NationStates Jolt Archive

Another interesting, but this time contested, fact.

After God revealed himself to Abraham and instructed him in that whole "Idol worship is bad" thing and Abraham started forming the Jewish religion God, testing Abraham, commanded him to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Abraham, though really torn by the order, did what God commanded and took Isaac up the Mountain to be sacrificed. Just before Abraham did the killing part of the sacrifice God intervened, stopped the process, and gave Abraham a ram to kill in Isaacs place. Abraham passed the test by showing that he was willing to follow Gods orders despite the severe mental anguish that would ensue and God showed that he was merciful and compassionate, that he wouldn't actually make a Father kill his Son to prove his loyalty.

However, a counter-argument has long existed. The belief that Abraham failed the test by not refusing to kill his son. Judaism has, since its very inception, strongly held the belief that human sacrifice is a very bad thing. In fact, it has been proposed that circumcision was begun as a way to replace human sacrifice (but that's a different story). People have thought that God wasn't testing Abraham on his loyalty to God, but rather to the loyalty of Gods teachings.

Unlike the majority of my recent threads, which have been me pretty much just listing facts and people saying "Neat" then walking away, I want to hear what you have to say. Do you think Abraham passed or failed? Was God testing him or just toying with him? If he was testing him, what was he testing? So, what do you think?

Either way you have to question his parenting skills.

Things changed when Jesus was nailed to the cross. so it doesn't matter if he failed or not.

And have you been reading Dan Simmons books?

Nope, I haven't even heard of Dan Simmons

Because one of his books has they very same discussion.

anyone question's the kid's obedience... imagine that situation today.

"Uh, daddy, what's with that knife."
"Well, son, I'm sacrificing you to God."
"F**K that S##T! I'M OUTTA HERE YA PSYCHO"
"Come back, the Lord Demands It."
"Hello? I need the cops now! My old man's going WACO on me... trying to sacrifice me..."

anyone question's the kid's obedience... imagine that situation today.

"Uh, daddy, what's with that knife."
"Well, son, I'm sacrificing you to God."
"F**K that S##T! I'M OUTTA HERE YA PSYCHO"
"Come back, the Lord Demands It."
"Hello? I need the cops now! My old man's going WACO on me... trying to sacrifice me..."


:sigh:

You're missing the point of the story.

No, just feeling the lack of sleep... I aplogize for my above frivolous post.

However my grogginess aside, what point is there if he passed or failed? Jesus was God's New Covenant. Through Him, Sacrifices are no longer required and all are equal in God's eyes.

Klonor, you might be interested in Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling which is a long investigation of this very question (well, from a slightly different perspective).

This is a good point that is reinforced in the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah. Abraham bargins with God over the destruction of the cities by asking God if he will destroy the righteous with the wicked. Abraham gets God to agree not to destroy the cities if 50 righteous men can be found. Then 45. Then 40. Then 35. Eventually God agrees to spare the cities if 10 righteous men can be found.

Obviously God knows there are no righteous men in the cities so why does he allow this dickering to go on?

I think the point of this story is that Jews are compelled to speak up for what is right, even if it means arguing with God himself. Given this interpretation it certainly seems Abraham failed that test when asked to kill his son.

Hmm, I never thought of it that way

No-one's giving a serious response, so I will for want of anything better to do.

It's clear that he passed the test. God told him he passed, and did go on to make of his decendents a "mighty nation" as per God's agreement. If he had refused the sacrifice, God probably would have abandoned him.

Anyway it was a test of faith, at that time Abram was the only one who really believed in God, or at least the only one who had heard him, I think God first spoke to him when he was living in Ur of the Chaldees, and everyone else their were heathen idol worshippers.

In any event, the point is that God never intended to have Isaac killed but he had to know whether or not Abram was serious in his commitment to this whole Jewish thing. Seeing if he was prepared to kill Isaac was the best way to test it.

Personally, however, had I been god, I would have made him go through it so he could have a foretaste of the things to come in the bible.

No, just feeling the lack of sleep... I aplogize for my above frivolous post.

However my grogginess aside, what point is there if he passed or failed? Jesus was God's New Covenant. Through Him, Sacrifices are no longer required and all are equal in God's eyes.

JuNii, I think the answer to your question lies in the key words "Jewish" and "Judaism" found in the initial posting of this thread. Jesus has no standing in rabbinic law and therefore no bearing on this question.

This is meant as no offense to your Christian beliefs, but merely an observation that they are not shared by all people.

No offense taken. I will admit a lack of knowledge on the Jewish faith but I find the observations interesting.

The bargaining however, I think maybe was to show Abraham how truly wicked the cities were. By allowing Abraham to go through the cities and look for the number he set showed him that God was right in calling the city truly evil.

perhaps that shows that God is patient with people. Sometime letting them run around for a while untill they finally see his way. The way some parents would let their children try their way of doing things before showing them the way that works.

Then again. those are my views and not to be taken as "Christian" views.

The bargaining (over the righteous amoung the wicked) however, I think maybe was to show Abraham how truly wicked the cities were. By allowing Abraham to go through the cities and look for the number he set showed him that God was right in calling the city truly evil. Perhaps that shows that God is patient with people. Sometime letting them run around for a while untill they finally see his way. The way some parents would let their children try their way of doing things before showing them the way that works.

Then again. those are my views and not to be taken as "Christian" views.

I think your interpretation does point out a difference I have observed between Judaism and Christianity, as they are practiced. Judaism has a long, rich tradition of debate and argument to determine the meaning of God's law. The old joke, put two Jews in a room, get three opinions, is a stereotype born of a history spent challenging various interpretations of the Torah. In fact much of this vigorous intellectual debate has been gathered in the Talmud.

It has been my observation that many Christians (certainly not all) view such questioning as challenging faith. Often Christian Bible study is not for purposes of debate but rather that adherents might "finally see His way," as you put it. In this respect I think Christianity is much closer to Islam in its belief that scripture is to be obeyed, not interpreted.

I think your interpretation does point out a difference I have observed between Judaism and Christianity, as they are practiced. Judaism has a long, rich tradition of debate and argument to determine the meaning of God's law. The old joke, put two Jews in a room, get three opinions, is a stereotype born of a history spent challenging various interpretations of the Torah. In fact much of this vigorous intellectual debate has been gathered in the Talmud.

It has been my observation that many Christians (certainly not all) view such questioning as challenging faith. Often Christian Bible study is not for purposes of debate but rather that adherents might "finally see His way," as you put it. In this respect I think Christianity is much closer to Islam in its belief that scripture is to be obeyed, not interpreted.

Well apart from that whole protestant reformation thing.

But you are right in the sense that Christians are more hive minded that most Jews I know. Jews feel freerer to question within their sect, or at least it seems to me. Christians on the other hand have hundreds (thousands-?) of sects and tend to hive together with the like minded. Plus a lot of christians these days aren't really practising.

*buzzzzzz* :D

Ok, Jewish ingorant person asking...

If you're right Ogiek, and those of the Jewish faith question the Torah and debate over it's meaning, then are you saying that the laws and guidlines (I've never read the Torah so I'm assuming there are Laws and Guidlines) in the Torah can change depending on the debators? and there can be... in fact many definitions/interpretations of God's will?

Hmmm. Then again, it does happen with the Bible every now and then so the idea isn't that far fetched.

And if Abraham is actually debating and questioning God's intent, does that mean that somewhere, sometime, someone may have convinced God to change his mind? or could it be that the only way God can get his people to do his will is to convince them?

Sorry, don't mean to offend, just searching for knowledge. :)

This is a good point that is reinforced in the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah. Abraham bargins with God over the destruction of the cities by asking God if he will destroy the righteous with the wicked. Abraham gets God to agree not to destroy the cities if 50 righteous men can be found. Then 45. Then 40. Then 35. Eventually God agrees to spare the cities if 10 righteous men can be found.

Obviously God knows there are no righteous men in the cities so why does he allow this dickering to go on?

I think the point of this story is that Jews are compelled to speak up for what is right, even if it means arguing with God himself. Given this interpretation it certainly seems Abraham failed that test when asked to kill his son.

Not exactly... If you pay attention throughout Genesis and Exodus, it's pretty hard to pretend that God started out as omnipotent. In Sodom, He finds a few good men, moves them out of the city, and declares it "good enough" and destroys both after inspecting one house in one city. He was kinda the inspiration for most B-grade movie villains in the Pentatuch, with such interesting qualities of declaring anyone ill to "no longer be one of my people" until a week after they stop showing symptoms, then saying "it is because of my grace and power that none of my people fell ill in these specific ways during their 40 years in the desert."

Hell, even in Joshua, after the first five books, He's still not quite omnipotent, though He's obviously more powerful than he was way back when. He can't defeat "iron-rimmed chariots" by his power there.


Abraham passed, probably with flying colors. Pay attention to the first five books, and re-read them carefully. The Levites are told to "take with blades" (kill) for damn near anything (Leviticus), after He calls a kill for a good portion of them for what boils down to claiming an earthquake is His doing so He can look powerful. He declares water will come from a rock after Moses taps it once with a stick, it doesn't come and Moses taps a second time, so Yahweh says no-one alive gets to live until they reach the promised land. Unquestioning obedience to authority is far more important in early books than is doing what's right, though that slightly changes in Ecclesiastes (one of my favorite books ever, by the way, and absolutely the most badass book in the whole damned OT/NT/Qu'ran Trinity), lightens up, and is even contradicted in later volumes.

Pretending "morals" and "ethics" in that time had the least bit to do with eachother is sheer cognitive dissonance. It was a unifying bit that got the slaves out of Egypt, and probably attractive in that the people were set into it before the rules were set down. Reading later parts of the OT makes Judaism sound a bit more attractive, but it's still flat out brutal by today's standards, just like (to a lesser extent, from Jesus's portion of the New Covenant rather than his prophets) NT Christianity and (to a MUCH lesser extent, from the Qu'ran rather than Hadiths) fundamentalist Islam.

Not exactly... If you pay attention throughout Genesis and Exodus, it's pretty hard to pretend that God started out as omnipotent.

He creates the universe though, and does the flood and the tower of babel. That's pretty badass.

:confused: How close are the Torah and the Christian Bible anyway?

Can one buy the Torah or is it only given in... sorry are they called synagouges? (sp my bad)

the torah is the first five books of the old testament, (the pentatuech).

You can buy them, amazon has them. They are bound to be online too.

The answer to the question "Did Abraham pass or fail" depends on the person answering it.
Myself being non-religious still see meaning in the story, much the same as many stories in the bible.
Abraham did what he was told, and was willing to put the life of the son he waited so long for on the line to please his god. The moral that I see is that to be truly religious and prove your love for the christian god. But passing or failing, what makes this either a pass or fail. It was a test and he passed it that is how the story goes...

the torah is the first five books of the old testament, (the pentatuech).

You can buy them, amazon has them. They are bound to be online too.

Ahh, but what about the rest of the books... OT and NT alike? Are they ignored or just thought of as "Christian beliefs?"

Well the entire thing (OT) is called the Tanakh. The new testament has no bearing for Jews. But just to make things confusing, some people refer to the whole thing as the Torah (or written torah) too.

There are also the mishnah, the "oral torah" and commentaries upon it, gemara. these two works form the Talmud.

I'm not jewish though, so my knowledge of the whole thing is superficial.

Doesn't the New Testament book of Hebrews say something about Abraham believing God would bring his son back from the dead after the sacrifice? My memory's foggy and it's 7:30 in the morning... I know it doesn't have anything to do with Judaism, since it's in the NT, but it has a reference, at least, methinks...

Just to clear things up, I'd like to say that I am of the belief that Abraham did pass the test, I do not feel that any God worth worshiping would play with somebodys mind like this.

Commanding somebody to do something, but in fact wanting them not do it, but threatening them with rather sever punishment for failure........it's something a twisted child would do. God has shown that he can be vengeful and mean, but mental mind games like this are just something else.

In my opinion Abraham did the right thing. He obeyed God, and God rewards those who serve him faithfully. God would never have made him actually kill Isaac, and I think Abraham might have known that.

Just to clear things up, I'd like to say that I am of the belief that Abraham did pass the test, I do not feel that any God worth worshiping would play with somebodys mind like this.

Commanding somebody to do something, but in fact wanting them not do it, but threatening them with rather sever punishment for failure........it's something a twisted child would do. God has shown that he can be vengeful and mean, but mental mind games like this are just something else.

In my opinion Abraham did the right thing. He obeyed God, and God rewards those who serve him faithfully. God would never have made him actually kill Isaac, and I think Abraham might have known that.

it woudlnt have been much of a test if abraham was just pretending that he would plunge the knife into his sons chest.

he didnt know

all he knew was that when god speaks directly to you, you obey no matter how hard it is.

it is GODS lack of intent to have isaac sacrificed that leaves us with the ability to worship him. we face gods "mind games" all the time. death, destruction, illness, soul crushing loss. we ALL have to
"obey" god even in the face of him asking the impossible of us.

I'm not saying Abraham was just pretending, I think he would have really gone through with it. But (I think) he knew that God would interfere before it happened. It's like jumping off a building, you might think that there's a safety net beneath you but you've still done it even if there wasn't.

I think he did indeed test him. He tested him to do the right thing and by not killing his son he did the right thing

I believe that God tested Abraham's love for his son. So I think he DID fail the test, just in a different way.

Another interesting, but this time contested, fact.

After God revealed himself to Abraham and instructed him in that whole "Idol worship is bad" thing and Abraham started forming the Jewish religion God, testing Abraham, commanded him to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Abraham, though really torn by the order, did what God commanded and took Isaac up the Mountain to be sacrificed. Just before Abraham did the killing part of the sacrifice God intervened, stopped the process, and gave Abraham a ram to kill in Isaacs place. Abraham passed the test by showing that he was willing to follow Gods orders despite the severe mental anguish that would ensue and God showed that he was merciful and compassionate, that he wouldn't actually make a Father kill his Son to prove his loyalty.

However, a counter-argument has long existed. The belief that Abraham failed the test by not refusing to kill his son. Judaism has, since its very inception, strongly held the belief that human sacrifice is a very bad thing. In fact, it has been proposed that circumcision was begun as a way to replace human sacrifice (but that's a different story). People have thought that God wasn't testing Abraham on his loyalty to God, but rather to the loyalty of Gods teachings.

Unlike the majority of my recent threads, which have been me pretty much just listing facts and people saying "Neat" then walking away, I want to hear what you have to say. Do you think Abraham passed or failed? Was God testing him or just toying with him? If he was testing him, what was he testing? So, what do you think?

I guess he probably passed, or els god wouldn't have... how does it go? Let him have the land and offspring and such.

Lemme bring in the old Garden of Eden paradox here:
Before eating of the fruit of knowledge, Adam and Eve didn't know good and evil. All they had to go on was "God told me so," and they listened until someone else told them something different. They blindly followed whatever orders were given to them most recently, and were good while listening to God, bad while listening to someone else, between which they were effectively incapable of distinguishing...

How it relates to the debate:
Supposedly the "innocent" state is the perfect one, and growing up is "the fall." We were (theologically) best at the point where man knew nothing but the word of The Lord and followed it. While developing independence and a moral code, listening to Yahweh, the sterotypical Jewish mother, is important, as mother always knows best.


He creates the universe though, and does the flood and the tower of babel. That's pretty badass. His power kinda flows in and out. There's the relatively popular theory of Genesis being two creations stories spliced together, explaining this fluctuation in power, or the much less popular theories of "it's an allegory" and "I said I made all this, and until you can prove elsewise, believe me" - both saying that He didn't exactly create the universe so much as humans/a particular human culture.

Then there's the above "Mother" theory, where the first five books represent the stages of life in a man growing to maturity and God being the domineering parent who keeps him in line, sets his morals and goals, and takes care of him until She's finally convinced that he's settled on his own. This only makes sense without the later additions, and I like it primarily because it's funny.

Uh-huh, so yes or no?

Uh-huh, so yes or no?


The "innocent" state is the perfect one, and growing up is "the fall." We were (theologically) best at the point where man knew nothing but the word of The Lord and followed it.
Unless you were talking to someone else...

I'm just asking for clarification, do you think Abraham passed Gods test or failed it?

First of all, thanks for your patience and helping me understand more about the Jewish Faith. :)

And second, the way you put it in your original post, the only one who knows would be God. since it's now ambiguous as to what was the test really testing.

each argument seems valid and without actually being there to witness the conversation between Abraham and God, speculation is all we have.

All I'm asking for is speculation, I just want people opinions. I'm wondering what people think the test was on and if Abraham passed it or not. I've actually really liked the way the thread has gone, I didn't even think to look beyond that one specific story when forming an opinion (But people have brought up many other biblical events that really do cast a different light on things)

This is fun, because it's everone's views and opinions on their interpretation of the Holy Word.

and it's also informative. :)

Well, I'm an atheist, so I say "god" wasn't involved in Abraham's life at all.

I think that Abraham's brother, Lot's father, who "died in Ur in the presence of his father" was actually the eldest son, sacrificed by Terah, their father, as was the custom in Ur. So there was little question that Abraham would do it, the real important part was that G-d told him not to and substituted animal sacrifice instead.

So there was little question that Abraham would do it, the real important part was that G-d told him not to and substituted animal sacrifice instead.

Why do people do that "G-d" thing?
God isn't his name, so that whole "thou shalt not take the lords name in vain" thing doesn't make much sense. His name is YHVH, calling him God is like the Hebrew prayers calling him "Adonai" (not named). If you're going to start deleting parts of the word God because they're talking about something that you're not supposed to mention directly by name then it never ends. Soon it becomes @-d or $@#. Once you start that you may as well worship actual explitives.

Why do people do that "G-d" thing?
God isn't his name, so that whole "thou shalt not take the lords name in vain" thing doesn't make much sense. His name is YHVH, calling him God is like the Hebrew prayers calling him "Adonai" (not named). If you're going to start deleting parts of the word God because they're talking about something that you're not supposed to mention directly by name then it never ends. Soon it becomes @-d or $@#. Once you start that you may as well worship actual explitives.

The Holy Church of St Andrew Dice Clay? :D

God has many names, but I agree. We shouldn't be afraid of the word God. Even Athiests need to say who they don't believe in.

Any order from God is by definition the religiously correct one.

The Holy Church of St Andrew Dice Clay? :D

God has many names, but I agree. We shouldn't be afraid of the word God. Even Athiests need to say who they don't believe in.
Jewish people say it because if they write the word out they have to bury the paper that they wrote it on at the end of the year or something. I forget, but it's much less tedious for them to write G-d.

It's that you can never write Gods full name if you know it's going to be erased (Or, in this case, deleted). For example, if it's on a religous text that is planned to be used for several years and never thrown out then it's okay, but if you're writing a report for a high school class that's gonna be thrown out after you get the grade back then you put the '-'. I, though Jewish, don't use the '-' on-line since I don't think it counts because I'm not actually writing Gods name, I'm merely sending an electric signal.

Another interesting, but this time contested, fact.

After God revealed himself to Abraham and instructed him in that whole "Idol worship is bad" thing and Abraham started forming the Jewish religion God, testing Abraham, commanded him to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Abraham, though really torn by the order, did what God commanded and took Isaac up the Mountain to be sacrificed. Just before Abraham did the killing part of the sacrifice God intervened, stopped the process, and gave Abraham a ram to kill in Isaacs place. Abraham passed the test by showing that he was willing to follow Gods orders despite the severe mental anguish that would ensue and God showed that he was merciful and compassionate, that he wouldn't actually make a Father kill his Son to prove his loyalty.

However, a counter-argument has long existed. The belief that Abraham failed the test by not refusing to kill his son. Judaism has, since its very inception, strongly held the belief that human sacrifice is a very bad thing. In fact, it has been proposed that circumcision was begun as a way to replace human sacrifice (but that's a different story). People have thought that God wasn't testing Abraham on his loyalty to God, but rather to the loyalty of Gods teachings.

Unlike the majority of my recent threads, which have been me pretty much just listing facts and people saying "Neat" then walking away, I want to hear what you have to say. Do you think Abraham passed or failed? Was God testing him or just toying with him? If he was testing him, what was he testing? So, what do you think?


The test was not of his parenting skills or rejection of idol worship (remember, human sacrafice was a common thing in those days). But rather, it was a test in his trust in God. Would he trust that God is always right despite the fact that He said something that seems contradictary? It just goes to show you that when you think something in life is wrong or unfair, remember that God is the true judge.

Perhaps God was playing dice?

In all honesty, I can't say whether or not Abraham failed. I think that if he did fail, God would have said, "Uh, well, that really was my plan all along, so move along and be blessed." And would have said the said something similar if Abraham had succeeded. The Bible, in my opinion, is more of a history of what happened in ancient times, and less a book of holy origin, having seen the books that were and were not accepted into all versions of the Bible.

I'm just asking for clarification, do you think Abraham passed Gods test or failed it?
How much clearer could I get than "best when followed The Word unquestioningly?" You're just trying to be funny now, right?

I think Abraham failed, because of the Ten Commandments. Now, the Ten Commandments came later, but I doubt that God's policy on killing people had changed. Just look at the story of the two brothers who gave sacrifices to God, and God favored one sacrifice over the other, and one brother (Caleb perhaps, I forget their names) killed the other one, and was punished by God for doing so. It's pretty clear that he says "Thou shalt not kill", without any loopholes at all.

How much clearer could I get than "best when followed The Word unquestioningly?" You're just trying to be funny now, right?

So you're saying that by not following Gods commands to never have a human sacrifice he failed? Or that by following his commnd to sacrifice his son he passed?