God and love?

[SpheresOfBalance]

NO, THE POINT IS IT UNDERMINES BOTH OF OUR ARGUMENTS!!!!!
SO FINALLY YOU ADMIT IT, THANK YOU!!!!!!
YOU CAN'T KNOW, IT'S JUST WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.
THANKS FOR FALLING INTO MY TRAP!!!!
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT ONE WAY MY FRIEND!!!

I'll give you points for a humorous reply.

But seriously, you still haven't gotten the point. I was trying to undermine your insistence that there was no way Abraham's almost-killing if Isaac was "sacrifice."

So when you undermine yourself, you do my job for me. I wasn't saying that, unequivocally, Abraham was making a sacrifice, but that we could try to put ourselves in his shoes and see how it might qualify as such (contra to your insistence that there was only one way to interpret it). When it comes to my argument, all you've done is agree that I was right to try and approach the situation from a standpoint that is not grounded in "today's visions/etc." So you undermine your insistence that there is only one way to understand Abraham's act—yours—and support my counter that we can try to get in his shoes, as it were, and see it from a different perspective.

I"M DONE, I REST MY CASE!!!

This implies you had one to begin with. You didn't.

RELIGIOUS NUTTERS ARE ALL IMAGINATION, JUST LIKE A CHILD THAT BELIEVES IN, "PUNCHING SANTA CLAUS," ER, UUH, I MEAN, "SANTA CLAUS!"

What does my avatar about Muslims who consider Santa Claus to be blasphemy have to do with anything?

And who exactly are "my kind?" Apostates? No, we don't normally excuse what Abraham did.

Believers of a god as presented in the bible, no?

<snip>

Believers One final thing, NO! I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS NO CREATOR, HOW COULD I POSSIBLY, I'M JUST A PUNY HUMAN ANIMAL, JUST LIKE ALL THE REST, ONLY CAPABLE OF KNOWING MY TIME, NOT THAT OF OTHERS??? JUST THAT THERE IS NO GOD!!! THAT BOOK, AND ALL THAT SUPPORT IT, IS SO OBVIOUSLY B.S.!!!

Actually I've always been inclined to "believe," that there is a creator, that it's electromagnetic energy. You know, that which holds all of the universe together!

"Luke, use the FORCE!"

So you still don't know what "apostate" means. And now you've shown that you don't even understand why I asked the question.

No "you" missed it. Abraham is just one of many many instances of talk in the bible about "sacrifice." It's the bibles use of "sacrifice" that I have my beef with, who gives a crap about Abraham, I thought I made that extremely clear. To all but the extremely daft evidently.

Remember this thread is about God and Love. And clearly the bibles use of "sacrifice" shows a side of, "supposed" god activity that shows absolutely "NO LOVE." Such that just like "Military Intelligence" that can be said to be an oxymoron so can "Gods Love". Sacrifice can only be of the self, as much as humans are capable of doing so, of course. And yet your god is so selfish that he cannot sacrifice his infinite self for his finite creations.

You've lost, admit it. Now stop trying to bait and switch, it cheapens you!

That bit that you say undermines my argument undermines both of our arguments. AS NEITHER OF US COULD POSSIBLY KNOW THE TRUTH OF ABRAHAM'S SITUATION. We are a people of a far far different time. So both our assertions are only a guessing game. Though you bible thumpers would insist, all that you can't possibly know are facts, while anyones equally subjective speculation, that challenges yours is surely wrong.

You people slay me, with all your mind reading, clairvoyance, and other impossible feats. I know, your god made you do it, he came to you in a dream, right. yada yada yada!

[ReliStuPhD]

Apologies for the long-form responses. I'm not entirely sure what to edit out.

Since I have no job, I may as well dominate you over the internet:

Bold words.

This is you saying I should not believe in transcendental philosophies, period. Ive seen mr. craig, he's too hung up on debating you people. It's a waste of time. The arguments below will make my position on this clear, and I will say no more after this.

Of course not. You're confusing "transcendental" with "rational." This is a basic category error. A transcendental reality can be entirely rational. It can "accord with reason or logic." "Transcendental and "rational" are not mutually exclusive.

PS Who is "you people?" You know I'm not an atheist, right? That Craig is actually debating the very same people I do, and often from the same position (that theism is rational)?

BTW, the flying spaggheti monster is an idol, and not God - you already know my position on this.

If belief in god is irrational, as you claim, then you would have no more justification to believe in God than you would in the FSM. That was the point you missed. Irrational beliefs, almost by definition, cannot be justified.

Reality is apprehended without preconception. There is no logic to it; you apply logic, as an ideal, after perception. Your perception; the experience of life, is not a rational experience. For example, an orange is not rational.

You don't understand how that would work, do you? If I manage to sneak a pair of rose-colored contacts on you while you're asleep, what then do you make of the fact that your white sheets are suddenly pink when you wake up? If reality is "apprehended without preconception" than you will have no other recourse than to accept that they somehow changed colors (though magic, by the way, since you hold that reality is not rational). After all, you cannot avail yourself of any preconceptions, can you? You would have to distrust those things because, as you say, that is not how reality is apprehended. To continue the example, you might also notice that your eyes feel differently but, because reality is "apprehended without preconception" you will have to believe that's reality since it's what you apprehend and you cannot appeal to any other preconceptions. Someone who understands that reality is correctly understood following rational inquiry will ask why things have changed and then, through a series of logical steps, will come to apprehend the actual reality of the sheets and itchy eyes: a trick played by someone with rose-colored contacts. (And just in case you think you can get around the rose-colored contacts example, what would you make of your altered perceptions while under the affects of a heavy fever. When the nurse said "you were delusional and talking about giant spiders crawling up your leg," you would have to argue that she was entirely incorrect because, after all, "reality is apprehended without preconditions." And since you apprehended the reality of giant spiders crawling up your leg but could not appeal to any "preconditions," you would have no other recourse than continue believing in those spiders.)

I really wish I could think of the classical example on this point, but it escapes. Perhaps Immanuel Can remembers.

Why argue at all? To dispel arguments. I see my arguments more as anti-arguments; like black holes of thought crunching incorrectness back into a single point of truth.

If reality is not rational, engaging in arguments is pointless. You cannot convince someone of irrationality through rational discourse (which is what "argument" would mean in this particular forum). The piece about black holes is just silly.

"an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude. "
axiomatic, not rational

Axioms are rational. That's one of the reasons they're axioms. We don't hold irrational things to be "general truths" because there's no way to evaluate their veracity.

Axioms may be broken down into rational components, but the axiom itself is not rational; you can hold an axiom without any rational justification. That axioms are accepted by a most sound rational argument is incorrect.

Yes, that's true. So I'll admit my error and say instead that axioms are the bases for reasoned argumentation.

An axiom is accepted for being the strongest moral position.

No. Axioms are not evaluated by their moral position, though they are certainly useful in arriving at strong moral positions.

By and large truth is not rational.

Sorry, but this may qualify as the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

IS art rational? Is creativity rational? You don't understand truth.

And what is true about art? Creativity? By all means, enlighten me as to what is true about these things.

IF the universe is rational, it is repetitive; it is not transcendent; the same events repeat themselves, in circulation, for eternity. Nothing changes. Therefor life is meaningless, IF life is strictly rational. But, if you stop and reflect, you will realize life is not meaningless.

Once again, you completely fail to understand what "rational" means. If the universe is rational, it means it "accords with reason and logic." Pretty much ever field of scientific inquiry has shown this to be true over and over and over. If the universe were irrational, we'd not be able to land humans on the moon, use computers to type papers, use typewriters to type papers, etc. No, the universe is very clearly ordered and appears, for all we can tell, to proceed in a manner that we can describe using reason and logic.

Whether I bother to put the time to bring all my statements into mathematical perfection is beside the point, and dependent on my mood - I'm just not feeling it right now.

"Mathematical perfection?" That's aiming far too high for you. Just settle for basic coherence.

I don't think you're speaking very well here.

I'm speaking quite well. With the possible exception of the point about axioms, you're not being coherent.

I'm not going to bother with the other inanities you've written. If you truly believe truth is not rational, there is absolutely no helping you. You're also WAYYYYY outside the bounds of anything resembling orthodox Christianity. Perhaps even more importantly, you've just said that Jesus (and, by extension, God) is irrational, insofar as the Bible maintains "he is the way, the truth, and the light." Now, if you really want to double-down on that, then you need to fear for your very soul, because your creator and redeemer are not rational beings so you have no guarantees whatsoever (an irrational being might just decide to toss you into Hell for shits and giggles). If you want to hold that belief in God is neither logical nor reasonable, go for it. The only thing you're undermining is yourself, and the atheists here will have you for lunch (and rightly so). It's hard to believe you're so wholly ignorant of Christian thought over the past 2,000 years. You really should be a student of your own tradition.

What matters is what the belief accomplishes. The belief itself is irrational, but its implications are rational. A belief is known by its implications. The rest of what you said is a childish mood swing. You romanticize things.

Sorry, but romantization is effectively the opposite of rationality. And the belief itself is quite rational. If belief in God is not rational, then we're back to where we've started: the atheists win.

Beliefs are something people cling to because they're what make them happy; people are passionate and idealistic about their beliefs.
As much as you appear well informed and educated about your beliefs, truly you believe in them because they satisfy you - you are satisfied with apathy, ambivalence, skepticism, and a lack of will power.

You and the atheists share a great deal in common on this point, it seems. Personally, I'll stick with rational beliefs.

I'm happy to continue this conversation, but just be forewarned that as long as you hold to the belief that truth is not rational I won't be able to take anything you say seriously (which is generally how I approach irrationality that is not attached to numbers). So maybe you'll want to back off this silly train of thought and just admit that truth is rational, and that if God revealed "Him"self to humans, the concomitant belief in God would be rational as well. (And if you don't think God revealed "him"self to humans, you're not a Christian, so there's that.)

Feel free to keep talking, I'm not very interested in what you have to say.

All your responses above to the contrary.

PS Your "mood" is somewhat irrelevant here. If you're not in the "mood" to be coherent, you should probably just forgo posting here. We already have enough nonsense to go around.

I'm not interested in being dragged down further into this repetitive babbling madness, I have things I need to do.

We've come a long way from "Since I have no job, I may as well dominate you over the internet" in just one post.

[ReliStuPhD]

No "you" missed it. Abraham is just one of many many instances of talk in the bible about "sacrifice." It's the bibles use of "sacrifice" that I have my beef with, who gives a crap about Abraham, I thought I made that extremely clear. To all but the extremely daft evidently.

Oh please. Stop trying to move the goalposts. You absolutely "give a crap" about Abraham because that's your bread-and-butter example to show how Biblical sacrifice isn't sacrifice.

Remember this thread is about God and Love. And clearly the bibles use of "sacrifice" shows a side of, "supposed" god activity that shows absolutely "NO LOVE." ... Sacrifice can only be of the self, as much as humans are capable of doing so, of course. And yet your god is so selfish that he cannot sacrifice his infinite self for his finite creations.

As I have said multiple times (and will continue to say until you understand it), killing one's child (assuming one loved that child) could absolutely be self sacrifice. That you cannot understand that sacrifice can operate on more than a physical level is stunning.

You've lost, admit it. Now stop trying to bait and switch, it cheapens you!

That bit that you say undermines my argument undermines both of our arguments. AS NEITHER OF US COULD POSSIBLY KNOW THE TRUTH OF ABRAHAM'S SITUATION. We are a people of a far far different time. So both our assertions are only a guessing game.

And yet you continue to insist that you know the truth of Abraham's situation; that is was not sacrifice. Surely you can see how you're undermining yourself?
SoB: "You say Abraham was unselfish, not true"
SoB: "NEITHER OF US COULD POSSIBLY KNOW THE TRUTH OF ABRAHAM'S SITUATION"

If you cannot know the truth of Abraham's situation, how can you possibly know that his almost-killing of Isaac was not a sacrifice on his part? Don't you see how simple that is?

And, just to set the record straight, I have not said that I know unequivocally that Abraham's almost-killing of Isaac was sacrifice. I have said that, as a father, I can see how it could be. That is vastly different from your insistence that it was not. I have presented a possible interpretation. You have presented (what you believe to be) a fact. Your statement that neither us can know the truth of the situation does not undermine my position, because I've only offered a possible interpretation. The only one making a truth-claim about Abraham is you.

[SpheresOfBalance]

No "you" missed it. Abraham is just one of many many instances of talk in the bible about "sacrifice." It's the bibles use of "sacrifice" that I have my beef with, who gives a crap about Abraham, I thought I made that extremely clear. To all but the extremely daft evidently.

Oh please. Stop trying to move the goalposts. You absolutely "give a crap" about Abraham because that's your bread-and-butter example to show how Biblical sacrifice isn't sacrifice.
How in the hell can I argue a point, when my opposition argues it for me. Goodness Friggin' Grief, stop trying to speak for me. How sacrifice has been used in the bible is exactly "one" of my problems with that farce of a text. I could really give a crap about Abraham, seriously. Either take me for the extremely honest person that I always try to be, or I''ll have no recourse but to stop participating in this pseudo argument, that is in fact only you arguing with your false projection of me. Cool?

Remember this thread is about God and Love. And clearly the bibles use of "sacrifice" shows a side of, "supposed" god activity that shows absolutely "NO LOVE." ... Sacrifice can only be of the self, as much as humans are capable of doing so, of course. And yet your god is so selfish that he cannot sacrifice his infinite self for his finite creations.

As I have said multiple times (and will continue to say until you understand it), killing one's child (assuming one loved that child) could absolutely be self sacrifice. That you cannot understand that sacrifice can operate on more than a physical level is stunning.
You've missed it, I'm a father too. I understand fully that it "could" be "seen" as such. But I submit that those that would see it as such are of weak mind, ignorant, of no real intellect. To choose a god over a child is still seen as extremely selfish, by those that REALLY love their child, and are actually of extremely sound mind.

What I'm saying is that as to Abraham one could never know whether it's true or not, that any characterization of his motives are just that, characterizations (rationalizations), by those that absolutely could not know, yet need to believe or their "faith" (gamble, belief) crumbles. So their belief is born of their own necessity, not necessarily the facts! As a matter of fact, my vision actually has more substance to it, in terms of the logic in those times, than the commonly accepted belief.

You've lost, admit it. Now stop trying to bait and switch, it cheapens you!

Yes, the eye roll is you watching me pass you by.

That bit that you say undermines my argument undermines both of our arguments. AS NEITHER OF US COULD POSSIBLY KNOW THE TRUTH OF ABRAHAM'S SITUATION. We are a people of a far far different time. So both our assertions are only a guessing game.

And yet you continue to insist that you know the truth of Abraham's situation; that is was not sacrifice. Surely you can see how you're undermining yourself?
SoB: "You say Abraham was unselfish, not true"
SoB: "NEITHER OF US COULD POSSIBLY KNOW THE TRUTH OF ABRAHAM'S SITUATION"

If you cannot know the truth of Abraham's situation, how can you possibly know that his almost-killing of Isaac was not a sacrifice on his part? Don't you see how simple that is?
If you cannot know the truth of Abraham's situation, how can you possibly know that his almost-killing of Isaac was a sacrifice on his part? Don't you see how simple that is?

Now do you see? My argument killed both our arguments, as I INTENDED, and you fell right into it! Thank you for being honest, "then, originally." You're reneging now, I'll overlook as long as you concede.


And, just to set the record straight, I have not said that I know unequivocally that Abraham's almost-killing of Isaac was sacrifice. I have said that, as a father, I can see how it could be. That is vastly different from your insistence that it was not. I have presented a possible interpretation.
As have I! My point from the very beginning is that god fearing people are "inclined" to believe your way, because it serves their purpose, otherwise the bible if full of inconsistencies that prove their belief is a sham, merely wishful thinking. You biblical believing people have to watch those conflicts of interests, as they are so telling of your mental state.

You have presented (what you believe to be) a fact. Your statement that neither us can know the truth of the situation does not undermine my position, because I've only offered a possible interpretation. The only one making a truth-claim about Abraham is you.

Incorrect, reread from the beginning. Not that I'm sure I haven't made a mistake, because I haven't reread from the beginning, but I'm pretty sure at this point that I haven't, but if I have know that it's only a mistake, and nothing more. My point is that you people frame things contained in the bible as you do simply because it serves your interests, not because they are knowable as facts. And therein lies the problem with your, so called, faith.

Faith indeed, I'd call it extreme wishful thinking!

[ReliStuPhD]

I'll just skip to the parts that matter:

Now do you see? My argument killed both our arguments, as I INTENDED, and you fell right into it! Thank you for being honest, "then, originally." You're reneging now, I'll overlook as long as you concede.

Once again, I've never said Abraham's sacrifice was unselfish. If I have, quote it here. YAt every turn, I have spoken only of a possibility, not definite. In fact, I even acknowledged several pages earlier that "we [apostates] don't normally excuse what Abraham did." Perhaps that's not explicit enough for you, but I think that's a pretty clear indication I'm not holding to the idea that Abraham's sacrifice can't be thought of as anything other than unselfish.

And, just to set the record straight, I have not said that I know unequivocally that Abraham's almost-killing of Isaac was sacrifice. I have said that, as a father, I can see how it could be. That is vastly different from your insistence that it was not. I have presented a possible interpretation.

As have I! My point from the very beginning is that god fearing people are "inclined" to believe your way, because it serves their purpose, otherwise the bible if full of inconsistencies that prove their belief is a sham, merely wishful thinking.

From your various posts:
"For instance Abraham didn't love his child, he was insane, he made no sacrifice, he murdered his child."
"Sacrifice by anyone can only be considered as such, if the person that is said to sacrifice, denies himself something. ... to deny your child his life is not a sacrifice."
"His selfishness chose his god, because he believed his god could do much more for him than his son. Very selfish indeed."
"Sacrifice can only be of the self, as much as humans are capable of doing so, of course."

None of those quotes strikes me as you offering "a possible interpretation." Rather, they are definitive statements that preclude the possibility of his sacrifice being unselfish. Now, if that's just you getting caught up in the debate, leaving out a word here or there, forgetting to qualify overly-strong statements, feeling passionately about a subject, fine. I am perfectly happy to accept that the direct quotes of yours I've listed here are ones you might like to go back and edit to read a bit less stridently. I'll also accept that you meant them then but have now changed your mind and accepted you don't know for certain that Abraham's sacrifice wasn't unselfish. Any of those outcomes are fine. What is not fine, I think, is to read over those comments and say "No, those comments should not give you the impression I was making unequivocal statements on this topic." Own your statements, even if you retract or clarify them later. No shame in backing off something. I have to do it all the time.

Not that I'm sure I haven't made a mistake, because I haven't reread from the beginning, but I'm pretty sure at this point that I haven't, but if I have know that it's only a mistake, and nothing more. My point is that you people frame things contained in the bible as you do simply because it serves your interests, not because they are knowable as facts. And therein lies the problem with your, so called, faith.

OK, cool. That works for me. I'll take the comments above as mistakes and we can then settle on what I take to be a place where we agree: Abraham could possibly have sought to sacrifice Isaac in an act of selflessness, but it is equally plausible (perhaps even more so) to hold that it was a selfish act on the part of Abraham. The theological piece of whether God commanded that or not, and so on, I'll leave to you. Not really my cup of tea as an apostate.

PS There's that "you people" again. So...

Faith indeed, I'd call it extreme wishful thinking!

Again, I would point you to the definition of "apostate." I still don't think you quite understand me on this point.

[uwot]

In Christian thought, Jesus Christ IS God. (You may not agree, but hear me out).

It's not for me to disagree about that. I can only say that when I was being taught christian thought, nobody put it like that. I remember things like 'Forgive them father, for they know not what they do.' So it seems to me that you have a particular take on christian thought, which I'm fairly certain isn't universal.

If God sends Himself to save you, and you crucify him...who's that on?

The omnipotent, omniscient one would be my guess.

And if He knows you're going to do it, but comes to save you anyway, how does that change the picture?

Hardly. It is still preposterous.

Love is sacrifice. It means the giving up of oneself and one's privileges for the good of another.

No; that's just sacrifice. Love is sharing; it means having a relationship that enriches both partners; if love is just sacrifice, how is anyone to love you back?

And that's true in human affairs too. When one gets married, one (at least promises to) be committed to "forsaking all others," which means an exclusive commitment to one person. That's a sacrifice.

Not if it's worth it. Has it occurred to you that by 'sacrificing' your love to god, you have lost the ability to love another human being? Do you think god put us on this Earth simply to ignore it? That is a serious question, I asked it before.

And when parents have children, they know that it's going to cost them...not just in money, but in time, energy, options and probably heartache. But they do it.

You say "they". Do you have children? I do, and while I would make any sacrifice for them, should any god choose to test my faith by asking me to sacrifice them, I would throw away my immortal soul, rather than spend one second in the presence of such a disgusting entity.

Now, I don't mean to belittle human love too much, but it is what it is: and let's face it, it's rarely fully self-sacrificial.

Of course it isn't, that would be ridiculous. Human love is, or should be, mutually rewarding. I would suggest the same would be true of any love your god feels.

Usually we're looking at the other person to do something for us, or to live up to some expectation, some bargain; and when that stops, our love diminishes a bit. But in some cases, such in case of perhaps, a truly loving parent, it may go further. For someone one has genuine reason to love, one may even agree to lay down one's life.

Yep.

But who will die for a bad person?

Is your argument that god incarnate, Jesus, as some people think, died when he was crucified? Isn't the whole point that he came back to life? How is dying for a bit different to not dying?

And not someone just a little naughty, but rather the sort of people who want nothing to do with you, and in fact would gladly spit on you, insult everything decent and nail you to a piece of wood to put you on display. How many people would die for other people who were like that?

How many people have the ability to die for a couple of days and spring back to life. I'd be more inclined to give up my lie for a couple of days than the cold pit of eternity, but as I said, I would do so for my children.

The point, then, is that God's love is far beyond our human frame of reference. It puts Himself on the line for the good of those who care nothing for Him. So human love is good, yes; but it's not "good" like that. That simply transcends human love.

So: your argument is that god's love transcends human love because he will lay down his life for people who care little for him. Is your god dead, then? And what of those people who remain unimpressed? What happens to their souls?

And by the way: I am entirely sincere.

[Immanuel Can]

it seems to me that you have a particular take on christian thought, which I'm fairly certain isn't universal.

It is universal to Trinitarian thought, though not to various non-Trinitarian monotheisms.

The omnipotent, omniscient one would be my guess.

Then you cannot believe in human freedom. For then we would have to bear responsibility for what we did. You can choose Determinism, but I don't believe in it. And I don't think you do either, for then you would see no point in debate: nobody could choose to change his or her mind.

if love is just sacrifice, how is anyone to love you back?

Sacrificially too. But you can't force them or bargain with them to make them give you that sort of love. It has to be their choice.

Has it occurred to you that by 'sacrificing' your love to god, you have lost the ability to love another human being?

Quite the contrary. Anyone who knows the love of God is freed to love others sacrificially too. It is not by chance that Christians and Jews are by far the most statistically charitable people on the face of the planet.

Do you think god put us on this Earth simply to ignore it? That is a serious question, I asked it before.

Of course not. But that doesn't follow from anything I've said, so I'm uncertain why you even suppose we'd think that.

I would suggest the same would be true of any love your god feels.

Well, Christians don't think so. And the Bible says not. But you can, of course, believe whatever you wish about that.

Is your argument that god incarnate, Jesus, as some people think, died when he was crucified? Isn't the whole point that he came back to life? How is dying for a bit different to not dying?

His death was man's verdict on Christ. His resurrection was God's verdict.

So: your argument is that god's love transcends human love because he will lay down his life for people who care little for him. Is your god dead, then?

See "resurrection."

And what of those people who remain unimpressed? What happens to their souls?
And by the way: I am entirely sincere.

We all make our choices. And we cannot blame God if He honours them when we do. It simply shows how very seriously He treats human choice, and how sincerely He offers mankind freedom to love Him...or not.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'll just skip to the parts that matter:

Now do you see? My argument killed both our arguments, as I INTENDED, and you fell right into it! Thank you for being honest, "then, originally." You're reneging now, I'll overlook as long as you concede.

Once again, I've never said Abraham's sacrifice was unselfish. If I have, quote it here. YAt every turn, I have spoken only of a possibility, not definite. In fact, I even acknowledged several pages earlier that "we [apostates] don't normally excuse what Abraham did." Perhaps that's not explicit enough for you, but I think that's a pretty clear indication I'm not holding to the idea that Abraham's sacrifice can't be thought of as anything other than unselfish.

And, just to set the record straight, I have not said that I know unequivocally that Abraham's almost-killing of Isaac was sacrifice. I have said that, as a father, I can see how it could be. That is vastly different from your insistence that it was not. I have presented a possible interpretation.

As have I! My point from the very beginning is that god fearing people are "inclined" to believe your way, because it serves their purpose, otherwise the bible if full of inconsistencies that prove their belief is a sham, merely wishful thinking.

From your various posts:
"For instance Abraham didn't love his child, he was insane, he made no sacrifice, he murdered his child."
"Sacrifice by anyone can only be considered as such, if the person that is said to sacrifice, denies himself something. ... to deny your child his life is not a sacrifice."
"His selfishness chose his god, because he believed his god could do much more for him than his son. Very selfish indeed."
"Sacrifice can only be of the self, as much as humans are capable of doing so, of course."

None of those quotes strikes me as you offering "a possible interpretation." Rather, they are definitive statements that preclude the possibility of his sacrifice being unselfish. Now, if that's just you getting caught up in the debate, leaving out a word here or there, forgetting to qualify overly-strong statements,

feeling passionately about a subject, fine.
Of course this is me, I'm very passionate about a lot of things, at least those I see, that are very important.

I am perfectly happy to accept that the direct quotes of yours I've listed here are ones you might like to go back and edit to read a bit less stridently.
I may in 'some' cases in terms of your and my exchange, but largely I was taking on the more common argument I've encountered, that the story is literal. And still I say that, to kill something other than yourself, is no sacrifice relative to killing yourself.

I'll also accept that you meant them then but have now changed your mind and accepted you don't know for certain that Abraham's sacrifice wasn't unselfish.
No, I'll never change my mind, of that you can be certain. I've meant from the beginning that Abraham's potential actions/actions were 'only ever' selfish. As to his thoughts on the matter, one cannot know for sure. This is the way it is, as I can only see it:

Your god tells you to kill your son;

If you do comply with your god, and your reason is that you fear/love your god more than your son, then you are being selfish. And that's the only reason I could see one doing it, if one loves his son 'at all.' Nothing else is possible. Tell me otherwise.

If you don't comply with your god, and your reason is that you want your son to support your wants, then you are indeed being selfish.

If you don't comply with your god, and your reason is that you want your son to support your wants and have his own life, then you are not being as selfish, yet still are, as which reason reigns supreme, honestly, and even still.

If you don't comply with your god, and your reason is that you 'only' want your son to have his own life, exclusive of your needs, then you are not being selfish.

And that's the only way I see it! Formulate another reason such as I have done, if you can, without seeming unloving of your son. I don't think it's possible.

Now it's laid out for you, do you now understand?

You said:

Far it be it from me to defend Abraham, but as a father, killing my son because God commanded it would most definitely be considering other needs before my own.

I disagree 100%! You would not be seeing to anyones/things needs only ever their/it's wants or desires.

There is a big difference between 'needs' and 'wants/desires'. Surely any god would not actually 'need' anything from it's creations to survive. It may have wants/desires for it's self image, not existence, but then what does that say about the god? Not very much, not omnipotent at all, I'd say. If it's self image is so shallow, frail, then it's no better than a selfish human, to command death of a finite creation for the glory of it's infinite self image. God? Are you kidding me?

As before, I rest my case, you have no leg to stand on. You can try if you want, and I shall show you your errors.

Any of those outcomes are fine. What is not fine, I think, is to read over those comments and say "No, those comments should not give you the impression I was making unequivocal statements on this topic." Own your statements, even if you retract or clarify them later. No shame in backing off something. I have to do it all the time.

Not that I'm sure I haven't made a mistake, because I haven't reread from the beginning, but I'm pretty sure at this point that I haven't, but if I have know that it's only a mistake, and nothing more. My point is that you people frame things contained in the bible as you do simply because it serves your interests, not because they are knowable as facts. And therein lies the problem with your, so called, faith.

OK, cool. That works for me. I'll take the comments above as mistakes and we can then settle on what I take to be a place where we agree: Abraham could possibly have sought to sacrifice Isaac in an act of selflessness, but it is equally plausible (perhaps even more so) to hold that it was a selfish act on the part of Abraham. The theological piece of whether God commanded that or not, and so on, I'll leave to you. Not really my cup of tea as an apostate.

PS There's that "you people" again. So...
No, I read up on you apostates, and it's pretty vague. It leaves room for both atheists, and theists of another type. Which are you? This is just a side bar as far as I'm concerned, please don't only address this, ignoring the more important matter above about "reason," as in the end, that's all that really matters.

Faith indeed, I'd call it extreme wishful thinking!

Again, I would point you to the definition of "apostate." I still don't think you quite understand me on this point.

[ReliStuPhD]

Of course this is me, I'm very passionate about a lot of things, at least those I see, that are very important.

And I'll never fault you (or anyoen for that). It's a good thing.

I may in 'some' cases in terms of your and my exchange, but largely I was taking on the more common argument I've encountered, that the story is literal. And still I say that, to kill something other than yourself, is no sacrifice relative to killing yourself.

Well, I'm fine with that being your take on things. I would just have to disagree. In some cases, I think it could be a self-sacrifice. That said, I imagine those cases are rare.

No, I'll never change my mind, of that you can be certain. I've meant from the beginning that Abraham's potential actions/actions were 'only ever' selfish. As to his thoughts on the matter, one cannot know for sure.

Hmmm. That's an interesting angle. So if I understand you correctly, Abraham could have believed his was self-sacrifice (e.g. he would rather have not sacrificed Isaac, etc), but that's ultimately beside the point. His beliefs are irrelevant. If so, that's a different argument and I'm less likely to puch back on that one. I might even assent.

This is the way it is, as I can only see it:

Your god tells you to kill your son;

If you do comply with your god, and your reason is that you fear/love your god more than your son, then you are being selfish. And that's the only reason I could see one doing it, if one loves his son 'at all.' Nothing else is possible. Tell me otherwise.

Ah, so maybe not the last, eh? Well, all I can say is that one can love one's son tremendously but love one's God a bit more. In those cases, sacrificing one's son could certainly be a self-sacrifice (not bodily, of course, but mentally and emotionally). I think we'll probably just have to disagree on this point.

And that's the only way I see it! Formulate another reason such as I have done, if you can, without seeming unloving of your son. I don't think it's possible.

Your other three seem reaosnable enough to me, so I guess the problem I now see is that you have no room for some sort of "I love my son but I love God more." And you know what? I can understand how that's hard. And since this has gone on perhaps too long, I'm willing to go ahead and (as above) just say we'll have to disagree here, but not because I think you're just dead wrong, but because I can understand how it's hard to see how Abraham obeying God by killing Isaac just can't be self-sacrifice. It's certainly a difficult thing to make sense of.

Now it's laid out for you, do you now understand?

yes, I believe so. I still disagree, but your position is clearer than before, to the point I can even respect it.

Far it be it from me to defend Abraham, but as a father, killing my son because God commanded it would most definitely be considering other needs before my own.

I disagree 100%! You would not be seeing to anyones/things needsonly ever their/it's wants or desires.

Ahhh, interesting rebuttal. And yes, since it came from God, it would be a desire, not a need. But surely divine desires are different from human ones. Nevertheless, you make a good point.

There is a big difference between 'needs' and 'wants/desires'. Surely any god would not actually 'need' anything from it's creations to survive. It may have wants/desires for it's self image, not existence, but then what does that say about the god? Not very much, not omnipotent at all, I'd say. If it's self image is so shallow, frail, then it's no better than a selfish human, to command death of a finite creation for the glory of it's infinite self image. God? Are you kidding me?

In a limited sense, I agree. God does not need. That said, God's wants, even if we don't understand them are certainly better than we selfish humans. But, as I've said above, I don't take the Biblical narrative to literal true in this case, so that's how I reconcile this story with my understanding of God.

As before, I rest my case, you have no leg to stand on. You can try if you want, and I shall show you your errors.

You've certainly tried, but have failed to do so. That said, the above qualifications to put your position in a different light. At this point, I think we've been talking past one another more than anything. I think you're still going to be in a tough spot of explaining the desires of an omniscient God from the standpoint of a finite human understanding of events, but that was ultimately not what I was arguing. If you were not saying that Abraham could not have understood the killing of Isaac as self-sacrifice, then we've not really been disagreeing. If you're just saying it's not self-sacrifice, even if Abraham saw it that way, we've got a different debate on our hands and I'm much less likely to dispute your point.

No, I read up on you apostates, and it's pretty vague. It leaves room for both atheists, and theists of another type.

Well, apostasy is not vague. It's where the apostate ends up that's open. Yes, I am a theist. My complaint was that you appeared to be lumping in with those who believed in the Christian God. I don't mind being accused of being a theist (because I am). It's being accused of being a Christian theist that I dislike.

[SpheresOfBalance]

This is the way it is, as I can only see it:

Your god tells you to kill your son;

If you do comply with your god, and your reason is that you fear/love your god more than your son, then you are being selfish. And that's the only reason I could see one doing it, if one loves his son 'at all.' Nothing else is possible. Tell me otherwise.

Ah, so maybe not the last, eh? Well, all I can say is that one can love one's son tremendously but love one's God a bit more. In those cases, sacrificing one's son could certainly be a self-sacrifice (not bodily, of course, but mentally and emotionally). I think we'll probably just have to disagree on this point.

You're just being stubborn, and I understand, giving is hard, both in a public forum and with something one has clung to for so long. But seriously you said?: In Red Above then you say: In Blue Above. That makes no logical sense! Why? Because if you love one thing more, choosing it over another that is less loved, then that can only be characterized as being selfish, as you're serving that which you love the most. Your being unselfish would be you picking that which you loved less, sacrificing that which you loved more. Again I'm speaking relatively, which is all we have here, as two things are loved. To be considered unselfish one would have to choose the less loved of two things loved. If he chooses the most loved then he serves himself more. Logic dictates my answer over yours, IMHO.

But I will say this, of all the people thus far, that I've argued with, here at the PNF, you are the most gracious, of them all. This speaks of your character, and it's one that I value above all others. I, in my coarseness, aspire to be your type person, not because it's you, rather that you exemplify that which I decided long ago, was of a superior way to proceed. I bow to your way of interaction! Not as a winner or loser, ever, only ever as one that sees humility, as a virtue held above all others, especially in terms of argument. Or so it might surely seem, and so it should, to my way of thinking. I see that it allows for a more fluid learning environment.

Oh and thanks for staying with me, putting up with my coarseness for so long! You're a Gentleman and a Scholar, surely!

[ReliStuPhD]

Because if you love one thing more, choosing it over another that is less loved, then that can only be characterized as being selfish, as you're serving that which you love the most. Your being unselfish would be you picking that which you loved less, sacrificing that which you loved more.

You really need to look up the definition of sacrifice. It is not "giving up the thing you love most." It is "the act of giving up something that you want to keep especially in order to get or do something else or to help someone." Now, if you think Abraham didn't want to keep Isaac, then yes, that's not sacrifice. If he did want to keep Isaac (as I would my son), but sacrificed him anyway, that is absolutely the meaning of the word. Abraham gives up something precious (or was willing to). But fine. Maybe you can't understand how that constitutes a sacrifice. At this point, what's clear is that we're not going to get anywhere further. You've made up your mind and, to be honest, that's fine. Me, I just don't have the time to keep at this. Would that there were 100 hours in a day.

But I will say this, of all the people thus far, that I've argued with, here at the PNF, you are the most gracious, of them all. This speaks of your character, and it's one that I value above all others. I, in my coarseness, aspire to be your type person, not because it's you, rather that you exemplify that which I decided long ago, was of a superior way to proceed. I bow to your way of interaction! Not as a winner or loser, ever, only ever as one that sees humility, as a virtue held above all others, especially in terms of argument. Or so it might surely seem, and so it should, to my way of thinking. I see that it allows for a more fluid learning environment.

I appreciate it. That, at least, makes it all worthwhile.

Oh and thanks for staying with me, putting up with my coarseness for so long! You're a Gentleman and a Scholar, surely!

lol. No problem.

[thedoc]

You're just being stubborn, and I understand, giving is hard, both in a public forum and with something one has clung to for so long. But seriously you said?: In Red Above then you say: In Blue Above. That makes no logical sense! Why? Because if you love one thing more, choosing it over another that is less loved, then that can only be characterized as being selfish, as you're serving that which you love the most. Your being unselfish would be you picking that which you loved less, sacrificing that which you loved more. Again I'm speaking relatively, which is all we have here, as two things are loved. To be considered unselfish one would have to choose the less loved of two things loved. If he chooses the most loved then he serves himself more. Logic dictates my answer over yours, IMHO.

"Sophie's Choice", No I didn't read the book, or see the film, nor would I ever do so. But I know the basic story, and that is enough for me.

[uwot]

it seems to me that you have a particular take on christian thought, which I'm fairly certain isn't universal.

It is universal to Trinitarian thought, though not to various non-Trinitarian monotheisms.

So someone can be a christian without being a trinitarian, ergo you do not speak for all christians. The trinity is simply the Romans attempt to catholicise the response to the fundamental questions that all creation myths seek to answer: Where did the world come from? What is it made of? How does it work? Father. Son. Holy Ghost. Why should anyone take it literally?

The omnipotent, omniscient one would be my guess.

Then you cannot believe in human freedom.

That is a completely separate issue, but it would be absurd to believe anything on the strength of its impact on free will.

For then we would have to bear responsibility for what we did. You can choose Determinism, but I don't believe in it. And I don't think you do either, for then you would see no point in debate: nobody could choose to change his or her mind.

I think it very unlikely that I will change your mind, nor do I suppose you will change mine much. In my view, you will defend the story you have convinced yourself of at any cost. You have a Kuhnian paradigm that is unfalsifiable, in Popperian terms. By contrast, I don't believe that anything is absolutely 'true', other than, as Parmenides discovered, there is something, and as Descartes elaborated, there is thinking. The chances of you changing that conviction are somewhere between nil and not much.

if love is just sacrifice, how is anyone to love you back?

Sacrificially too.

Really? Think about it. If you 'sacrifice', should the target refuse or cannot accept, there is no love taken. That is teenage, unrequited infatuation.

But you can't force them or bargain with them to make them give you that sort of love. It has to be their choice.

Well, yes, but it is mutual. One offers love, if it is accepted, it is reciprocated.

Has it occurred to you that by 'sacrificing' your love to god, you have lost the ability to love another human being?

Quite the contrary. Anyone who knows the love of God is freed to love others sacrificially too. It is not by chance that Christians and Jews are by far the most statistically charitable people on the face of the planet.

I remember a story that I was told about jesus. The gist was that some rich men were casually tossing gold coins into the charity box. An old woman came in and deposited 3 copper coins, jesus asked who the more charitable was; the disciples all plumped for the rich men: Jesus said: No it's the old woman who gave what she could. Frankly, the statistics you might cite could only be measured in gold coins. In terms of sacrifice, they are meaningless.

Do you think god put us on this Earth simply to ignore it? That is a serious question, I asked it before.

Of course not. But that doesn't follow from anything I've said, so I'm uncertain why you even suppose we'd think that.

Adam and Eve. A major theme of Christianity is the corrupt nature of this world and contempt for Earthly knowledge. It follows from you saying you are a Christian.

I would suggest the same would be true of any love your god feels.

Well, Christians don't think so. And the Bible says not. But you can, of course, believe whatever you wish about that.

Yes. The bible says that god incarnate, Jesus, gave up his eternal life for two days, because he loves us. How much of a sacrifice is two days out of forever?

Is your argument that god incarnate, Jesus, as some people think, died when he was crucified? Isn't the whole point that he came back to life? How is dying for a bit different to not dying?

His death was man's verdict on Christ. His resurrection was God's verdict.

Make your mind up. Either he is god or he isn't.

So: your argument is that god's love transcends human love because he will lay down his life for people who care little for him. Is your god dead, then?

See "resurrection."

Right. So he didn't give up his eternal life; if the story is to be taken literally, he gave up a vanishingly small fraction of infinity. That's how much your god loves you.

And what of those people who remain unimpressed? What happens to their souls?
And by the way: I am entirely sincere.

We all make our choices. And we cannot blame God if He honours them when we do. It simply shows how very seriously He treats human choice, and how sincerely He offers mankind freedom to love Him...or not.

And if he loves us in any meaningful way, he will not judge us for our flaws.

[Immanuel Can]

So let's see...

You don't know what a Christian is.

You don't believe in, or understand the historical importance of Trinitarianism.

You don't understand agape love, or God's love, as it is described in the Bible.

You have an incomplete recall of the story of the widow's mite, and think it was non-sacrificial ( it was two copper coins, the disciples did not say anything there, and in terms of sacrifice, Christ says, "she gave all that she had to live on, all that she had")

You imagine Adam and Eve is about corrupt Earthly knowledge (there was no such "knowledge": there was only what the Bible says there was, which was the possibility of the knowledge of the difference between good and evil.)

You think the crucifixion was a sort of three day vacation.

And you think human evil amounts to "flaws."

I can't really get debating these things with you without denying all of these assumptions of yours. You're quite wrong on all accounts, of course. But you're also making it really dubious it's worth pursuing any of these with you. To understand, one has to have something more than mere contempt and dismissiveness for the facts, you need a modicum of knowledge about the subject you're discussing, and some willingness to consider alternate possibilities. I'm not sensing any of that here, and so I haven't much to draw on with you. Really nothing in your wording shows even the least real interest, despite your protestation of sincerity.

So I get it: you're uninterested in anything but mockery, misrepresentation and reductionism. I think we'll call it a day.

[uwot]

So let's see...

You don't know what a Christian is.

Don't be silly. Do you accept that people who interpret the new testament differently to you, who are not 'Trinitarians', can also be Christians?

You don't believe in, or understand the historical importance of Trinitarianism.

I think I understand it better than you. I repeat, it is the Romans attempt to create a catholic answer to the fundamental questions addressed by all creation myths. You, I believe, take it literally.

You don't understand agape love, or God's love, as it is described in the Bible.

You equated love with sacrifice; your god sacrificed nothing. To repeat; I would surrender all possible future experience for my children; something your god couldn't and didn't do. It is drivel on your part to accuse me of not understanding agape.

You have an incomplete recall of the story of the widow's mite, and think it was non-sacrificial ( it was two copper coins, the disciples did not say anything there, and in terms of sacrifice, Christ says, "she gave all that she had to live on, all that she had")

But I remember it. You are the one using statistics to make your point; love for your fellow human is not about statistics.

You imagine Adam and Eve is about corrupt Earthly knowledge (there was no such "knowledge": there was only what the Bible says there was, which was the possibility of the knowledge of the difference between good and evil.)

So what knowledge did Eve gain by eating the apple? Why were the two of them ashamed of their nakedness? I think I understand Christianity better than you, hence the contempt. I'm not a Nietzschean, but I think he got this one right.

You think the crucifixion was a sort of three day vacation.

Yes, I do. I assume you take your god to be immortal, omniscient and omnipotent. What is three days out of eternity?

And you think human evil amounts to "flaws."

Then what is it?

I can't really get debating these things with you without denying all of these assumptions of yours.

Just saying 'You're wrong' is not debating.

You're quite wrong on all accounts, of course.

Then have the conviction to tell me why.

But you're also making it really dubious it's worth pursuing any of these with you. To understand, one has to have something more than mere contempt and dismissiveness for the facts, you need a modicum of knowledge about the subject you're discussing, and some willingness to consider alternate possibilities.

This is cowardly. I will consider anything you say. If you have nothing to give that could persuade someone like me, you should question whether you have anything of value to anyone.

I'm not sensing any of that here, and so I haven't much to draw on with you. Really nothing in your wording shows even the least real interest, despite your protestation of sincerity.

Then I can only repeat that I am completely sincere. I can only say it; if you chose to doubt, or deny it, that's your problem

So I get it: you're uninterested in anything but mockery, misrepresentation and reductionism.

I am deeply interested in why a human being would not take the physical world seriously. Why do the religious shun sensuality? What is it about being sentient that some people cannot embrace? I don't think you mean 'reductionism'; I doubt you could make a plausible case against me, in that regard.

I think we'll call it a day.

Do as you wish; but you do not decide what 'we' do.