Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Wayfarer]

That's right. It should be "a-the-ism" instead of "a-thi-esm" Huh?

[Rían]

That's right. And that is your mistake for the month - better not make any more 'till February!

[FrodoFriend]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I AM NOT HUFFY!

You might like to know, FrodoFriend, that you really weren't far off. I AM an atheist sort of guy. I'm just not an atheist. ]: )

Ha ha!! I knew I was always right!!

The funny thing is, people tend to think I'm a Christian (before I go off on some atheist rant, that is), because I like to quote parts of the Bible at them . . .

[Andúril]

In the Voices thread, RÃ*an made the following assertion:

"Pray to God for help, but because you're hearing voices and it could be confusing, I will tell you that God will NEVER, NEVER tell you to do anything destructive to yourself or others. If you hear something like, this, then it is not from God - DON'T DO IT!" (RÃ*an's emphasis)

The following pericope (amongst many others) came immediately to mind:

Genesis 22:1-2 (NRSV)
After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you."

Verse one explicitly states that it was God (elohiym) who tested Abraham. Verse two explicitly states that God told Abraham to offer Isaac as a burnt offering. This lead me to ask the following of RÃ*an:

Genesis 22:1 -- true or false?

If she holds that verse to be true, RÃ*an must now explain how "God will NEVER, NEVER tell you to do anything destructive to yourself or others" when Genesis 22:2 clearly indicates that God has told Abraham to offer his son as a burnt offering, an act that certainly would have been destructive to Isaac. RÃ*an must also explain how "it is not from God", when Genesis 22:1 directly names elohiym as the "tester".

[BeardofPants]

"Rian must now explain"? What are you? God-Emperor of the Dung Heap? Nobody likes a smug #$%!

[Andúril]

Sticks and stones.

[markedel]

Er it's extremely easy to explain the binding of Isaac as something that Abraham saw as something non-destructive, in fact essential to his worldview and his morals. God's test was not "kill Isaac" God's test was obedience (would he drop the knife when God intervened) and thus acknowledge an aspect of God (elohim as you stated) that was previously unacknowledged.

I just mention this because most Christians are unaware of the uses of classical rabbinic biblical commentary in bolstering their arguments-and there's no point leaving such arguments alone. If you want sling bible verses around I can show you that Abraham eagerly, desperatley wanted to kill Isaac, and even after he realized the purpose of the test still wanted to fulfill the orders, even if at that point he wasn't willing.

[Andúril]

markedel:
Er it's extremely easy to explain the binding of Isaac as something that Abraham saw as something non-destructive, in fact essential to his worldview and his morals.

That's very nice, but the actual purpose of the aqedah of Isaac is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

More:
God's test was not "kill Isaac" God's test was obedience (would he drop the knife when God intervened) and thus acknowledge an aspect of God (elohim as you stated) that was previously unacknowledged.

Once again, the purpose of the test is irrelevant.

More:
If you want sling bible verses around I can show you that Abraham eagerly, desperatley wanted to kill Isaac, and even after he realized the purpose of the test still wanted to fulfill the orders, even if at that point he wasn't willing.

Irrelevant.

Rian stated that God would never "tell you to do anything destructive to yourself or others". According to Genesis 22:2 :

• God told Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice.
• The command was destructive to Isaac.

Rian also proposed that such a command would not have been from God. From Genesis 22:1 :

• It is explicitly stated that Abraham was tested by God.

[markedel]

Mmmm Isaac accepted the fact that he was going to die too. Just pointing out that the much vaunted "God can be proven to be bad" via that portion of the bible is pretty suspect.


Basically to your points:

1. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son because Abraham wanted to sacrifice his son (Abraham loved Ishmael better, a fairly easy thing to support using textual analysis)

2. Isaac accepted the fact that his sacrifice was necessary (therefore non-destructive)

3. The real purpose of the binding was to prove to Abraham that law and faith must coexist in a balance (thus the use of different names of God in different sections of the narrative to demonstrate the two conceptions of relations to God). God wanted to see if Abraham would accept the command to stop and accept his son. That was the test-would Abraham accept the "Elohim" aspect of God, and by extension Isaac, his legitimate heir, and the embodier of that law based relation to God. The test was not kill your son to prove your faith-it was accept that law must exist with faith-no law no faith, no faith-no law.

There are better examples then the aquedah-examples that are much more troubling and problematic, and in areas that I have not done the analysis so I can't offer you a neat interpertation. Such things as exterminating Amalek, conquest of Cannan etc.

[Andúril]

Markedel, virtually your entire reply is irrelevant to my argument. Only the following is relevant:

1. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son

That is my assertion. I'm glad to see that you agree.

[FrodoFriend]

Originally posted by markedel
Mmmm Isaac accepted the fact that he was going to die too. Just pointing out that the much vaunted "God can be proven to be bad" via that portion of the bible is pretty suspect.


Basically to your points:

1. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son because Abraham wanted to sacrifice his son (Abraham loved Ishmael better, a fairly easy thing to support using textual analysis)

2. Isaac accepted the fact that his sacrifice was necessary (therefore non-destructive)

3. The real purpose of the binding was to prove to Abraham that law and faith must coexist in a balance (thus the use of different names of God in different sections of the narrative to demonstrate the two conceptions of relations to God). God wanted to see if Abraham would accept the command to stop and accept his son. That was the test-would Abraham accept the "Elohim" aspect of God, and by extension Isaac, his legitimate heir, and the embodier of that law based relation to God. The test was not kill your son to prove your faith-it was accept that law must exist with faith-no law no faith, no faith-no law.

There are better examples then the aquedah-examples that are much more troubling and problematic, and in areas that I have not done the analysis so I can't offer you a neat interpertation. Such things as exterminating Amalek, conquest of Cannan etc.

1. I was under the impression that Abraham liked Isaac better. In any case, this is an interpretation on both our parts and not Absolute Truth or anything. The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways.

2. Just because it's willing doesn't make it non-destructive. Destructive means destroying something. Whether or not Isaac was willing, his life was still about to be literally destroyed.

3. The purpose is irrelevant. God told Abraham to be destructive.

The real reason that there are these differences between the old scriptures and today's philosophy is that human philosophy, quite naturally, changes throughout the ages along with humanity itself. It's only logical that there would be differences in thinking throughout several thousand years.

P.S. This is not an argument against God, only against the Bible being a literally true in all situations.

[Rían]

Just popped in to say I'll address your post on Monday, Anduril - my in-laws just flew in for a visit today and we're in the middle of dinner preps.

[Artanis]

Sorry to burst in on you all like this, but I found a passage in Letters about Virgin Mary that I do not understand, and perhaps someone here could explain to me:

It was also the Elvish (and uncorrupted Númenórean) view that a 'good' Man would or should die voluntarily by surrender with trust before being compelled (as did Aragorn). This may have been the nature of unfallen Man ; though compulsion would not threaten him: he would desire and ask to be allowed to 'go on' to a higher state. The Assumption of Mary, the only unfallen person, may be regarded as in some ways a simple regaining of unfallen grace and liberty: she asked to be received, and was, having no further function on Earth. Though, of course, even if unfallen she was not 'pre-Fall'. Her destiny (in which she had cooperated) was far higher than that of any 'Man' would have been, had the Fall not occurred.

(my emphasize)

What is this about Mary being 'the only unfallen person'? This part of Christian belief has escaped me. Can someone explain this, please?

[Epona of Rohan]

Hi everyone

Is this thread just for Christianity/the Bible or are there any other religions floating around?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Artanis, I think that is more a Catholic belief than one shared by all Christians.

Epona, this is just overall religious discussion.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Artanis
Sorry to burst in on you all like this, but I found a passage in Letters about Virgin Mary that I do not understand, and perhaps someone here could explain to memy emphasize)

What is this about Mary being 'the only unfallen person'? This part of Christian belief has escaped me. Can someone explain this, please?

This is primarily a Catholic belief. It is called the Immaculate Conception in which Mary was born with out Original Sin (i.e. the sin of Adam and Eve that every other person is born with....causing us to die) because she was chosen to carry Christ/God Himself. It's a special grace granted to her by God.

[Artanis]

Thanks, Gwaimir Windgem and Arien the Maia! So you are saying that according to Catholic belief Mary was born 'immortal', but freely gave up her life after her son was dead? I understand better then why JRRT made a comparison to the Fall of Men and the Numenorean custom of dying voluntarily.

[Arien the Maia]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Artanis
Thanks, Gwaimir Windgem and Arien the Maia! So you are saying that according to Catholic belief Mary was born 'immortal', but freely gave up her life after her son was dead? I understand better then why JRRT made a comparison to the Fall of Men and the Numenorean custom of dying voluntarily. [/QUOTE

Mary wasn't born immortal because, like Tolkien says, she was born after the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is every human's destiny to die now because of what Adam and Eve did. Originally we weren't designed to die. (kinda like the whole Finrod and Andreth story where Andreth says that men weren't ever suposed to die.) Mary had to die and she did. According to Catholic tradition, God, raised her from the dead, body and soul, before her body began to decompose. This is known as the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

[Artanis]

OK, so Mary wasn't pre-Fall. I remember now that Mary was mentioned in a comment to the Athrabeth also, I better find it and read it again. Thank you again, Arien the Maia

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Artanis
OK, so Mary wasn't pre-Fall. I remember now that Mary was mentioned in a comment to the Athrabeth also, I better find it and read it again. Thank you again, Arien the Maia

Always glad to help!