2005

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
EsherBldg
vexen

Abraham's Attempted Sacrifice of His Son in Genesis 22:1-18 and Qur'an 37:99-113

A new page! "Abraham's Attempted Sacrifice of His Son Isaac: Genesis 22:1-18 and Qur'an 37:99-113" by Vexen Crabtree (2012)

Genesis 22:1-18 and Qur'an 37:99-113 Abraham was tested by God and told to murder his own son. He obeyed, although God stopped him at the last moment, and gave him incredible rewards for his loyalty. Yet Abraham clearly failed any possible moral test: in going to murder his own son for God, he was displaying the worst signs of religion: insanity, murderous willingness to attempt spiritual gain at any cost, and an inability to question the true worth of his own beliefs. He followed criminal orders without asking why - a trend that in history has had terrible consequences yet is endorsed in the Bible. Not only that, he did not even question the highly likely probability that hearing voices is not a good thing.

In Deut. 12:30-31 God specifically says that human sacrifice is an abomination for god, which "he hateth", and Jer. 19:4-6 says God does not command human sacrifice, so Abraham also failed to know God very well when he decided that murdering his son was the right thing to. The Bible is obviously full of contradictions: Abraham, revered and holy, is rewarded by God for mindlessly obeying an order to kill his son; an order which goes against the Bible itself. God, later on, goes on to sacrifice its own son. It was said to be a test, a trial, to see if Abraham was loyal. But to say that God needed to do a test contradicts the all-knowing nature of God. Therefore, this story is immoral, makes no sense, and contradicts scripture in multiple ways: It cannot be true or divinely inspired, and it does not deserve the attention of good people or believers in a good god.


In Deut. 12:30-31 God specifically says that human sacrifice is an abomination for god, which "he hateth", and Jer. 19:4-6 says God does not command human sacrifice, so Abraham also failed to know God very well when he decided that murdering his son was the right thing to. The Bible is obviously full of contradictions: Abraham, revered and holy, is rewarded by God for mindlessly obeying an order to kill his son; an order which goes against the Bible itself.

But if you listen to Biblical source theorists, isn't the Abrahamic story Elohist (I may be mistaken there, it may be Yahwist) anyway...? So the fact that the deutoronomist school has a very different view of what God finds holy doesn't really affect the Abraham narrative. Likewise, not all Biblical sources proclaim God's omniscience (and indeed, not all Biblical sources proclaim the free will of man). Contradictory? Yes. But then again, it's an anthology full of lively debate, not a monolith.

Ultimately, how is your statement...

Therefore, this story is immoral, makes no sense, and contradicts scripture in multiple ways: It cannot be true or divinely inspired, and it does not deserve the attention of good people or believers in a good god.

... any different from the statement rather intolerant Christians make about each other, starting with a statement about their own faith and the assumption that theirs is the one true way? It seems to me that you have decided on certain assumptions about the Bible, about truth, about divine inspiration, and you are making judgements about morality and other people's faith based on those assumptions of yours. And it seems from my reading that those assumptions are based in much later tradition, not necessarily related to the Bible itself.

I'm pagan, so I don't have anything invested in whether the passages are "true" or "moral" or "deserving of attention"... I'm just asking because it strikes me as a strange argument to enter into as a non-believer (which I assume you are, as a Satanist).

Good comments; I'll check into which source Genesis 22 comes from when I get home later. From our neutral perspective, it of course makes lots of sense to examine which source document this story comes from, and what the purposes and style of that document was. We, you and I, are not surprised at all if it contradicts the ideas of god written in the other source documents of the pentateuch.

However,

It is not the historical-minded, research-orientated Christians that I have in mind: the Bane of Monotheism is written for the lunatics that consider the Bible to be a undivisible, holistic, non-contradictory single document that cannot contain contadictions.

From that point of view, it matters much more that Abraham's actions might contradict other bits of scipture, no matter where historians think those other verses come from.

(And FYI I am preparing pages that do summarize document sources and put them in true historical context, and when that page is done I'll include its summary on this page.)

hi vexen

(Anonymous)

2012-06-06 02:28 am (UTC)

Hi I agree with you very much so. I just read that in the Bible and Quaran. I know if Jesus was the true messiah I don't think he would have gone through all that because even
Abraham didn't kill his son.
alrighty.
peace, love, faith, but above all is love.

yours truely,
the Bride of Satan,
Cammy Ocean

dutaronmy wasnt even written then :/

(Anonymous)

2012-06-09 06:56 am (UTC)

dutaronmy wasnt written then.

i dont get it.

(Anonymous)

2012-06-09 02:24 pm (UTC)

if i were to quote something from the bible like john 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have ever lasting life." you would not consider this to be substantial prove. so if, "apperanly" we cant trust the Bible for proof, how can we trust it for, disproving anything. Ill be praying for you.

Re: i dont get it.

vexen

2012-08-02 08:26 pm (UTC)

I am arguing that the Bible is not a good source of morals. This argument holds true, given the stories contained in the Bible, whether or not the Bible as a whole is true.

Gatherings of non believers

(Anonymous)

2012-06-15 10:49 pm (UTC)

I haven't looked at your web site for quite a while. (I have been ill, but I am now recovering.)

I am glad you have some new web pages. As a person who has never been a religious believer (though has many friends who are such), I find myself seeking out the company of other non believers. I live on an island where there are few who publicly identify themselves as such. I have found several groups on the mainland who variously identify themselves as "freethinkers," "atheists," "agnostics," "secular humanists," and a variety of other such terms. (I call myself an "ethical nihilist, but I doubt it will gain traction.) I am amused that these non-believers tend to gather quietly (almost surreptitiously) in people's homes (much, I suspect, as early Christians did). If my health holds up, I plan to attend a "4th of July" picnic of secular people (actually July 1 if someone wants to attend) as humans are social animals (even we atheists) and we like to be around our own kind.

Re: Gatherings of non believers

vexen

2012-08-15 12:52 am (UTC)

Thanks for reading! Keep thinking.

You are viewing vexen