Dami0n, the Agnostichicagokie, has directed me to a blog that has some promise to it, called Project: The King and I, in which a skeptic reviews the KJV Bible a chunk per day with the goal of finishing it in a year.
They'll have my respect if they make it thru Leviticus and thru the genealogies of 1 Chronicles, to be honest. OTOH, from what I've seen so far, that they treat the Bible fairly, without appealing via external critique to their own arbitrary and self-centered morality and morés, is too much to ask. Shouldn't surprise me, given that they link to the Skeptics' Annotated Bible in their sidebar.
Anyway, today they are dealing with Abraham and Isaac, with which I've dealt at length in the past. I popped over and summarised that post in the combox. A commenter responded, and my reply follows:
Hi Paul,
I'll respond to you in the numbered order.
1) By OFFERING him. Doesn't mean you finish the job.
Let me break in here and say that my confidence in this point is lower than in my other points, so... :-D
2) How long was he supposed to wait? He was commanded to do sthg, so he did it. It's not as if time makes a diff to God. And yes, he and Isaac were already circumcised.
3) B/c he had faith, as Hebrews says.
4) Yes ram in place of lamb is interesting. But I did explain it. :-)
5) What precisely is absurd about the answer why? I'd appreciate a logical stepwise process to get to that conclusion; "absurd" is a serious charge.
Who said God was doing this testing to puff up His ego? Please either cite Scripture and/or give your argument.
Yes, He does know us from before we were formed in the womb. What connection does that have?
6) I worship such a God b/c He is worthy of worship, b/c He created us. I don't get to judge Him. Nobody has any moral basis on which to judge Him.
(You walked right into my trap, haha.)
I don't claim God is "omnibenevolent", FYI.
I'd be interested in knowing how you know that "being mean" is morally objectionable. Just b/c you think so? Who are you?
And "thou shalt not kill":
--It's "murder", not "kill".
--I already explained this - go back and read my comment again, please.
--The problems with DCT are perceived, not real. I encourage you to read what I mean by that.
Peace,
Rhology
Another commenter said:
I can't jump through the moral hoops and origami-like twists of logic to arrive at the conclusion that this story represents anything other than an insecure god worried about obedience above all else.
My reply:
Let me ask you to run a mental exercise, then.
First, ad arguendo decide you're going to accept the Christian presuppositions and framework of understanding, and apply it to this passage. God is not insecure; He is testing Abraham and wants to make him holy and increase his faith in God. He is foreshadowing the substitutionary atonement of the coming Messiah. He is demonstrating His ownership and sovereignty over all things, including human lives (let alone the lives of SINFUL humans, who are rebels against His rule and law).
Second, you can safely remove your Christian spectacles now. :-) Now ask yourself on what basis you, given your own worldview, know that:
a) logic exists and is a good way to discover truth
b) it is objectively morally objectionable to do anything.
Note that "I think it's morally objectionable b/c it is displeasing to me" does not fulfill the requirements - that's not objective. Human empathy doesn't either. Societal preference/agreement doesn't either.
Maybe that will help you get it.
Peace,
Rhology
15 comments:
Point 1) The Hebrew word used in that verse clearly states “to offer a burnt offering.” http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5930&t=KJV
Point 2) We cannot suppose either way, I think we both agree on that. The mention of genital mutilation was in attempt to point out that God had already demanded actions of faith, and Abraham had carried them out.
Point 3) Still: Hebrews was written later, by different writers. In Genesis NO ONE has been raised from the dead yet. God hasn't stated anything to this effect. Why would he think God has this property? It is more likely the later writers of Hebrews, amending the story to fit their world view.
Point 4) The idea of this referencing Jesus is interesting, but I am not entirely convinced. It could have also been the result of multiple authors, or editing after the fact that resulted in the discrepancy.
Point 5) I concede, I don't know why God would do such a thing. I could have been insecurity, it could have been Him wanting to test Abraham more. It could have been a part of a much larger picture, telling of how unconditional faith is not exactly what God wants, but rather a mix of faith and sense. Abraham already left his land for an undisclosed location. He also mutilated himself, his servants, relatives, and son. This on Gods word alone. That is a LOT of faith already.
Point 6) Claiming a divine command theory of ethics, entails a lot of consequences. IE: If morals do not transcend a deity, then God can command whatever he wants to be good, and it will be. What of the shifting morality of the Bible, and seemingly God himself?
Point 1) The Hebrew word used in that verse clearly states “to offer a burnt offering.” http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5930&t=KJV
Point 2) We cannot suppose either way, I think we both agree on that. The mention of genital mutilation was in attempt to point out that God had already demanded actions of faith, and Abraham had carried them out.
Point 3) Still: Hebrews was written later, by different writers. In Genesis NO ONE has been raised from the dead yet. God hasn't stated anything to this effect. Why would he think God has this property? It is more likely the later writers of Hebrews, amending the story to fit their world view.
Point 4) The idea of this referencing Jesus is interesting, but I am not entirely convinced. It could have also been the result of multiple authors, or editing after the fact that resulted in the discrepancy.
Point 5) I concede, I don't know why God would do such a thing. I could have been insecurity, it could have been Him wanting to test Abraham more. It could have been a part of a much larger picture, telling of how unconditional faith is not exactly what God wants, but a mix of faith and sense. Abraham already left his land for an undisclosed location. He also mutilated himself, his servants, relatives, and son. This on Gods word alone. That is a LOT of faith already.
Point 6) Claiming a divine command theory of ethics, entails a lot of consequences. IE: If morals do not transcend a deity, then God can command whatever he wants to be good, and it will be. What of the shifting morality of the Bible, and seemingly God himself?
Paul,
thanks for stopping by.
Also, did you see I tweeted you? Let me know if you're interested sometime.
Sorry also about the spam filter. I don't moderate comments, but hopefully you've heard about Blogger's recent crusade against Asian porn spam; it results in comments getting caught in the spam filter sometimes. Sorry.
You said:
1) The Hebrew word used in that verse clearly states “to offer a burnt offering
You're probably right about this. The same Heb word, more importantly, is used of "take your only son and offer him up" and when Abraham offers up the ram later in the same narrative. I concede point #1.
See? He can be taught! :-D
2) We cannot suppose either way, I think we both agree on that
Very fair of you.
I do take issue with your specious use of the word "mutilated". That word is loaded with pejorative implication, and I do not accede to your use of it here. Why not just use "circumcised"? That's the normal word for it.
Point 3) Still: Hebrews was written later, by different writers
Well, by A different author, yes.
Why would he think God has this property?
B/c he had faith. If God has the power to create everything from nothing, is it harder to raise someone from the dead? And he expected it b/c he knew that God is good and generous.
It is more likely the later writers of Hebrews, amending the story to fit their world view.
More likely based on what probability analysis? Please be specific and let us all know your own worldview and how it makes sense of probability judgments.
4) The idea of this referencing Jesus is interesting, but I am not entirely convinced. It could have also been the result of multiple authors, or editing after the fact that resulted in the discrepancy.
1) Do you have any evidence of such post facto edition? Some textual variant that nobody is aware of?
2) This ascription to a foreshadowing of Jesus is not an issue of transmission or translation, but rather of theology and interpretation. We expect to find foreshadowings of Jesus in the OT, given claims of fulfillment in NT books like Matthew, John, Galatians, Hebrews, etc. We thus search the OT to see whether that's true. And whaddayaknow - we find them! I know skeptical types are big fans of saying "what does Issue X allow us to predict?" Done and done.
5) I concede, I don't know why God would do such a thing.
OK, so your charge of absurdity had no teeth.
I do not intend to gloat or anything (anyone can mistakes) but I'd like to ask you to take it easier in the future. Come to the Bible with an open mind instead of being like the fool(s) who wrote the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Ask yourself the same questions you're asking of the Christian.
I could have been insecurity, it could have been Him wanting to test Abraham more.
Given that the text explains why in multiple places (Genesis, Hebrews, James), why not just go with what God said it was? Why try to project your own motives onto God, unless your bias is operating?
It could have been a part of a much larger picture, telling of how unconditional faith is not exactly what God wants, but rather a mix of faith and sense.
As a matter of fact, James 2 says that it was indeed a larger picture, showing how true faith is worked out in deeds.
6) ...If morals do not transcend a deity, then God can command whatever he wants to be good, and it will be. What of the shifting morality of the Bible, and seemingly God himself?
Close but no cigar.
God's character (not command in and of itself) defines good and evil, and He always commands that which is in accord with His character. And He doesn't change.
When you say shifting morality, could you give me 2 or 3 specific examples and tell why they represent a shift in morality?
Peace,
Rhology
I apologize for the double post. I posted, then checked a few hours later for a response, and my post still had not appeared. At which time I decided, perhaps I wasn't fully awake when I posted and closed the tab without actually finishing the process. I had originally intended to post it over at The King and I, but that section of discussion was already dead.
I did get your @message on twitter, and am still considering the possibility. Plus, I have been quite busy and have not had much time for going out for coffee. That said I do like the idea, though it may not happen in the immediate future.
1) Appears resolved.
2) The original contingency appears resolved.
Tangent: Hopefully, your use of the word “specious” was not a passive aggressive jab at my specifically chosen vocabulary. I chose not use the euphemistic term “circumcision” intentionally to accent the barbaric nature of the practice. If you take issue, I would urge you to show me how it isn't mutilation. This is, perhaps, a discussion for another thread.
3) More likely based on what probability analysis? Please be specific and let us all know your own worldview and how it makes sense of probability judgments.
I would be quite a task to do a true Bayesian probability analysis. I am not a scholar of the Bible, nor am I an expert in Hebrew culture. Then there is the problem of acceptance. In order for you to accept the result as fair, we would have to agree on various numerical representations of our interpretations of the event. Never the less, I will try to illuminate my thought process which led me to this opinion.
It is somewhat unclear who the original author of the letter to the Hebrews was. Paul is likely, however there are many stylistic differences that set it apart from his other letters. What is clear, is their intentions: to spread Christianity, and to support the Hebrew Christians. This is done through a working knowledge of the Old Testament and a strong narrative. The belief in resurrection is a core element to developing Christian theology at this point, and it shows throughout the letters in the New Testament. It is not apparent that the intention of the letter was historical. So why then would we assume such passages as Hebrews 11 are an accurate account of history? Especially when it the majority of the book is based around themes of faith and resurrection. It is also a stretch to assert the author of Hebrews had a better chance of correctly deriving Abraham's motives from the text than we do. The author of Hebrews did not directly witness the events, or interview Abraham. However, the author was motivated to show themes of resurrection and faith throughout the Old Testament using various literary devices, as made apparent throughout the test.
As far as my world view, I was raised evangelical and am now a naturalist.
I apologize for the double post. I posted, then checked a few hours later for a response, and my post still had not appeared. At which time I decided, perhaps I wasn't fully awake when I posted and closed the tab without actually finishing the process. I had originally intended to post it over at The King and I, but that section of discussion was already dead.
I did get your @message on twitter, and am still considering the possibility. Plus, I have been quite busy and have not had much time for going out for coffee. That said I do like the idea, though it may not happen in the immediate future.
1) Appears resolved.
2) The original contingency appears resolved.
Tangent: Hopefully, your use of the word “specious” was not a passive aggressive jab at my specifically chosen vocabulary. I chose not use the euphemistic term “circumcision” intentionally to accent the barbaric nature of the practice. If you take issue, I would urge you to show me how it isn't mutilation. This is, perhaps, a discussion for another thread.
3) More likely based on what probability analysis? Please be specific and let us all know your own worldview and how it makes sense of probability judgments.
I would be quite a task to do a true Bayesian probability analysis. I am not a scholar of the Bible, nor am I an expert in Hebrew culture. Then there is the problem of acceptance. In order for you to accept the result as fair, we would have to agree on various numerical representations of our interpretations of the event. Never the less, I will try to illuminate my thought process which led me to this opinion.
It is somewhat unclear who the original author of the letter to the Hebrews was. Paul is likely, however there are many stylistic differences that set it apart from his other letters. What is clear, is their intentions: to spread Christianity, and to support the Hebrew Christians. This is done through a working knowledge of the Old Testament and a strong narrative. The belief in resurrection is a core element to developing Christian theology at this point, and it shows throughout the letters in the New Testament. It is not apparent that the intention of the letter was historical. So why then would we assume such passages as Hebrews 11 are an accurate account of history? Especially when it the majority of the book is based around themes of faith and resurrection. It is also a stretch to assert the author of Hebrews had a better chance of correctly deriving Abraham's motives from the text than we do. The author of Hebrews did not directly witness the events, or interview Abraham. However, the author was motivated to show themes of resurrection and faith throughout the Old Testament using various literary devices, as made apparent throughout the test.
As far as my world view, I was raised evangelical and am now a naturalist.
4)
1) Do you have any evidence of such post facto edition? Some textual variant that nobody is aware of? First, I am again hoping your last sentence is not another sarcastic attack on my intelligence, rather my mis-interpretation of your tone.
There are many scholarly books on the multiple sources the OT by individuals much more intelligent than I IE: Richard Freidman. I will concede that the Hebrew words are distinctly different, so it is not an error of translation.
2) This ascription to a foreshadowing of Jesus is not an issue of transmission or translation, but rather of theology and interpretation. We expect to find foreshadowings of Jesus in the OT, given claims of fulfillment in NT books like Matthew, John, Galatians, Hebrews, etc. We thus search the OT to see whether that's true. And whaddayaknow - we find them! I know skeptical types are big fans of saying "what does Issue X allow us to predict?" Done and done.
You make a good point, this is an issue of theology. Which is why we disagree. Searching the Old Testament and analyzing to text in hopes of finding a fulfilled prophecy is interesting. However, not something I find particularly compelling. We as a species, love patterns, we love to find agency, and have an extremely difficult time overcoming our own confirmation biases.
5)OK, so your charge of absurdity had no teeth.
I do not intend to gloat or anything (anyone can mistakes) but I'd like to ask you to take it easier in the future. Come to the Bible with an open mind instead of being like the fool(s) who wrote the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Ask yourself the same questions you're asking of the Christian.
First, I don't think “absurd” is has harsh as you make it. There are much worse things that can be said about the God of the Old Testament. However, I am trying to be objective, and to understand and learn something and: I still find it absurd. I was in a hurry, and don't feel it is one of my stronger arguments.
1)If God knows us since before the womb, or created us, then shouldn't He know the outcome of the tests?
2)Abraham already left his home for an undisclosed location. He then Excised pieces of flesh from multiple sex organs, including his own. Both of these things already required a LOT of faith.
Also, please explain how the New Testament verses you cited are not simply “post facto” rationalizations by the apostles/you.
4)
1) Do you have any evidence of such post facto edition? Some textual variant that nobody is aware of? First, I am again hoping your last sentence is not another sarcastic attack on my intelligence, rather my mis-interpretation of your tone.
There are many scholarly books on the multiple sources the OT by individuals much more intelligent than I IE: Richard Freidman. I will concede that the Hebrew words are distinctly different, so it is not an error of translation.
2) This ascription to a foreshadowing of Jesus is not an issue of transmission or translation, but rather of theology and interpretation. We expect to find foreshadowings of Jesus in the OT, given claims of fulfillment in NT books like Matthew, John, Galatians, Hebrews, etc. We thus search the OT to see whether that's true. And whaddayaknow - we find them! I know skeptical types are big fans of saying "what does Issue X allow us to predict?" Done and done.
You make a good point, this is an issue of theology. Which is why we disagree. Searching the Old Testament and analyzing to text in hopes of finding a fulfilled prophecy is interesting. However, not something I find particularly compelling. We as a species, love patterns, we love to find agency, and have an extremely difficult time overcoming our own confirmation biases.
5)OK, so your charge of absurdity had no teeth.
I do not intend to gloat or anything (anyone can mistakes) but I'd like to ask you to take it easier in the future. Come to the Bible with an open mind instead of being like the fool(s) who wrote the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Ask yourself the same questions you're asking of the Christian.
First, I don't think “absurd” is has harsh as you make it. There are much worse things that can be said about the God of the Old Testament. However, I am trying to be objective, and to understand and learn something and: I still find it absurd. I was in a hurry, and don't feel it is one of my stronger arguments.
1)If God knows us since before the womb, or created us, then shouldn't He know the outcome of the tests?
2)Abraham already left his home for an undisclosed location. He then Excised pieces of flesh from multiple sex organs, including his own. Both of these things already required a LOT of faith.
Also, please explain how the New Testament verses you cited are not simply “post facto” rationalizations by the apostles/you.
6)Close but no cigar.
God's character (not command in and of itself) defines good and evil, and He always commands that which is in accord with His character. And He doesn't change.
Therefore, if God does change, then morality is not absolute. What evidence do we have to Gods absolute character? It would seem God changes very much from the OT to the NT. In the OT He is concerned only with his preferred family, while in the NT he is much more interested in everyone, He also stops walking and wrestling with people. Without the Bible, how would you provide evidence for such a claim of an unchanging God?
When you say shifting morality, could you give me 2 or 3 specific examples and tell why they represent a shift in morality?
Sure, the morality of the OT is starkly different from the NT. The book of Joshua is filled with the genocidal slaughter of the Canaanites. God commands the killing of even the elderly and unborn children. Yet in the New Testament we are told of a God who loves the world. Then on to the present, and genocide is seen as barbaric.
What of all of the laws in the OT? The stoning of anyone, let alone children, does not seem like very moral behavior. Yet it is commanded, then Jesus tells us later only the blameless can cast stones.
The God of the OT was concerned with killing those who didn't believe, the God of the NT is more interested in forgivness.
I must cut short, so as not to be late to work. What is interesting is quite a few religious philosophers have been doing ethics without grounding moral truths in God for quite a while.
Here an interesting discussion specifically on this topic. http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=11639
5)OK, so your charge of absurdity had no teeth.
I do not intend to gloat or anything (anyone can mistakes) but I'd like to ask you to take it easier in the future. Come to the Bible with an open mind instead of being like the fool(s) who wrote the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Ask yourself the same questions you're asking of the Christian.
First, I don't think “absurd” is has harsh as you make it. There are much worse things that can be said about the God of the Old Testament. However, I am trying to be objective, and to understand and learn something and: I still find it absurd. I was in a hurry, and don't feel it is one of my stronger arguments.
1)If God knows us since before the womb, or created us, then shouldn't He know the outcome of the tests?
2)Abraham already left his home for an undisclosed location. He then Excised pieces of flesh from multiple sex organs, including his own. Both of these things already required a LOT of faith.
Also, please explain how the New Testament verses you cited are not simply “post facto” rationalizations by the apostles/you.
6)Close but no cigar.
God's character (not command in and of itself) defines good and evil, and He always commands that which is in accord with His character. And He doesn't change.
Therefore, if God does change, then morality is not absolute. What evidence do we have to Gods absolute character? It would seem God changes very much from the OT to the NT. In the OT He is concerned only with his preferred family, while in the NT he is much more interested in everyone, He also stops walking and wrestling with people. Without the Bible, how would you provide evidence for such a claim of an unchanging God?
When you say shifting morality, could you give me 2 or 3 specific examples and tell why they represent a shift in morality?
Sure, the morality of the OT is starkly different from the NT. The book of Joshua is filled with the genocidal slaughter of the Canaanites. God commands the killing of even the elderly and unborn children. Yet in the New Testament we are told of a God who loves the world. Then on to the present, and genocide is seen as barbaric.
What of all of the laws in the OT? The stoning of anyone, let alone children, does not seem like very moral behavior. Yet it is commanded, then Jesus tells us later only the blameless can cast stones.
The God of the OT was concerned with killing those who didn't believe, the God of the NT is more interested in forgivness.
I must cut short, so as not to be late to work. What is interesting is quite a few religious philosophers have been doing ethics without grounding moral truths in God for quite a while.
Here an interesting discussion specifically on this topic. http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=11639
Paul,
Please see here.
Rho,
Hope you’re enjoying the diversity of views on the text of the KJV. I have a somewhat unrelated question. When you say that some action is “objectively morally objectionable” what exactly do you mean by that?
Here is what I would mean by that:
A statement is objectively true if it is a statement which accurately describes the arrangement of objects in time and space. A statement is subjectively true if it is a truth about the subjective mental state of a being having a mind.
Most of the universe is merely matter/energy in motion, and thus there are a practically unlimited number of possible statements which we might consider objectively true. Moral statements, however, are inevitably about the decisions of beings having minds and their effects upon other beings with minds, usually with reference to the moral agent’s subjective mental state (e.g. malice, recklessness, negligence, lust, etc.).
So, if I were to say a given action is "objectively morally objectionable" I would mean that it changes the arrangement of objects in the universe in a particular way, without reference to the subjective mental states of subjects (e.g. human suffering, god's wrath, etc.)
Damion,
Please see my new post.
Cheers and stay warm.
Post a Comment