Re: when scriptures incite hostile acts
- 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 exceptions.That is the check that prevents atrocities in the name of God.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 whatsoever. None.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 decency.Sterling----- Original Message -----From: Cassandrahera1@...Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:20 AMSubject: Re: [Greater Things] when scriptures incite hostile actsIn a message dated 2/27/2007 1:23:01 P.M. Central Standard Time, sterlingda@... writes: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 God.Sterling____cassandra___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.