Was God's test for Abraham not immoral?

Christians and Jews generally acknowledge that it was an immoral act on God's part. The question of why exactly would God ask that has been a hotly debated topic throughout the ages. Dunno about Muslims, but I imagine it's the same with them.

One of the more "interesting" theories I've heard is that it's actually a reflection of a time when Israelites performed human sacrifices. The important thing isn't that God asked Abraham for a sacrifice, it's that he told him to stop.

here's the proofs

patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2011/04/when-abraham-killed-isaac/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac#Possible_child_sacrifice

>The source of all morality is immoral

thats total bullshit

I asked for PROOF and you bring me SPECULATIONS that even the articles you found failed to validate

The article you found claims that in the E source Abraham sacrificed Isaac
False

>On that reading, in the original E version of the Binding Abraham disobeys God’s command, sacrificing the ram "instead of his son" (v. 13) on his own responsibility and without being stopped by an angel: "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son; but Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked and beheld, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went, and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son" (v. 10, 13).

At most you can claim that Abraham refused the sacrifice
At most
You still haven't proven anything

>love me and obey me
>kill ur kiddo
>no don't do it, it was just a prank lmaooooo

Come on, now.

...

i get his reasoning and then reward, im not retarded. that doesn't validate how the test was moral though, if abraham said i cant kill my son God, my conscience forbids me, he still is a holy man and passed, stop being intellectually dishonest and answer me analytical, its immoral to kill an innocent person, period

see, at least this is an intelligent answer and is sensible, the context of humans sacrifing each other makes it a big difference and some lee way for saying that perhaps abrham misinterpreted God. But it still must be stressed that the test is perhaps the most immoral thing i can virtually think of, it seems so anti Godlike, it really shows the stark difference of understanding of God by men between the old testament and the new. Jesus in the last testament is the last person you could see saying that and he proves it

this sounds sketch, you cant suspend ethics

wut r u saying you mud brain

>if abraham said i cant kill my son God, my conscience forbids me, he still is a holy man and passed,

No for he refuses a direct request made by God himself.

Christians are quick to point out that the story is a sort of foreshadowing of the New Testament. God is testing Abraham to see if he would do the very thing God himself plans to do with His own son. In that sense it's less a test of blind faith and more a kind of "Well if I'm doing it for them..."

>a child killer is the spiritual progenitor of judaism
Can't argue with that

Christian theology is the biggest retcon I've ever seen.

Read Fear and Trembling if you're actually curious about it.

Damn right it is.

If you claim that your God is the source of all morality but that he also did obviously immoral things then it's an evidence for you being full of shit.

>obviously immoral things

The idea that your idea of morality is above that of God's is the height of narcissism. It's people like you that are killing the West.

but his reasoning is sound, there is literally no moral refutation except i said so and i can kill you, which makes him the same as any monster, abraham would still be holy to reject a sinful request, God knows its wrong too, hence the test, proving loyalty is not the same as proving righteousness

para phrase it, im too busy to look, i have a life working 40 hours hard labour

hunh? just because you are too subservient of a sheep to crtically think doesnt mean hes runing western civ u cuck

God isn't a humanist. Or even a human Until incarnation. He created and perpetually maintains all reality with his omnipresent (in all time and space) metaontological, changeless, all-seeing, all-knowing, non-temporal, non spacial, brainless, impassable meta-being. Can relative beings judge an absolute metabeing by their values? No

How about you just do the work and read it

The problem is that you are starting from the assumption that God is real.
It's not narcissistic to not believe a God you don't believe in is not the source of morality and you have the burden of the proof so saying that God = Good even when he does bad things is just circular reasoning.
Why so many christians and muslims can't project themselves in the head of unbelievers? That's autistic.

Circular reasoning.

No shit, as Heidegger observed, you can't define "being" without it.

m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y-i-s-s-i-m-p-l-e-a-n-d-s-t-r-a-i-g-h-t-f-o-r-w-a-r-d-y-o-u-p-o-s-t-m-o-d-e-r-n-i-s-t-r-a-t

knowing right and wrong is simple, we figure it out in practice, you cant ask a person to kill themselves or another innocent person even as a test, sinless people cant ask even more so

God can turn Isaac into a turnip, kill him, or bring him back to life; he miraculously gave Isaac life. He can demand any token of trust he wants

right until some other being that apparently has power and tells you to commit genocide, you say yes? just like that? you are proving you are not in fact intelligent but fearful, just admit it

btw im a theist

>The problem is that you are starting from the assumption that God is real.

Abraham hardly "just met".

Would I? I would check with a spiritual elder to ensure it's God first. But otherwise, yeah. I'd also accept torture if he told me to. He is the infinite sustainer of reality itself, he knows what he's doing

im talking about a new encounter that tellls you he is all powerful and proves it, you would do it because he can kill you, if you use reason though in all situations you will asses the morality and say no regardless of who asks you, ur a lying sociopath, you wouldnt tortue a child for one week cause God said so, you are pretending to be a good soldier, you're a phony

btfo

I'm just pointing out that justifying all moraly dubious actions of God in the Bible by him being the source of morality as not being an argument for someone who doesn't already believe in the Christian God and the Bible.
How is that fedora-worthy in anyway?

No. Remember that God in the end did not let Abraham kill his son. He did require the immoral act of murder, He did require the moral action of Abraham trusting in his God that all would be well. Which it was.

>how is it moral to kill an innocent person

But nobody was killed.

You overstated your case. It's certainly possible but we can't say for sure yet.

>god says they're moral
>god's followers say they're moral
>therefore they're moral

Godfags are as bad as Rickfags.

> which makes him the same as any monster

It's almost as if the Lord doesn't fall into the sets of what humans normally consider to be "benevolent", as if he were a life vending machine. It's almost as if the hand that crafted Leviathan and Behemoth has a far different perspective on morality than utilitarianism aimed at reducing pain.

:^)

CONT.

And as always, the worst God would be one who could, and would, simply make it all nice again. What a defanging of his creation that would be! To have no life choices mean anything because some faggot keeps wiping over the tapes! To bow down not to your will but the will of the pained!

What a horrible world people would wish up if they had a genie lamp...

What is moral is a kind of cosmic law, and God sits above that cosmic law, not humanism shaped fee-fees: I agree that morality isn't some shifty thing, it's following God's will. Lots of people feel it's moral to do lots of things that are immoral and are opposed to moral actions out of their own private philosophies. God's position is such that he can act in manners which we don't understand or inherently approve of at a glance. In this instance, nobody died, and the relationship between faith and meekness towards God was made clear. We get to read Kierkegaard, and others thoughts on the matter and find the lessons there in. Where does the immorality stem from to you? What principles have you held over God's head?

but hebrews were canaanites

The Old Testament wasn't about morality, it was about a pact with God for the sake of a Nation

and being omnipotent knew he would soon face the same trial with his own son that had a slightly different ending.

hey at least he didn't have to kill his son in the end. Jephthah on the other hand...

It's a reflect of the local cultures. Child sacrifice was known in Canaan and probably the early hebrews practiced it as well, so it's no surprise that it's featured here and if in a earlier version abraham actually killed him it wouldn't be surprising either.

The problem with all biblical analysis is the christcucks and kikes meddling with it because muh faith and muh feelings

>god above all being bound by human morality

Try again sweetie

God sucks ass

Woah hoa! You sure showed him! You might just hanged the world with this perspective!

>someone who doesn't already believe in the Christian God and the Bible.
A.k.a. a heathen with no real moral standards.

God can't commit immorality

Anything God does is moral

So god can rise his ass, shit on his mouth and smear it all over himself, fist his own urethta and that would be moral?

That would be moral for a human to do.

God can exterminate entire nations, and yet be in the right; for God is morality, love, and righteousness.

are you retarded thats like saying who needs parenting when children can jump off cliffs, there is a way to appease both freewill and make safe and desirable parameters, you're such a fucking pseud holy shit lmao

If that is so, how does one know when one is worshipping an evil god?

so you are saying techincally if we had more power than God himself (if that were possible) or at least equal to him, we have the right to change morality and commit genocide if we see fit correct?

There is a reason God stopped it. The child does not deserve to die. He intently asked for something immoral on purpose as a test. We see that. God doesn't need anyone to do shit for him, literally no one. The only logical solution to this moral dilemma is that the early writers of the bible had a primitive understanding of God's nature and will. I belive Abraham was doing what was cultural and God stopped him. People in the ancient times were sacrificing humans all the time for the sake of appeasing God. But we all know in reality God would never want such a thing or even suggest it to be useful or moral. Abraham was no different. He must have tried to do something casual with his son, his new son, something he has witnessed many times before. He did not yet understand the value of humans even in his apparent difficult situation. God never speaks directly to someone in human language. There must have been a disconnect in the communication. Something we have seen time and time again.

My goodness, how is this concept so hard to understand? I'm an atheist myself, but this argument is based from the viewpoint that God exists.

God is perfect, and everything God does is perfect. So, Abraham's trial is moral. Genocide is moral if it does by God (and it does occur in the OT).

You can't argue that God is immoral. That's not how God works. God, in Christianity, is what defines morality.

Assume for a moment that God does exist. You don't like him because he almost had a child killed. You go to hell and are punished for eternity. That's literally how it would work. Why do you insist on opposing God?

>athiest
nice try snake, i know ur closet, you don't go to hell for misunderstanding prottie

Genocide in the old testament is proveked by threat and danger and war, its completely different circumstance. Spilling the blood of your own child for skae of testing someones obvious morality is a COMPLETELY different context. Supremely immoral. NIce try shit for brains. Go plug your own ass with your bullshit pseud reasoning, pathetic

> That would be moral for a human to do.
Nigga u ok?

Why is it immoral?

The Christian definition of morality is very simple: if God does it, it is moral. This does not mean anyone can kill a child, because they are not God. God forbids killing. However, since God ordered Abraham to kill his child, it is moral.

Now, explain your definition, and why it should be accepted assuming God exists.

Thats why you are a pseud and dnont know the first thing about theology. Theologians will tell you that it is both ways, that something is good so God wills it and that things are good because God willed it. Its a concept they share that we will never get. However its irrelevant, i want reasoning for an isolated incident, it shouldn't be hard if it is indeed technically moral. I guess i need to find an actual qualified theologian and non one of these chan rats

No theologian I know of advocates the Euthyphro dilemma. Where did you hear this? Also, you did not counter my point. It still stands, even as an isolated incident.

God's test was to make Abraham understand what sort of being he is. God didn't need to do it for God's sake, it was for Abraham's benefit.

In other words, God tested Abraham so we can be here, discussing this subject right now.

>applying morality to God
Back to plebbit

abraham is not integral to anything in the universe, what exactly did abraham learn from God that he couldnt just tell him? he already knew he was all powerful and benevolent, why threaten and endanger and traumatize the child potentially

>I'm just pointing out that justifying all moraly dubious actions of God in the Bible by him being the source of morality as not being an argument for someone who doesn't already believe in the Christian God and the Bible.

How can God undertake morally dubious actions if he doesn't exist?
You're essentially saying that God did X, but God was wrong to do X because God is not actually God.

I am a theologian: you are wrong.
Stop making bullshit appeals.

>abraham is not integral to anything in the universe
Not true, he is one of God's closest friends according to the Bible. That alone makes him far more important than even the Universe itself.
>what exactly did abraham learn from God that he couldnt just tell him?
Look at this thread, we're all posting our own ideas and concepts and notions relating to what God is like, who is God, really? If God never tested Abraham, we would not be able to learn who God is by reflecting and understanding. Use your reason and reflect on these stories to be enlightened.

>hebrew religion
morals
pick one

>are you retarded thats like saying who needs parenting when children can jump off cliffs

Most children aren't dumb enough to jump off cliffs without appreciating the daily demonstrations of gravity.

But children will make mistakes. Legal, ethical, moral, religious, social, etc. It is the process of figuring out how to navigate mistakes that grows people into beings capable of some measure of free will. The parent who removes all obstacles and all challenges from their children is, simply, not a good parent.

>But violence, death, war, etc...

Man learns far more from pain than pleasure. Your comfortable existence was built upon the bones of men who had to constantly fear pain. It is the climb from an abyss to a mountain peak that demonstrates the greatest ascent and the greatest hedonic value. Not a helicopter ride from base zero to the top.

Reading wikipedia doesn't make you a theologian

I think that Augustine did

Learning from pain is for those who want danger and crave more, there are plenty who know their place in the cosmos and it's value, and like I said ding bat, you can keep free will but limit the parameters of disaster at the same time. Let the children play with a fence blocking the edge

He knew the outcome but Abraham could still have not done it. We have freewill.

Im saying Abraham is not integral in that he did not create anything he has no power he is a dime a dozen from God's scrapbook you dunce, he can make a million Virgin Mary's if he wanted too, my point is what is the reason in Endangering and traumatizing the child potentially in the process, why let such a horrid idea and test come out your mouth unprovoked. This must be a primitive mans writing. You're not a theologian you don't understand shit. You are a shill sheep to blind to critically think. Go talk to the elders, they'll say the same

What if Abraham in his free will ignored the angel and thought it was a trick? What he said fuck off God said kill the child and killed the child. What then? Are you gunna say God wouldn't ask him then? Then what's the point of a test? Fuckin goofs

>mfw read the old testament
>that pathetic anti-roman imaginary power trip at the end
How can people actually read these canaanite faitytales with a straight face? Now I understand why evangelists exist.

Demiurge.

Well in this case, this is a private argument between you and the biblical God over which method promotes free will and what is necessary for its flourishing.

Why are you making presumptions?
Oh yes because you couldn't argue a toddler to eat candy

All I want is a reasonable answer as to why I should think what God did there is moral. It should be simple.

I would then like to understand why then E in Genesis makes sure that God tested Abraham if in actual fact the sacrifice did happen? Genesis 22:1 makes it clear that God tested him, this cannot be consistent since it presupposes that it was meant to be a test of faith. And if J was trying to cover it up why seemingly contradict the tradition? It makes no sense. Friedman is clearly wrong and especially if he wants to be consistent with his documentary hypothesis perspective. J couldn't contradict the narrative that E has constructed if they didn't know what they were reading in the first place. An excuse of the redactor would be ad hoc as well since there's no justification other than what has been presupposed by the person making the claim. A supplementary view is no less better.

He's god. Morality doesn't apply to him. At least it didn't to the Old Testament god.

How does it being a test mean Abraham couldn't have sacrificed Isaac?

God knew the outcome of his order, but man did not know the outcome of having faith.
>testing makes no sense when you are omnipotent
Have you been in school?

the use of the Hebrew nis-sah is used to show if one can be obedient to his action, it's not the best rebuttal against it, though scholars have noted that the test is not for sacrifice (see Von Rad's Genesis) rather we can just look by how it has been written it is inconsistent with other E passages that refer to the promise of offspring, if so the Elohist understood Isaac to be part of the promise, Genesis 22:20-24 is J yet is seemingly not apologetic to the narrative, nor it would hint of a post-sacrifice. In Genesis 15 passages a mixed with J,E and P. Yet verses 3-6 are E passages:

And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.” Then the word of the LORD came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.”He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. (NIV, E passage)

The problem here is that God gave him the promise of offspring in E as well as in P. The doublet of the covenant promise. But if Friedman is correct in assuming that is true then it would spell a contradiction in the E tradition even though E is writing the narrative.

It's also inconsistent with other passages post-binding Genesis 27:26 is an E passage with Isaac kissing Jacob. 27:37 also shows Isaac talking as well. Isaac is mentioned in Exodus 3:6, yet did E mess it up? Did he not read that Isaac was killed in Genesis 22? Was his schizophrenic? A redactor is also ad hoc as well, there's no inconsistency.

The divine calling of verse 11 is also consistent with E any shifting to J due to the doublet of the calling or the use of Yahweh must then demonstrate why it parallels with 22:1 and Exodus 3:4?