 05/23/17 4:01pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.

It does not matter what my source is - your source (and any other good source) confirms my understanding and is contrary to your's.

Rule: Xs are generally Ys.
x is an X.
x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic).
Therefore, x is not a Y.

The relevant characteristics that make this not a special pleading is that a drug using person with mental health issues is different from a person in Genesis - These are the relevant differences are what I gave as substantiation for why Abraham is different from a person with mental health issues and a user of PCP.

.

As to anyone pulling anything out from a butt - show me where in the OT or the NT that the Bible instructs people to emulate Abraham by offering their child as burnt sacrifice to prove their fidelity. Hint - you can't because this is a fabrication that is counter to the rest of the Bible and indeed, counter to the outcome of this specific story. There are no Jews today or back then who would say "You know what, I should seek to try to kill my son just to test my faith in God and God's reaction". Indeed, Jesus did say to NOT put God to the test and said a lot of other things against the deontological adherence to the laws and traditions. This was a prime reason for him being crucified. So there is absolutely no reason to assume Jesus would just be a subservient little Jew never questioning when people doing things to emulate what all the people in Genesis did.

.

Your points continue to be poorly made because they are based on assumptions that are based you claiming to know what God thinks. Your malice is shown in your shameful misuse of this tragedy to seek to push your anti-Christian agenda. If you were not seeking to push this agenda, why are you almost exclusively targeting Christians when it is from the Hebrew Bible?

[Edited 5/23/17 3:05am]


Abraham gets a pass for his murderous intentions because he was in custody of the Way as God
selected him as the human conduit who would then reveal the Way to the rest of God's humanly
creatures, and that is the exception you're making for Abraham's murderous intention when
comparing the murderous intention of the NYC driver, regardless of the eventual source of his
own intention and motivation? Okay, so, being willing to kill your son in order to reveal God's
plan is permissible; what other criterion are you willing to accept and excuse the followers of God
being able to traverse the community's standards and/or traumatize innocents in an effort for
God to show us the Way? And God could only reveal the Way by asking a man to murder his son
and place his son in the arms of trauma? Surely God could've devised an altogether different
test for having Abraham reveal the true nature of his faith that didn't require harming the psyche
of an innocent, right?

I don't think I have ever argued in this thread that the OT or NT asks it readers to emulate
Abraham by offering their child as a burnt sacrifice to prove their fidelity. I am arguing, how-
ever, that the OT clearly illustrates to its readers that God can make demands of God's
followers by testing their faith which could result in a practice that traverses what is moral or
ethical; this then reveals that the OT places the religious sphere higher than the ethical, and
that God favors faith above all else in the OT; I do not recall reading or studying anything from
the NT which suggests that faith is no longer an integral and featured component of true dis-
cipleship. So, your idea that there is "nothing that makes how people were written about in
Genesis into a set of rules by which modern Christians should live" is not entirely true if Jesus
doesn't tell us to neglect the value of faith. It is only in the Gospel of John where we find
Jesus mentioning Abraham, and there, he says to the scribes and Pharisees that if they were
truly the descendants of Abraham, they would "do what he did." Well, what did Abraham do?

He chose faith to God over all else, including the life of his son . . .

The only agenda I have here is to have an honest discussion about the binding of Isaac; I am
not trying to disparage anyone's faith. I guess if it makes it easier for you to conceptualize my
posts in this thread as being anti-Christian, you can; it's not like I can force you to not do that
anyways. I do think that Christian theology features the most aesthetically pleasing value/truth
system in the west, and my intellectual heroes are mostly those who were overtly Christian, so
again, I know for certain I'm not anti-Christian, but whatevez.

.

You are going in circles and never addressing what others say, just different ways of saying your anti-Christian agenda. The only progress is you have dropped your misuse of what a special pleading is.

.

It is your interpretation that Abraham was murderous. As I said before, Abrahm was being tested in his faith and his belief in that faith that God would be true to his word that Abraham would be the father of Nations. Isaac was not at risk in Abraham's eyes as Isaac was the child promised for more than 20 years. All the bunkum about murderous intent is poorly made and meaningless.

.

As to Isaac: The OT has zero qualms about discussing the personal failings of all of the Prophets, Kings and others. You in your profession would know the signs of an adult or child who has suffered serious trauma - these would equate to some of the types of failings attributed to others in OT. This is not evident in how Isaac is subsequently discussed. You don't have the full facts - perhaps God loved Isaac so that God ensured that Isaac would not suffer or know what Abraham was put through? Perhaps Isaac was unaware, perhaps Abraham was made to believe he bound Isaac before God revealed the sacrificial lamb. Perhaps the story about Abraham being put to the ultimate test is structured to aid memnonics and occured but occured slightly differently. As I said you have fallen for the atheist argument trap of being even more fundamentalist than a Fundamentalist Jew or Christian and in doing so, you miss the point of the story.

.

Re your massive re-interpretation that somehow I was saying that Jesus taught againt Faith - A good strawman is close to what you are deliberating misinterpreting. When it is ridiculously different it is self defeating. When I say we are not taught in the rest of the OT and all of the NT to emulate all the people in Genesis and you argue that there is no scriptural basis for this claim and say Jesus, as a Jew, never said we should not, you are arguing the Bible expects us to be good Jews and emulate what Abraham did to Isaac because it is in Genesis. Your claim is wrong, even you now admit it, but your strawman is "wronger".

.

Yes, Abraham choose faith in God over all else. But more than that, Abraham choose faith in God over all else because he trusted God and in that trust he knew, just as God did provide the miracle birth of Isaac as promised, that God would provide Nations of people as the children of Abraham on the back of Abraham's faith because Abraham demonstrated his choice to trust in God. God's promise was fullfilled Billions of times over.

.

Your defence of why you are not anti-Christian sounds so much like "I am not racist, some my friends are ...""

[Edited 5/23/17 17:03pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #105 posted 05/23/17 4:05pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.

Unless, of cause, you are the one anthropomorphising by how you imagine you know the mind of God and God's needs. Perhaps all that was happening was only what was said to be happening - Abraham, a person with free will, was being asked to demonstrate that he could choose the future benefit for all over immediate for just him and his family. Having chosen the future for all, he chose to be father of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and a variety of related religions.


My anthropomorphizing of God follows the Judaic anthropomorphizing of God. If the author of the
Abraham's murderous intention didn't frame it as God testing Abraham's faith, then I would not have
the warrant nor the justification for speculating as to why God needed to test Abraham's faith in the
first place.

And in "choosing the future for all, and choosing to become the father of Judaism, Christianity, Islam,
and a variety of related religions," Abraham chose to place the mental health of his son, Isaac, in jeo-
pardy. And you still have not answered my questions to you directly:

If your dad strapped you onto kindling to kill you as a sacrifice to his God, and then stopped short of
doing so at the last second only to sacrifice something
else in your stead, how do you think you would
respond? Even if your dad ultimately was showing
us the Way and was shown the Way, how would
you feel about him afterwards?



.

How the Jewish people interprete and wrote about God has nothing to do with Christian Faith - we have the Word from the Word himself.

.

I have addressed Isaac in another post but add you should know better than to diagnose on the basis of a few paragraphs in a book.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #106 posted 05/23/17 4:19pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

morningsong said:

Nope the sky is not green. Or rather I say, "There are 4 lights!"


Argument hacks: "But the sky is green!"

If you ever find you've argued yourself into a corner, you may want to use an argument hack like this one to daze your opponent temporarily and get out of it. After all, you wouldn't want to actually, like, actively rethink your opinion or anything... thinking is for people who don't already know everything...

If you feel you are about to lose an argument, try blurting out something both completely unrelated and (seemingly) quite wrong, for example:
"Yeah, well, the sky is green!"
Your opponent's response is likely to be something along the lines of:
"Ugh... erm... bu-... what does that even-... No it's not! It's blue!"

At this point, you have him where you want him: confused, distracted from the actual topic, and frustrated at the lack of logic you are displaying.

The important thing is to pick a statement that, while clearly wrong, gives you enough wiggle room to be able to talk about it in a manner that continuously provokes responses.
In the "sky is green" example, you could concentrate on twisting the definitions of "green" and "blue" and, for that matter, colors in general, then switch gears suddenly to talking about the different colors the sky can be, then perhaps try to redefine "sky" altogether. If you use enough long words, your opponent will soon get either more confused or more frustrated (especially if you use them in the wrong way).

Eventually, you may be able to make him concede that there are certain circumstances, caveats and definitions under which the sky can, in fact, be loosely interpreted to be green. Either that or make him give up talking to you altogether in frustration.

At this point, you've won! Congratulations! Now what was this argument about, in the first place?..



99% of these debates are just trying to corner people with invalid arguments, so somebody tote about how right they are.

[Edited 5/23/17 11:32am]


This is hogwash.

My original post features six questions. Conversations, inherently, are tangential and digressive with
nuances and sub-contexts spilling out and about, over and under the original question(s) posed. No-
thing in my posts collectively reveals me slipping a red herring into the bunch so as to prevent my
conversation partners from waylaying my arguments or to cause a distraction due to my perception of
being overwhelmed.

This is a purposeful mischaracterization on your part so as to impugn my intellectual honesty and I
think it's fucking reprehensible, Morning. I've lost some respect for you, truthfully.

.

What about the red herrings in the OP? Where is your discussion about the sturdiness of the driver's defence etc. That you could subsequently find 6 bits you really wanted to discuss among the red herrings is a poor defence.

.

Then there is the red herring that Jesus blindly peddled deontological adherence to the requirement that good Jews must emulate all the people in Genesis. Or the distraction that suddenly you were concerned about Isaac's mental health. Or the either your comment about Christian faith being built on nothing but when pushed on this it only being a joke.

.

And the final distraction: I have lost respect for you - another common trick used to put the other person on the backfoot

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #107 posted 05/23/17 4:29pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

morningsong said:



Your OP was basing Abraham's actions against the commandments. They didn't exist for Abraham. So you've kept flipping your argument to show the great extent of your own morality. Which honestly isn't impressive because you are living in an age where you don't really have to weigh what is right or wrong those decisions have been made for you. You just have to chose to follow them or not. Most of us chose to follow them.


I've argued, reasonably, that it is likely that Abraham wasn't practicing child sacrifice as sometimes
what is a law is only promulgated officially after the practice has been established; and that Abraham's
reluctance to be honest with Isaac about the true nature of the sacrifice in addition to his purposeful
fabrication to the two servants who accompanied him are both an indication that Abraham knew he
was traversing the ethical. In other words, if Abraham was ethically permitted to sacrifice his son, he
would have told Isaac: "You're going to die today" and he would have told the two servants: "I'm
sacrificing Isaac. When I return from the mountaintop, I will be alone" - if you remember the story,
Abraham tells the two servants that he and Isaac will return from the sacrificial ceremony:

Genesis 22:5 (NRSV)

"Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come
back to you."


Well, he says this to them because he knows if he told them what he was doing, they would probably
accuse him of being a child-killer. But nowhere have I flipped my argument; that's bullshit. If there is
a criticism that I have towards those who are faithful, it's that religious adherents seem to choose
to follow decisions made for them by men who lived thousands of years ago without any critical reflect-
ion.

.

In this you are ignoring that Abraham had faith that he and his child would be the beginning of nations of people and that Abraham said GOD would provide the sacrifice and God did provide a sacrifice and it was not Isaac.

.

NO ONE is following decisions made for them thousands of years ago. You, yourself have agreed that NO ONE in the OT or NT decided that we should emulate Abraham and test our faith and our God by offering our child as burnt offering. Billions of people from multiple religions have considered this story and most of agree that we would not have that level of faith but concede that Abraham as one of the prime preparers of the Way necessarily had more revealled to directly him than we do.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #108 posted 05/23/17 4:58pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

I'm looking over my posts and I don't see anywhere I've been purposefully distractive, inconsistent,
or even grossly inappropriate or disrespectful save for one crack I made about Abraham being totally
nuts that was clearly a joke.

So, I don't quite understand your charge against me, Morning, but I do understand why you and Ian
have been kinda discourteous; nobody likes having their faith questioned as pugnaciously as I can
come across, so I'm sorry for being so.

.

The disourtesy is purely on the basis of what I said to you from the beginning - The question is meandering mess that shamefully seeks to use a tragedy for you own anti-Christian agenda - as predicted the thread devolved into the standard OT attack against Christian beliefs. As you have not raised a single thing that has not been raised for thousands of years by billions of people of faith and your new argument style is seriously only impressive to one person, you are not causing anyone to question their faith. Before you can do this, you need to put your thinking cap on and not just your "how can I extend the argument" hat.

.

Any frustration in my replies are because of what you ignore - you have said nothing at all about where the religious "sphere", or even good conscience has elevated the norms and mores of societies eg against slavery. It is also because the new you takes things so selectively fundamentally, when the old you would go off about people quoting scripture at your arguments.

.

The simple answer to the question is: there is nothing distinct and separate about the religious sphere from the ethical one - they are different subsets of the whole with A LOT of intersection - a proper ethical responce driven by the teachings of Jesus will likely be superior than any society's norms or mores and it is what we should strive for. There is no one who believes the driver's defence is sturdy enough to allow him to kill people with his car because Abraham was put to a test thousands of years ago.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 4 of 4 <1234
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Is the Religious Sphere Higher than the Ethical?