free will ?

[Jenyar]

1) Why did god inflict incredible emotional torment on abraham by commanding him to kill his son as a test of his faith? Then at the last second, as abrahan was going insane with grief as he was about to kill his son, god says "wait! haha I was only joking, don't kill your son".

Maybe you should read the story first before putting it in your own words.

) God has a bet with the devil that job will still be faithful to god even after god inflicts one hell after another on job. God wracks job's body with pain and disease and ignores his cries of mercy just to amuse the devil. God SHOULD have inflicted pain on the devil as a bet with job to see if the devil will come around and worship god. But no, he inflicts unspeakable pain on his child instead. And for what? A bet...of all things.

The Book of Job is a poem. "The wager" as it is sometimes called, shows how much is depending on our faith. Our perseverence is taken note of on a cosmic scale. God had enough faith in Job to trust him to prove the devil wrong, and Job had enough faith in God to prove the devil wrong. Once again, you would do well to read it first-hand.

 

[alain]

man that God is wacked, although, jenyar, what is YOUR impression of what he did to Abraham and Job?

 

[Jenyar]

God was testing the faith of Abraham and his son, emphazing what faith would mean for him and his descendents - a faith that Jesus and Job confirmed. The world will demand suffering from us, but God will grant us life. God demanded complete obedience, and showed that it lead to freedom, not slavery.

Job could have cursed God and died; Abraham could have decided to save his son and forfeit his relationship with God. The question isn't whether God was right to test them, but whether they were justified in their faith.

Well, were they?

 

[Alaric]

By asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, God committed the ultimate betrayal. By agreeing, Abe sold his soul to the devil, by proving that he had no moral fibre in his body and was willing to murder his own son just to get into heaven.

 

[okinrus]

Alaric, the translations that I've read say only that Abram was to present Issac to to the Lord. As for heaven, I think if you read early Jewish writings you will see that heaven is very vague concept. It's possible that Abraham had no knowledge at all of the after life. Your also mistaking faith for some sort of rational reasoning based upon the existence of heaven

 

[mario]

Couldn't god act in a kinder, gentler way to prove faith for him? Why go to such extreme measures? Or is it like an equation...greater pain equals greater faith?

And testing "faith" when god is right there in front of them? Heck, it's not a test of faith. It's more like a test of servitude. But who would complain about pain when an almighty being, that can determine your existence in a blink of an eye, is watching you.

 

[Alaric]

Alaric, the translations that I've read say only that Abram was to present Issac to to the Lord. As for heaven, I think if you read early Jewish writings you will see that heaven is very vague concept. It's possible that Abraham had no knowledge at all of the after life. Your also mistaking faith for some sort of rational reasoning based upon the existence of heaven

I hope you're right! However, the sacrifice is what the religions believe nowadays. The problem is that Abraham has, of course, no right to kill anyone as a show of faith. He can kill himself if he wants, but he never has the right to violate others' freedoms for his own beliefs (there are lots of suicidal fanatics that need to realise this). No matter what the reality is, it is evil for God to ask it, and evil for Abraham to agree.

Although, I have to add that the Abrahamic faiths have wrestled with this question for ages, which hints that there is some inherent good in most people that tries to see the positive in the story, and don't use it to justify their own murders.

 

[Jenyar]

I think you're ignoring a few important dialogues in the story:
In Genesis 21 God tells Abraham: "...it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." (v.12).

This was a continuation of the promise God made that He would give Abraham a son with Sarah, even though it seemed impossible. Abraham had to persevere in faith to believe any of God's promises. When ordering him to sacrifice Isaac in Gen. 22 it is to make certain that Abraham realizes who is in control.

As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.​

Abraham knew He was doing God's will, that God would provide, but He also knew God was providing on the basis of his obedience. God was more interested in preserving a faith that would ensure survival, than in a survival that would only lead to death, if you follow my meaning.

"I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."​

Of course, this isn't all there is to it. Listen to what Paul writes centuries later:

Romans 8
31What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies.​

Your charge is that God should have been less demanding in his expectation of faith. But God just showed what kind of sacrifice we might have to make. God completely justified Abraham's faith - we can't say Abraham sold his soul because the same faith that he had in God is the one that will rescue us from the fire. If we don't believe God can provide salvation, we are lost.

Or to put it more clearly: if God did not ask Abraham to intrude on Isaac's freedom to live, our faith would have been to weak to mean anything. And if God hadn't shown in this way that He has mercy and not death in mind, what little faith we did have would have been in vain.

What you call "intruding", God calls "intervening". He has to intrude on our life if He is to intervene in our death.

 

[Alaric]

Interesting reply, Jenyar. However, he didn't know that it was indeed God that spoke to him. My problem is that it teaches people to blindly do what their told - wasn't there some serial killer whose excuse was that God told him to commit the murders? Obviously no sane Christian would have believed the voices in his head, so why did Abraham? And again, Abraham has no right to kill Isaac - he must ask permission of Isaac first (who is likely no old enough to understand), at the very least.

 

[Jenyar]

However, he didn't know that it was indeed God that spoke to him.

I disagree:

Gen.22:1
Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.​

My problem is that it teaches people to blindly do what their told - wasn't there some serial killer whose excuse was that God told him to commit the murders?

That's the danger when you only read the Bible superficially, just so you can justify yourself. A murderer has no excuse. He has already shown contempt for God, so how would citing Abraham's faith in God help him? As I've quoted before: it's God who justifies.

Obviously no sane Christian would have believed the voices in his head, so why did Abraham?

As we gain knowledge about what's right and wrong, we just condemn ourselves (and undo the work of God's Spirit) by going back to being ingorant. You can't fake ignorance, at least, not to God. We don't make sacrifices anymore, because the final sacrifice has been made. If a voice tells you to kill someone or sacrifice something now, you should run like hell, because it's not God speaking.

How will you know? By reading the Bible and educating yourself about what has happened since 2000BC...

And again, Abraham has no right to kill Isaac - he must ask permission of Isaac first (who is likely no old enough to understand), at the very least.And again, Abraham has no right to kill Isaac - he must ask permission of Isaac first (who is likely no old enough to understand), at the very least.

How should Abraham suddenly have understood 21st century customs? Muslims say the boy was at the age of consent, about thirteen years old (and told Abraham to "do what God wills"). Does that make it better for you? I doubt it. The fact is that Isaac was a miracle from God (Abraham was 100 years old and Sarah was barren when she conceived him); Abraham had little say in his life or his death.

Abraham had been subject to God's promise from the beginning, and within that special relationship he had with God, he had no reason in the world to doubt (and disobey) God. And we have no reason to think he was dim-witted or gullible. If you were in such a close relationship with God, it would have been you explaining his faith to me, not the other way around. There's a reason God preferred a community of believers who could protect His commandments, instead of continuing using single individuals with their own revelations. God taught Israel to watch over each other, and Jesus disciples taught the Christians to moderate one another as a church (Matt.18:15). Discipline, get it?

This might also help a little: God established a hierarchy to carry on a certain kind of faith. Every instance in the Bible where something happens that seems to violate our sense of justice, is at the top (establishing) end of the hierarchy: Noah, Abraham, the prophets, etc. They carried God's establishing authority, and were told to pass their knowledge, experience and faith on to their children. They were to establish it, and once it was established, it was set in stone - there was no going back on God's word. That's why we have something like a Bible today: it represents the established will of God, and gives us the necessary insights into how it was established. The final establishing act (almost an act of Creation itself) was the miracle of Jesus' resurrection. Through Him, God's kingdom had been inaugerated - established. All authority lies with Him, and there is nothing we can do establish it any further. What we are doing now is to proclaim it. The wedding is on, the invited guests didn't arrive, and now God is calling everybody off the streets to attend (read Matt. 22 if you don't believe me.) And you don't invite someone to a wedding by proclaiming war on him.

 

[Alaric]

Given our imperfect knowledge of the world, what God needs to give us is a little inescapable logic to determine right from wrong, God's word from the Devil, right interpretation from wrong. By demanding obedience, God was testing Abraham's willingness to do as He wished in place of common sense and belief in himself - trusting that Abe would let God do the thinking for him, trusting in a higher purpose, mysterious ways etc. Until we have the logic in place, we have no reason to come to the wedding.

I know Kierkegaard has dealt with this issue, I'm going to try and find it.

 

[Jenyar]

Given our imperfect knowledge of the world, what God needs to give us is a little inescapable logic to determine right from wrong, God's word from the Devil, right interpretation from wrong. By demanding obedience, God was testing Abraham's willingness to do as He wished in place of common sense and belief in himself - trusting that Abe would let God do the thinking for him, trusting in a higher purpose, mysterious ways etc. Until we have the logic in place, we have no reason to come to the wedding.

Abraham didn't possess your 21st century "common sense". His logic was called "faith". Or didn't you know religion and science was the same thing to him? Yet even Abraham's "common sense and belief in himself" couldn't accept that God would give him the son He had promised, at first. It wasn't "logical":

Gen.17
15 God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife ... I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."
17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?"​

And then God gave them a son. Now, how much did Abraham's belief in himself contribute to his son being born?

God told Abraham to trust him, not to stop thinking. No amount of logic will ever help a stranger off the street understand why he is an eligble guest for a king's wedding. The other parable was about ten young women. Five had common sense enough to have oil ready, the others only went to fetch their "common sense" when the groom arived at the wedding.

11"Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!'
12"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.' (Matt.25)​

So don't wait untill the Second Coming before your common sense kicks in and preparing for it suddenly becomes logical. Having faith means thinking for yourself trusting while trusting God. And that's exactly what Abraham was wise enough to do.

know Kierkegaard has dealt with this issue, I'm going to try and find it.

Please do - it should be interesting. Try to find out what Dietrich Bonhoeffer had to say as well.

 

[mario]

>>In Genesis 21 God tells Abraham: "...it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." (v.12).

This was a continuation of the promise God made that He would give Abraham a son with Sarah, even though it seemed impossible. Abraham had to persevere in faith to believe any of God's promises. When ordering him to sacrifice Isaac in Gen. 22 it is to make certain that Abraham realizes who is in control.<<


This doesn't quite make sense. First god tells abraham that his son issac will bear future offspring. Then God tells abram to kill issac. This is an obvious contradiction. Abram probably knew god wasn't going to let him kill issac since how could isaac bear future offspring if he was dead? So he slyly went along with god's command since he knew god wasn't serious about killing issac and would stop him in time. But what if god changed his plan?

I still feel that god to order an execution of someone is somehow inherently wrong. Even if he wasn't going to allow it to happen in the end. It's just so opposite of what god is supposed to be - and that is love.

 

[antifreeze]

in regard to this issue in particular, soren kierkegaard has written a whole book about it - though under a psuedonym methinks - called fear and trembling

and regarding the notion of free will in general; i don't know that free will in this context is anything more than a scapegoat for god. whereby, the suffering of humanity is not at all the omniscient god's fault. essemtially, i find myself in agreement with the earlier posts. this god makes all humans to be as prisoners in the panopticon, effectively revealing "human free will" to be a lie.

 

[Alaric]

Oh God said to Abraham 'kill me a son'
Abe said 'man you must be puttin me on'
God said 'no', Abe said 'what'
God say 'you can do what you wanna but
the next time you see me comin you better run'
Well Abe said 'where d'you want this killin done'
God said 'out on Highway 61'
- Bob Dylan, Highway 61

I've just started reading Fear and Trembling - very interesting! Won't say more on Abe until I've read it.

 

[Jenyar]

This doesn't quite make sense. First god tells abraham that his son issac will bear future offspring. Then God tells abram to kill issac. This is an obvious contradiction. Abram probably knew god wasn't going to let him kill issac since how could isaac bear future offspring if he was dead? So he slyly went along with god's command since he knew god wasn't serious about killing issac and would stop him in time. But what if god changed his plan?

It's not a contradition, on the contrary: it's perfectly consistent. God orders everything He demands in one go: Faith, sacrifice, obedience, love, mercy. And He creates an opportunity to show a faithful man how He will treat the descendents He had promised him. It's also an analogy of our own salvation: Justice demanded our lives, and God satisfied justice by providing a suitable sacrifice in our stead. He didn't shy away from sacrificing His own Son for our sake. It just goes to show how near to God Abraham was.

Abraham only knew God would provide, but he didn't know how. That was the sacrifice he made - and it's called faith.

I still feel that god to order an execution of someone is somehow inherently wrong. Even if he wasn't going to allow it to happen in the end. It's just so opposite of what god is supposed to be - and that is love.

God is love in action. Abraham showed faith in action. Love that promises everything and delivers nothing is empty, and faith that expects everything and does nothing is worthless.

 

[mario]

So "faith" is the ability to believe in something you don't totally understand. Abe may have been thinking "God wants me to kill my son but he also promised me grandchildren. Oh well, I'll just do what I'm told and let god figure it out". What if abe asked god how he was going to have grandchildren if he killed his son? I wonder what god would have said. That's why faith and logic will never co-exist simutaneously. They are two extremes.

Now that you bring up justice and sacrifice with god sacrificing his son, here is another subject that eludes me. You said that justice demands our life but god sacrificed his son in our place. What does that mean really? How does justice demand our life? If we sin and don't believe in god we don't get everlasting life. That's simple enough. But what if you believed in god but died before jesus came along? Or just believe in god but not in jesus like jews do? God is jesus and jesus is god. Why do we need two seperate entities for the same thing? Jesus seems to be a little redundant. God, himself, could just tell us to believe in him and we will go to heaven. Why did he have to send a 'messenger' of himself?

 

[okinrus]

Faith is more or less trust. God tells us within us that he is God and to trust Him.
Overall, Mario, your confusion stems from erroneous beliefs on what believing God is which has nothing to do with physical sight or earing. Jesus was not a messenger but the message. He is the only way that someone could see the Father, as the story of Moses proves.

The story of Abraham can be understood because Abraham was willing to give up his son. It matters nought that Abraham would be the active participator of the sacrifice, and Abraham's role in this would be secondary because, as said in Deut., only God takes away life.

 

[mario]

Hmmm the reason that I think god really didn't have to send himself, aka jesus, to the world is that he made his message perfectly clear back in moses time with the 10 commandments. What more do you need? They said it all. Believe in god and be good to one another. As for jesus being the only way to see The Father well if god is way too powerfull to look at (like moses had a hard time looking at the burning bush) then can't he just tone down his power a little? Adam and eve apparently had no trouble walking and talking with god (and I presume seeing god) in the garden of eden.

"with god all things are possible"

 

[okinrus]

Adam and Eve were before the fall.

Hmmm the reason that I think god really didn't have to send himself, aka jesus, to the world is that he made his message perfectly clear back in moses time with the 10 commandments. What more do you need? They said it all.

The Ten Commandments do not have the fullness of the path to God as Jesus' comments in Matthew show. Jesus followed a series of "you have told" referencing the old law with "but I tell you".