a gentle Moonkin Bump 4 u

Welcome to Wondercafe!

I'm afraid I have to ask, what is the point of agonizing over a tiny passage of ancient text? 

Perhaps it was a totally personal spiritual trial that Abraham was dealing with, and it explains how he handled it. 

Perhaps you have your very own personal spiritual experiences, which you will handle in your own way. 

I think that your spiritual life and path are your own, and its much, much bigger than any book.  You can choose to grow spiritually, or you can choose any pre-fabricated religion, with most of the decisions already made for you, just like a frozen dinner from the grocery store.

The frozen dinner was made a long time ago, far away, passed through many hands, and by people you don't even know, and never will.

Your home cooked meal comes from fresh healthy ingredients, maybe some even from your back yard garden, and you have a role in making that meal, not just consuming it.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

I am sure you have heard the usual answer of how it was to test faith and such.  If not look in a Bible commentary - you can find Matthew Henry at biblegateway.com.  http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getBookSections&cid=18&source=2

That is pretty much the standard conservative viewpoint.

On a personal note - a couple of things just popped into my head on the matter.  One was the path that Abraham had already walked with God.  Here was a guy who had already spent nearly one hundred years in close direct communion with God, seeing miracles and learning to trust Him with the miraculous.  I would assume that he would have more faith and trust in that he was actually hearing God's words, and not just his own, and that God knew what He was doing.

The other thing I thought of was - What would God have done if Abraham had responded as you suggested?  Personally I think God would have still worked out whatever he wanted to.  I know that God would not ask me to do that with one of my kids, because not having lived a life like Abraham's I would be asking for some pretty clear signs that it was God and that He really knew what He was asking of me, and I would want to know why and the outcome, all of what you are saying.  God deals with us where we are at.  This may have been why He waited until Abraham was this old to make good on His promise to give him a son.  Abraham was not ready until this point.

Anyway - this is certainly a tough passage for us to wrap our heads around.  It is either just a myth as many on this site will probably say, or it is one of those things that just does not make full sense to us from our perspective.  Personally I like the latter.  I gain many insights into the possibilities of why it may have been, but really I don't think I can ever put myself fully into Abraham's shoes.  By the way - the meaning we can gain from the story and the life lessons may be the same regardless of whether we take the story as historical or mythological.

I'm one who believes the story is a myth.  In fact the very historical existence of Abraham is in question.  If God is all of those omni's then He/She has no need to test a human being in that way.  Consider the  hell it must have caused Isaac, being bound, seeing his father raise a knife to slay him.  Does God need to do this?  I don't for one moment believe it.

The story may also reflect the earlier local religious practice of the sacrificing of children.  Many of these early stories were borrowed by the early Hebrews and modified to fit the culture of the era and location

One should also keep in mind that the OT must be read in light of the messages of the NT. 

That being said I do see that the story does make the point that God does supply our needs.  It may also be making the point that at times we could be asked to do what seems impossible but that we can succeed in the apparently apparently  impossible.

Shalom

Mate

This is stunningly insightful and wonderfully relevant, from my point of view!  If Christianity got rid of all the tiny passages of ancient text and concentrated on current humanity, the environment and similar aspects of the planet, elimination of poverty, disease, crime, etc., verifiable truth and many other areas, it would indeed be a good thing.

Not only would we save paper for printing those ~900 K words over and over, but the time now spent scanning Gen 1:1 to Rev 22:21 could be productivly spent helping others, the planet and more.  Kudos, Oui!

I agree that the story of Abraham and Isaac is one of the most disturbing and ugliest passages in scripture. The suggestion is made that God tested Abraham but I am left with the sick feeling that Abraham failed the test. After this, the bible records no further interaction between either Sarah or Isaac. Who could blame them?

Could it be that we are lacking something in the context of the story? Is there a message about human sacrifice? Something like this is the only thing that could possibly redeem this story for me.

Or as my 15 year old daughter said "Why do I have to be confirmed?  I don't believe in God"  I don't believe in the OT God either!  A vengeful, petty God who demands obedience and prayer.

The OT was handed down from generation to generation verbally.  It was an attempt by people in that age to explain how the universe worked.  It makes sense in that context but not in the context of 21st century man.

I think, as was pointed out by Brett, it would be a vastly different Bible if it was written today.

Perhaps like Disney's Fantasia, it was meant to be rewritten over the ages and now is the time for a NNT.

IT

Russ

I would suggest going to the rabbi to find a better response - it is not about a test of faith but the end of child sacrifice - it is a metaphorical story that has humanity justifying the sacrifice as if it asked form then the story shifts to God offering a replacement - which is from the side of Judaism a rejection of the sacrifice for there is no need.

Part of the problem in our reading is we do at least three things - make it about faith, make it about God asking for sacrifice  and the need for sacrifice and then placing this story on Jesus ( which ought not be used to understand the cross).

Simply from the point of Judaism it is a reaffirmation of a covenant of a graceful God and a sign to be different from the people around them in practice, being careful of others is the teaching.   Of course it is done in images of a God who interacts with the people.  The common sense is a father would not do this and wisdom comes to reject such methods of sacrifice.

All of you bring some very valid & intersting things to question about this very disturbing story.

I believe there is much more to this story than what human intellect will allow to be revieled, as I do know many here are very intelligent people.

It does seem to describe God as a very demanding forceful God who wishes to enslave people.

But the way I see it is, the old testament focuses on the characteristics of God that are quite unreachable from a human standpoint, or unfathomable to where we can reach an "understanding"of Him.

To where we can "relate", & this is quite clear, by the responses to such a referance of God in stories like this one of Abraham & Isaac.

I mean, from the human condition, God is so far out there are far as is rightiousness, goodness, perfection, ect, all of the descriptions of God in the old testament.

The first thing that strikes me with many stories in the old testament, is that for the most part, the initial contact with God between mankind starts out with the person, having some form of faith in their heart that there is a "God" & one God, not gods.

Since the fall of man, how it's described in the bible, there was very little relationship between God & mankind since that was considered contact on a personal level.

Many doctrines say it's because of sin & that sin was the wedge between this relationship.

This I agree with, for the main reason being, & as far as it being described in the bible that we humans being in a sinful state, we are in fact taking on the very nature of lucifer, now referred to as satan. 

Now , lets just look at that for a second.

Long before man was created there was this Kingdom that was ruled by God.

And for this Kingdom to actually work as designed & fluorish according to the way it suppoed to, it must be under the control of One who is perfect.

We as humans don't really understand just how "perfect" it has to be, because let's face it, we are so far from perfection, that it's no surprize that we cannot fathom the perfection it takes for all creation to live in harmony, & I'm talking ALL creation, including the universe.

Now God, is the perfect one, some may disagree, but this is how I see Him anyways.

And for some reason, for which I don't have complete understanding, but I do have my opinions, God created "free will",  in that lucifer, his one most trusted angel, most powerful creation next to Himself that has ever been created.

This lucifer was as perfect as God except for one thing, this "free will".

Now I can delve into the reasons God gave free will to lucifer, there must have been a good reason why God would risk order in the Kingdom of God by giving lucifer free will.

I can olny speculate that God had a plan to create a creation, that as well as through the creation of time itself, & that through age after age after age, there would eventually be a completion of a creation formed from His own hand, that would be perfect, with the inclusion of free will, & not the exception of free will.

Some of you may not quite understand what I'm getting at here & I can understand this.

This perfect creation that God created, is Jesus the Christ & it is meant that we who take on this nature are the sons of God, this perfect creation, that come with the inclusion of free will.

Where it took age after age in time to create & accomplish.

Now getting back to Abraham & Isaac & my points regarding this beginning of relationship with man starting with the initial "faith" in "one" God is a key to where this relationship can start between a man who in a fallen state & the inclusion of free will.

First contact was between man & angels sent by God, why? special messangers.

Why did God need messagers to communicate with Abraham at first contact?

Why the bridge, why could God not communicate directly with man in that fallen state?

Well many said it's because sin is a wedge between this relationship, & I tend to agree. since the bible referanced that God was in direct contact with Adam before the fall, & after the fall God broke direct contact because the sinful state that man took on.

I believe it's because the relationship is no longer as it should be, to where creation as a whole can live in harmony, or where order in the univerce will be established as it should.

There is just no room for imperfection if there is to be a stuctured order to things where all creation will compliment each other for the better.

From then on God would communicate through other means, either angels, prophets.

But when God was in contact with Abraham after some time within this relationship that grew out of the Holy Spirit that Abraham had become influenced by through his "faith". Still, special messangers were used to covey messages from God.

God started to comunicate in a more direct fashion with him.

The more "faith" one would have, the more the Holy Spirit can influence man.

Why is this faith so very very important?

If we can look at all the experience on man & the relationship between man & God.

It is always a direct & unmoving faith in God that keeps order, & when this "faith' strays in any way, it get's us into trouble.

I'ts just the order of things my friends, it's the way it has to be, because it takes perfection in the order of ten, for things to run as they should.

The only way for things to go as they should is through God & no other. no other.

When God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaaac, it was a forerunner, or a prophecy of things to come.

Even though Abraham knew it was out of God's charater to ask of him such a thing as this.

Abraham was willing none the less because of his faith in that God is the One Who is perfect, not himself.

Even though Abraham knew that God was asking him to do something that was out of character to what God would expect from us in genral, He was so shure of God's perfection, & so shure of this relationship he has with God, that his own logic took back seat to God's perfection.

I know some of you may find this hard to swallow, but yet many many people will have faith in this relationship with God through the sacrifice of His own Son.

Many will believe in this sacrifice to obtain the connection between man & God through this sacrifice, yet this story of Abraham & Isaac is hard to swallow.

The referance to the sacrifice Abraham was so willing to allow, for God to establish His perfection through his obedience, was no less a referance to the perfect sacrifice that God Himself was willing to establish, though His faith in us.

God has no doubt of His own perfection, & His ability to create perfection.

It is all in how we percieve this perfection, & accept it by faith, even though our own intellect would dictate otherwise.

The secrets of the Kingdom of God & His perfection are spritual, & human intellect will conflict with it, always.

If it wasn't so, then it wouldn't be "faith" now would it?

Bolt

Thank you all so much for providing feedback/answers/perspective on this. I will read them again and contemplate. Perhaps I will ask a Rabbi as one suggested.

Thank you from the heart,

Gavin

There are just no easy answers to these things.

Bolt

Some people believe that the stories in the bible are not all actual stories, but lessons.  I'm not saying that you should feel that way too, but just wanted to point out that that view of the bible would state that the lesson might just be about being willing to do difficult things in the name of god. 

Before I read any further than this in your posting I was saying to myself - search for your own enlightenment, if it ends up paralleling Christianity then so be it. Regardless, it will be your path.

On your search, spend some time looking at the background stories to the Bible, who likely wrote each part, and why.

You will likely find that some old writer (possibly Moses in this case) thought that was a good way to get a message across - by scaring the Hell out of people. My opinion of the Genesis passage is that it is pointless rubish and that it reflects an ancient and totally wrong view of what God is. All the more reason to do your own searching.

Hi CanadianStorm, and Happy Canada Day, eh?

The Bible, OT as well as NT, is metaphorical, and reflects the culture of its time and place as well as the cultural and personal bias of its authors.

I think we shouldn't be so pre-occupied with these ancient metaphors. Divinely inspired books get written all the time. We are not living in the 1st. century but the 21st.—21st century metaphors speak to us louder and more clearly than those of two- or three-thousand years ago!

Modern wisdom books are more lucid than ancient ones. Moreover, modern wisdom enables us to understand the ancient metaphors better and see them in a new light. The Bible is particularly important only inasmuch as it portrays the history of our Judaic/Christian faith and is the traditional sacred scripture of our faith.

Most of the ancient and modern day prophets were and are mystics. If we go for the mystical wellspring from which they dipped, then we'll understand them even better.

I particularly agree with this point.  I know that parallels are often drawn between the old and the new testaments but I believe this can lead to some serious misinterpretations.  The old testament refers to a different era and a different people than the new - and, of course, of us today.  If a particular scripture is not read in that light its meaning can be lost.

I have always read that passage - and perhaps in error due to my own perceptions - as an allegory of the strength of faith.  When I read Abraham say “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” I hear the words of man who believes his God will be just, that whatever happens Abraham knows that God will protect Isaac.

LB

I think your voices are one of God's favourite sounds.

          Lois Miriam Wilson, Stories Seldom Told

Great Answer, however I am going ask; Are not Christians who accept atonement theology returning to scaririfice and rejecting common sense that a father would not sacrifice his son. Even if it is their belief that it is God who is the sacrifice. 

Accoirding to the "Interpreter's One Volume Commentary" the story is probably meant to explain the change from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice.

It is a story accredited to "E".

Shalom

Mate

I see the Christian path as one path of many possible to Enlightnment. I do not believe that they are exclusive of each other at the least. The benefit for me of being Christian in the UCC as opposed to other paths to enlightenment, is that I am rooted in Christianity and the UCC by my culture and by my ancestors who passed the faith on to me. 

Every path has its barriers to cross, and Christianity has the fewest barriers to me because of the above reasons. It`s like saying I am Christian because Christ choose me. However I am well aware of how saying this is interperated by others as meaning something else.

However the reasons this is intererpted as meaning something else has everything to do with what some Christians have been saying for 10 centuries.

One of the barriers I had to overcome to Christianity and Jesus was coming to understand that the problems I had with Chirsitianity were added on after the death of Jesus and were not common in the eary Church. In fact most of the problems I had with Chirstianity were only adopted around the 10th century by the Church hierarchy to appease political and secular authorities for political reasons. 

I found Rita Nakashima Brock, and Rebecca Ann Parker`s book "Saving Paradise , How Christianity Traded Love of this World for Crucifiction and Empire helpful.

 What I had come to believed as a result  my experiences and reason,  (and what I was luckly taught in the UCC as a Child) was right. When I was a young adult I came to hear what other Christians believed and Rita and Rebecca`s book proved to me that my beliefs were closer to that of Christianity and most strands of Christianity up to the 10th century, then what most western Christians believe today, Albeit it appears Christianity is changing as more of us adopt what I had thought was a fusion of Buddha and Jesus`s teachings, but which is actually what most Christians believed in the past. Some Christians never did abandoned the old ideas.

Panentheism wrote: "it is not about a test of faith but the end of child sacrifice - it is a metaphorical story that has humanity justifying the sacrifice as if it asked form then the story shifts to God offering a replacement - which is from the side of Judaism a rejection of the sacrifice for there is no need."

EZ Answer: Echoing Panentheism's reply, the story captures a moment of enlightenment for the era. Conventional wisdom and practice may have included human, even child sacrifice in humanity's search for the divine.  But this "myth" breaks open convention and reveals a new possibility in the understanding of divine covenant.

Different moments in history, Abraham's and ours. But what limiting convention binds us today?

Similarly, conventional wisdom and practice may have included children taught to conform to their own sacrifice.  But this "myth" breaks open convention and reveals a new possibility in the understanding of human covenant.

Differerent moments in history, Isaac's and ours.  But what limiting convention binds us today?

Hi EZed:

I just read that there is archeological evidence that some of the ancient cultures of the Middle East sacrificed children to God, or the gods. The story of Abraham and Isaac could well symbolize a break with this tradition, substituting the animal sacrifice for child sacrifice.

In my opinion, the most limiting convention that binds us today is the belief in a separate, supernatural God.

The Christ awareness of "The Father and I are one" can liberate us from this convention, but only if we also liberate ourselves from the convention that only Jesus was divine, and we are not.

In short, it is the awareness of our divinity that we need to awaken to.

That we offer the wrong sacrifice?

That we don't see what we are sacrificing?

LB

I bet in his wildest imagination he never thought it would me, his only child.  Does he think his fleeting victory over his enemies is more important than any human life?...That isn't what God wants -

I'm sure of it.               Lois Miriam Wilson, Stories Seldom Told

Hi LB: You got a point there. The tables have turned. It is no longer the parent sacrificing the child; it is the child sacrificing the parent.

We, Homo sapiens sapiens, ar sacrificing our Earth Mother, Gaia, and, ultimately, ourselves.

*The Squirrel wonders if LBmuskoka will say more?

You guys totally lost me, LOL!

Bolt

Arminius wrote: "In short, it is the awareness of our divinity that we need to awaken to."

EZ Answer:  Let me borrow a page from Rene Girard here.

Abraham story: We don't have to sacrifice our children to maintain a relationship with God.

Jesus story: We don't have to sacrifice or scapegoat our neighbour to maintain communal relationships. 

My hesitation with the panentheistic "human is divine": seems like the opposite side of the same coin financing the atonement-mimetic paradigm.  Someone's humanity is still being sacrificed.  But, you say, your full humanity is being revealed in your divinity.  Yet this still seems to echo the "Hey, you're so special in your humanity (i.e., a virgin or first son) that we're going to lift you up -- elevate you -- before God...by means of a sacrifice of your humanity."

I prefer the trajectory that extends from the Abrahamic through the Jesus points: let go of any conventions that entice you to sacrifice oneself's or another's humanity -- whether by savage or philosophical method.

CanadianStorm wrote: "Being a father myself to one child not unlike Abraham, I have to state that if God advised me of the same as he did with Abraham I would blatantly say NO!!!"

EZ Answer: Back in grade 6, I had a buddy who was pretty full of himself.  Upon hearing in class that ancients believed the earth was flat, my buddy was adamant that he would have never believed such a thing.  He would have known for himself that the earth is spherical.

We argued that he would probably believe just as the culture taught: the earth is flat.  No way, he replied.

Are you certain you would rise above your cultural embeddedment, surpassing Abraham?  What good is the "myth" for personal reflection and enlightenment if we exempt ourselves from our common humanity?

A common New Testament reaction runs similarly: If I lived in Jesus' time, I wouldn't have called for his crucifixion.

A thousand years from now, a couple of grade 6 boys will be standing around saying, "If I lived in 2009, there's no way I'd have driven a gasoline-engined car!  Or used plastic!"

HI EZed: I don't think we have to sacrifice either; we can be (are) both, fully human and fully divine.

Or one could say that God sacrificed ITs divinity to become human: The spirit, or the word, become flesh.

Or, to phrase it yet differently, in and through the act of creating, God multiplied, diversified, and "uniquefied" ITself while remaining an inseparable whole in a state of synthesis. Thus, every one of us experiences the same God uniquely, and God experiences ITself uniquely in and through every one of us. Sameness and uniqueness in one. The cosmic paradox. Opposites unified. Synthesis.

Above, the boarhound and the boar

Pursue their patterns as before

But reconciled among the stars.

-T.S. Eliot

I'm sure I will but in this case you said it for me down thread...

As an add on - I believe we still sacrifice our children's future by not living up to the dreams of our ancestors.  We squander our peace and our earth for trivial personal victories.

Nor have we learned the lesson from Jesus and many are committed to sacrifice their neighbours to appease their own image of a vengeful petty God.

LB

PS:  to the literal "we" feel free to stick in the "collective" before each "we", if you think you're exempt

How tired God must be of guilt and loneliness, for that is all we ever bring to Him.     Mignon McLaughlin

Yes, LB, I fully agree: we are sacrificing our children's future.

Arminius wrote: "I don't think we have to sacrifice either; we can be (are) both, fully human and fully divine."

EZ Answer:  This is why, above, I wrote: "But, you say, your full humanity is being revealed in your divinity.  Yet this still seems to echo the "Hey, you're so special in your humanity (i.e., a virgin or first son) that we're going to lift you up -- elevate you -- before God...by means of a sacrifice of your humanity." "

Does synthesis require that "everything becomes everything else" or that "everything is relational"?  It seems to me that the latter captures your "Sameness and uniqueness in one. The cosmic paradox. Opposites unified. Synthesis."

Yes, I believe that much of the Old Testament is cultural mythology - but certainly not without it's wisdom.

The story of Abrahan is a way of instructing the Israelites that God doesn't want human sacrifices (a practice that took place in many societies). This gave reason to the ban rather than a simple "thou shalt not ..."

Yes, EZed, to me, synthesis means that everything is relational.

But this is not a matter of either/or but both. Or, actually, all three: either, or, and both. A pair of opposites plus the transcendental power that unites and separates the two. A Holy Trinity.

Thus, the separation is as true as the unification, but the unification is the greater Truth.

Or, we are and are not united with God, both being equally true, but the unification is the greater Truth.

Greetings!

Having recently re-studied this particular passage of scripture I remember having feelings somewhat similar to yours, CanadianStorm.  I also found myself questioning God as outlined in this account of Abraham and Isaac, and also questioning the whole story as in "real" or "metaphorical" thing.

When I shared my feelings about God and the scripture, one of the older women (most are over 75, other than two or three of us), made the comment that perhaps we can't relate or accept the story because things were different for the people of that time than they are for us . . . somewhat similar to what Arminius posted as "I just read that there is archeological evidence that some of the ancient cultures of the Middle East sacrificed children to God, or the gods. The story of Abraham and Isaac could well symbolize a break with this tradition, substituting the animal sacrifice for child sacrifice."

One of the things that I saw anew in this story, having read it many times over the years, was that it appeared to me that Abraham knew all along that both he and his son Isaac were going to come back down the mountain ("the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you.")

Whether one looks at this account in the Bible as truth (and that it really happened as accounted) or one looks at it metaphorically, I believe our purpose is to find a way to have it bring meaning to us and our relationship with God and others in some way.  I like the suggestion from Panentheism of "going to the rabbi to find a better response".  There is no rabbi in my area - is there one in the house (Wondercafe, that is)?

Hope, peace, joy, love ...

Hi Beloved:

StevieG had some rabbinical understanding. But, because she is not as thick-skinned as others, she has been alienated from Wondercafe by some insensitive remarks. I hope she comes back; she was fountain of wisdom and knowledge, and I learned a lot from her.

The point of Genesis 2:1-18 was Abraham being asked to do something by Almighty God that would intentionally violate his moral code. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son not to watch it happen --because Abraham was fully prepared to obey-- but to observe how Abraham processed this command. I believe it was the purst test of (unquestioning) loyalty imaginable.

Had the angel not appeared to stay his knife-hand at the last possible instant, Abraham really would have killed Isaac. He would have rendered his unquestioning obedience to God with full knowledge of what he was doing and how hideous it was. But God didn't want to see the boy sacrified. He only wanted to see how Abraham would react when given such a command. But why such a horrible test? I dunno. Executive Privilege. The Sovereign asserting his soverignity. It was the Ancient of Days asking,

 "Do you trust Me enough to do something you'd otherwise never do? Would you kill your own son just because I asked you to? Would you do it without asking why?  

Abraham passed the test with flying colours. God knew his heart and saw that he was emotionally prepared. God knew his mind and understood what his intention was. But the boy did not have to die for the trust exercize to succeed. Clearly, it was never God's wish for Abraham to murder his son.

The Squire wrote: "The point of Genesis 2:1-18 was..."

EZ Answer: The Squire's interpretation is quite different than a (dare I say) typical United Church exegesis of the passage.

This is a horrible God.

Amen brother

This is the God that asked people to people to fly airplanes into the World Trade Centers, and causes people to send children into crowds with bombs to blow themselves up and others.  This is not the God I know.

Intriguing. Could this explain conflicting meta-narratives of religon and how they are all, in fact, equally valid? 

The God you know (likely the God I know as well) is above petty human politics. Terrorism is more about politics than religion. Religion and politics are so mashed up these day, no one really knows what's what or who's who. Just as blue and red make purple, religion and politics make extremism.

This emphasis on obediance is also what led Christians to participate in the mass murder of millions during the holocost, because they were taught to obey without question, when it came time to disobey, they were unable to because they had never disobeyed before.

Read Dorthee Solle`s Book Creative Disobediance. She was a German who grew up during WW2 and wanted to know how so many Christian participated in something they clearly knew was wrong .

Yes, I remember that.

Moi aussi!  I've learned a tremendous amount from StevieG also.

Hope, peace, joy, love ...

The God you know (likely the God I know as well) is above petty human politics. Terrorism is more about politics than religion. Religion and politics are so mashed up these day, no one really knows what's what or who's who. Just as blue and red make purple, religion and politics make extremism.

[/quote]

I do not agree, just as I disagree with some liberals who say that terrorism is caused by social or political injustice. They ignore the fact that the people who flew the planes in to the Trade Towers were middle class Saudi. The reasons it happened are likely political, but for the people who did it, it was about being obediant to God.

Of course you would.

Why indeed.

He does.

Greetings!

Re: Squire/EZed from above . . . I have a very hard time correlating the God I believe I have come to know with a God that would ask or expect someone to sacrifice their own child.  And that, to me, requires me to believe that there is more/something different to this story than God asking Abraham to do so to prove his faith and faithfulness. 

To me, the conflict within me in this story is not that Abraham was so faithful he would have done anything God asked - even take the life of his own child, but rather that God would ask Abraham (or anyone else) to do that.  To me, God would not need Abraham to do this to know his loyalty, but rather would already know the heart and faithfulness of Abraham.

Hope, peace, joy, love ...

[quote=boltupright]Why is this faith so very very important?[\quote]

Faith is the opposite of observation. Since we cannot observe God directly, He is the frustration of science. God is the ultimate frustration of reason and logic. Since we cannot rely on reason or logic to know Him more, the Watchmaker remains insinuated but never revealed. As proof of His existence, all we have is the Watch. But the Watch itself proves nothing beyond its own existence.

Faith and observation are two sides of the same coin.

You should read William James who wrote The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902)       . James oscillated between thinking that a "study in human nature" such as Varieties could contribute to a "Science of Religion" and the belief that religious experience involves an altogether supernatural domain, somehow inaccessible to science but accessible to the individual human subject.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/

His work addresses the very same questions you raise.

Beloved wrote: "I have a very hard time correlating the God I believe I have come to know with a God that would ask or expect someone to sacrifice their own child.  And that, to me, requires me to believe that there is more/something different to this story than God asking Abraham to do so to prove his faith and faithfulness."

EZ Answer: The Hebrew people told their stories like every other tribe.  And like every other tribe, they were sure to have the old standards: creation, deluge, patriarchs.  But they filtered their renditions of these stories through their understanding of Yahweh.

They asked themselves: What would the Creation story sound like with Yahweh playing the part of God?  How would the deluge story go with Yahweh playing the part of God?  How would the patriarch-sacrifices-his-son story go with Yahweh playing the part of God?

The Abraham-Isaac sacrifice story is commentary on the preexisting myths it seeks to renovate.  The Hebrew storytellers knew instinctively that narratives carry knowledge, practice, and identity forward.  The storytellers transformed their people's history by embedding this Yahweh into the stories that defined ancient reality.

This allows the question of historicity to be secondary. 

Was the world created? Maybe. But if it were, this is what the spirit of Yahweh requires of the telling of that story.

Did Abraham actually climb a mountain and almost sacrifice his son?  Maybe.  But if he did, this is what the spirit of Yahweh requires of the stories emplotment.

Yes, Squire, I would say so.

None of these answers make sense to me.

Do I have to have an answer?

EZed, oh wise one, this may be off on a tangent but can this story be seen in conjunction with Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter?

Are the lessons to be learned similar or different?

LB

A sage is the instructor of a hundred ages.     Ralph Waldo Emerson