Jesus offering himself as a willing sacrifice is one
thing. Abraham sacrificing his son is entirely another.
Jesus was the victim of a Jewish culture who rejected his
(mostly) peaceful teachings.
Abraham was victimizing his son.
Those are diametrically opposite acts.
Bottom line: Never should and act that is supposedly
"commanded" by God, go contrary to conscience.
Conscience should trump all, always, no
That is the check that prevents atrocities in the name of
Abrahams' deed, being held up as an epitome act of
righteousness by the Jews, Christians, and Mormons is extremely problematic in
justifying heinous acts in the name of God.
Cassandra, your comment: "keeping the eternal
perspective,,,,,,,,,that Abraham knew of the hereafter where he would be
reunited with his son", sends a cold chill down my spine. Could not
Hitler say the same of his victims? That is asinine in the extreme, and
exemplifies the kind of convoluted thinking that must take place in order to
rationalize an act such as that committed by Abraham.
I don't see any righteous justification in it
Rather, I see it as the source of creating a bunch of
fundamentalist monsters who will do anything -- nothing is too bizarre or
extreme -- if God (supposedly) "commands" it.
One of the grand tests of a person who graduates from religion
is a willingness to take responsibility for his/her own acts, and thinking, and
belief, and not blame it on anyone, but allow it to hold up on its own merits of
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:20
Subject: Re: [Greater Things] when
scriptures incite hostile acts
In a message dated 2/27/2007 1:23:01 P.M. Central Standard Time, sterlingda@...
Nothing like good ol' scripture-inspired
violence. If God says it's okay -- or at least according to scripture --
then it must be okay. Abraham was commanded to do an atrocious act --
kill his son on an alter -- and his obedience made him the "father of all
nations", so too must we be willing to do anything -- I mean anything, no
matter how atrocious -- if God commands it. In fact, the more atrocious,
the greater the test, and the more faithful we prove ourselves to be if we
comply. At least that is the zealous frame of mind.
I reject that frame of mind, and would assert that
Abraham's being the "father of all nations" is not a compliment but a
commentary on the brutal nature of man and religious intolerance and violence
supposedly condoned by God.
The fact that Abraham's act is held up as a supreme
demonstration of obedience in the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish religions
helps explains some of the crass acts carried out in the name of
So, keeping the eternal perspective,,,,,,,,,that Abraham knew of the
hereafter where he would be reunited with his son,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,How, in your
opinion, does that relate to the necessity of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on
our behalf? Required, again, by God. Pretty bloody and painful wasn't it? Do
you consider the atonement to be a crass act required by God? Does that make
God, following your premise, a God with a brutal nature and religious
intolerance? Or do you consider God's instructions to Abraham, brutal. But not
His requirement of the sacrifice of Christ? One being brutal and the other ok?
Or do you believe both were wrong?
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
AOL at AOL.com.