(August 27, 2012 at 12:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(August 27, 2012 at 9:44 am)spockrates Wrote: If the Old and New Testament accounts are true, I think they teach us God did what he did not make Abraham go through with. He sacrificed his own Son.
That doesn't actually do anything to make the story any better. As you say, 'if' the stories are true - and let's for the moment accept that they are and are accounts of actual historical events - then God is an even bigger bastard than I made it out to be. Matt Dillahunty's analogy of God as Mafia Boss doesn't cover it. If I told you to kill a loved one and you said "sure, no problem", you would merely be a fool. I would be a psychotic criminal. The 'fact' that this god then said "no, I was only testing you" and stopped the killing from taking place is not and can not be a defense.
As for God sacrificing his own son, then Judas' betrayal and the Jews' denial were all part of what was meant to happen. Incidentally, the choice of the name "Judas" is no coincidence. The early church leaders realised that, whatever else happened, they would still have to live under Roman rule; the very last thing they needed was to piss them off. So they had to find a way to change the killers of 'the Christ' from the Roman authorities to the Jewish people. Hence the betrayal of 'Judas' and all that follows in the story.
I hear what you are saying. I don't believe I'd agree to sacrifice my son, even if I (like Abraham) was promised by God that my son would become the ancestor of a great nation of Jewish people. Even though I thought (as the New Testament author suggests Abraham thought) that God would raise him from the dead. I don't think I could play the part of Abraham's son (who was no child at the time) and allow my father to sacrifice me.
"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains (no matter how improbable) must be the truth."
--Spock
--Spock