Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

[Ryan O'Dine]

Whilst I find the story troubling, I'm not sure I would call it evil. I'm also not clear that Christians agree on whether is was literal or not.

You say that Abraham was willing to kill Isaac - but is that actually true? In verse 5 Abraham speaks:
He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

Also - verse 8:
Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.”

Please do explain.

This seems to undermine the entire point of the story, which is that Abraham was so devoted to God he was willing to sacrifice his own son. If he didn't really believe he was going to sacrifice Isaac, the moral evaporates.

 

[Poem]

This seems to undermine the entire point of the story, which is that Abraham was so devoted to God he was willing to sacrifice his own son. If he didn't really believe he was going to sacrifice Isaac, the moral evaporates.

Maybe Abraham believed God when he said his descendants would come through Isaac.

Hebrews 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That ignores the point. If there really is no sacrifice, then no loyalty/loss is demonstrated.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

You really want to know? Okay.

Those, largely, were the laws of the Old Covenant, and applied to the Old Testament Jews. The sacrifice and ascension of the Messiah fulfilled those laws. Modern Christians aren't bound by them, only by what Jesus said - love God, and love your neighbour. Also, my church is the only true church and all the ones who teach otherwise are literally Satanic. Especially Catholics because the Pope is the Antichrist. And never let a Mormon bless your house because a Mormon blessing is a curse. Also, Bohemian Rhapsody is a prayer to Satan.

They were a fun bunch of people.

But the ideology of modern christianity that Jesus replaced the old testament with the new is a flat out contradiction of the gospels, apart from possibly John, which all reiterated that Jesus was there to fulfil the law, not replace it. Replacing Toranic law was largely a position of Saul of Tarsus who knew nothing of Jesus.

 

[Darat]

?

Apart from Paul all the gospels are "recording" events that the authors have been told happened. That can't be contested, it's there in the oldest Greek version of the gospels. Only Paul claims to have had firsthand knowledge of Jesus.

 

[Poem]

That ignores the point. If here really is no sacrifice, then no loyalty/loss is demonstrated.

Nonetheless, it would seem that in the story, God was satisfied with Abraham.

 

[Thermal]

Apart from Paul all the gospels are "recording" events that the authors have been told happened. That can't be contested, it's there in the oldest Greek version of the gospels. Only Paul claims to have had firsthand knowledge of Jesus.

Tbf, the Gospel of John kinda claims to be writing on behalf of John, who was sitting right in front of them ("Dis is the guy who was there, that Jesus totally was into")

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

No, they're not. Jimmy Carter for example was the most Christian person I have ever encountered. The Plains Babtist Church for which he was a lifetime member was affiliated almost from day one was a Southern Baptist church. That is until about 30 years ago when it dropped affiliation.

They became unaffiliated because of the way scripture was handled by Southern Baptists. Until then Baptist dogma was that scripture was the word of God. But interpretation was left up to the individual. The Southern Baptists changed that by giving that authority to the pastors. So the Plains Church broke away.

I always found this a bit strange. I grew up in Protestant churches. First, Methodist, then a Lutheran church and then two different Baptist churches. Liked the first and totally hated the second. The second had this Pastor that was overly fond of preaching hellfire, damnation. God was more a threat than anything else. They all badmouthed the Catholics. Especially the last one.

But my experience was that the Catholics were the most loving and tolerant of others. They were also on average the most unaware of what the scripture was. As for worshipping Mary and the other Saints, they would say they weren't worshipping them. But that the saints having been human were more relatable. They would say there is a difference between worship and veneration. And to them, statues and paintings weren't graven images, but visual aids.

Growing up a catholic, I must say you got lucky there, catholics can be a deeply intolerant lot and if you're in the priesthood that's an almost guarantee.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I'm not aware of any, no. Plenty of former Christians, but I don't know of a single regular poster who would describe themselves as Christian.

I think theprestige declares himself christian.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I think there was at least one many years ago who frequented the science subforum here. This user (with many posts here) sometimes had to defend his or her (“their” in woke parlance) faith on questions of evolution, but apparently there was no real problem to explain. I can’t remember the user’s name.

Not woke, simply correct grammar.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Nonetheless, it would seem that in the story, God was satisfied with Abraham.

But that is not how Christians relate to the story. They focus on the point that Abraham was willing to murder his son because God commanded him to. What does that say about a God that Christians claim is love incarnate?
Just Google the story. Any internet preacher will praise the obedience of Abraham.

 

[acbytesla]

It does when they agree with it. To be fair, there's a decent amount that's agreeable in Proverbs.

There's also a hell of a lot that's not. Not even close to being agreeable. Mostly, Proverbs tells people to follow God and his instructions. I think Proverbs has one of the worst verses in the bible when it says, "lean not into your own understanding."

 

[acbytesla]

Whilst I find the story troubling, I'm not sure I would call it evil. I'm also not clear that Christians agree on whether is was literal or not.

You say that Abraham was willing to kill Isaac - but is that actually true? In verse 5 Abraham speaks:
He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

Also - verse 8:
Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.”

Please do explain.

You're kidding? Right? Why didn't you include verse 9 to 11?

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”

 

[Poem]

But that is not how Christians relate to the story. They focus on the point that Abraham was willing to murder his son because God commanded him to. What does that say about a God that Christians claim is love incarnate?
Just Google the story. Any internet preacher will praise the obedience of Abraham.

Yet it says in their scriptures that Abraham was confident that Isaac would come through it - whatever occurred.

 

[Poem]

You're kidding? Right? Why didn't you include verse 9 to 11?

As I said, in the story Abraham trusted God - trusted what God said about Isaac :

Genesis 1719
Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

 

[acbytesla]

As I said, in the story Abraham trusted God - trusted what God said about Isaac :

Genesis 1719
Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

So? That doesn't mean that Abraham wasn't going to kill his son. The idea that Abraham wasn't is absurd revisionist apologetics. It's a ridiculous attempt at having it both ways.

The Bible is very clear that God knows our thoughts. The story is totally meaningless if Abraham wasn't prepared to follow God's command.

I've also heard Christians say that Jepthah didn't sacrifice his daughter either.

 

[Poem]

So? That doesn't mean that Abraham wasn't going to kill his son. The idea that Abraham wasn't is absurd revisionist apologetics. It's a ridiculous attempt at having it both ways.

The Bible is very clear that God knows our thoughts. The story is totally meaningless if Abraham wasn't prepared to follow God's command.

I wasn't suggesting that Abraham did not intend to go through with it. If he trusted God's promise of offspring though Isaac...and believed in miracles...then he believed Isaac would be alive following the sacrifice...what ever happened.

 

[acbytesla]

I wasn't suggesting that Abraham did not intend to go through with it. If he trusted God's promise of offspring though Isaac...and believed in miracles...then he believed Isaac would be alive following the sacrifice...what ever happened.

It's a dumb story giving another example of just how awful the God character in the Bible is. Almost as bad as where God sacrifices Job's family in testing Job.

 

[steenkh]

Almost as bad as where God sacrifices Job's family in testing Job.

Yes, he kills off family and slaves just for a wager. Even when I was a child, I couldn’t really understand the moral here. It was part of my Children’s Bible, and it was presented as if everything was made right in the end, but only Job himself was compensated, not all the suffering and deaths of any other people. My teacher nun thought they were compensated in heaven

 

[Manopolus]

Please do explain.

Okay, if I must. So the basic mantra goes that Jesus died for our sins... basically set up as a divine human sacrifice. Okay, so why was that necessary? Is God making the rules, or is He following some unknown set of rules? Why is it necessary?

I don't think I need to explain why murdering people or tricking others into murdering people is bad. Being crucified is bad... that pretty naturally seems to suggest that knowingly causing someone to be crucified is bad.

Well, it's suggested that it was somehow necessary... which doesn't match up with the supposed power of this supposed God who created everything to begin with. That means that we're dealing with an evil God if he demanded an evil act without an appropriate justification that was clearly out of his hands.

And yes, it very much is right in line with the standard human sacrifice model -- to sacrifice other humans to the Gods to appease them so they don't do bad things to us. Jews practiced animal sacrifice in those days, so it's not particularly surprising. That's not anywhere close to an ethical system in my view of things. It's certainly not something anyone would consider today... any group practicing it today would likely be systematically wiped out with no one feeling sorry about it. A typical Christian zealot in today's world would consider it Satanic.

And yet...

That's what your core story is actually about. It very clearly points to a story which is fundamentally an act of human sacrifice committed by God himself on his own son in order to make a contract. Sure, it's sort of backwards, but it clearly points to human sacrifice.

...and on top of that we've got the ritual cannibalism of communion. Sure, it's not actually flesh and blood (unless you're a Catholic who believes it's magically transformed), but it still unquestionably pays homage to cannibalism.

Sorry, but I don't think crucifying people or eating them are things I want to celebrate in a religion. Those things are unequivocally bad. It's admittedly somewhat harmless in the way it's practiced, but that doesn't change the underlying ideas. Yes, early humans got into some rather messed up things (including slavery... and I haven't even got into that part). But we don't condone those sorts of things now (at least... most don't).