I'm not sure I get your point.
The story of the sacrifice of Abraham and Isaac has been difficult for modernists to accept, much like the Book of Job, but it is biblical.
It illustrates both obedience and mercy.
Abraham obeys God, even though he is being asked to kill his son, his only son, his son who was promised to multiply like the stars in the sky and inherit the land of Israel.
But when he proves his obedience, God forbids him to kill Isaac. Instead, he sacrifices the ram caught in the thicket. It was a test, an unpleasant test, but God does not demand the sacrifice of the first born son. Instead, God accepts a substitutionary sacrifice of a sheep.
Clearly this points to the Passover, and another substitutionary sacrifice, the blood of the Passover lamb instead of the first born son.
And, for Christians, this points to the sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb of God.
I agree with you about Mohammed, but I'm not sure what your point is in relating it to the story of the Sacrifice of Isaac--which didn't take place.
You wrote this?
Let me give you a few things to think about with relation to this story.
1. God forbids human sacrifice.
2. God knows everything - and He knew He would not allow Abraham to complete this act. God NEVER intended Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
3. Abraham was the "friend of God" God shared many things with Abraham - just as friends share many things. God wanted His friend, Abraham, to understand what He Himself would go through when He (God) offered up His own Son Jesus on the cross for the sins of the world.
4. Pray for wisdom before calling anything in the Word of God repulsive. You may just be missing the point of the story.
I think the point was for God to convince Abraham to trust him in all things even when doing so seemed illogical.
God had promised Abraham this son, Isaac, as the son who would not only spring from the womb of his septagenarian wife, but who would provide him with a lineage more numerous than the stars in the sky. For God to turn around and ask Abraham to sacrifice this son that he and Sarah had waited so long for, and who God had specifically promised would serve an alternate purpose, defied Abraham's sense of reason. For Abraham to trust God in this matter and to prepare to go through with the act, which God would never allow to take place anyway, illustrated Abraham's willingness to trust God in all things, and proved to Abraham that he COULD trust God even when it didn't make sense.
As a man of reason, I can appreciate such a lesson.
That said, your broader point seems to be about the war on terror, and I'm not really sure what this has to do with that. The president is leading this nation as the head of state of a constitutional republic, with laws that emanate from the Constitution of the United States, not from the Bible or the Torah. This is a struggle between a constitutional republic and a patchwork of Islamic dictatorships. How the president's personal faith factors into that equation is beyond me.
Also, don't you think that Abraham being instructed to sacrifice Isaac, and the obvious agony of Abraham depicted in those passages is meant to place before us in type and shadow the heart of God when His own son was sacrificed -- give us a window, in other words, not merely the fact that God is fore shadowing the sacrifice itself, but by imagining the agony of Abraham, we can walk for a bit in God's shoes as He shed's the blood of His Son to attone for our transgressions.
Finite man can't grasp the infinite.
Your points are all garbage, but I do so appreciate you posting them as the replies have been thoughtful and stimulating. . .
Where you err is with the assertion that islamofascism has anything to do with religion and therefore, could be compared to Christianity and Judaism in the first place.
It seems to me that you have touched on a somewhat controversial subject, though not particularly for Jews who understand the story from all its angles. I will provide the Jewish perspective on the matter.
First, we must understand that the story of Isaac's sacrifice is not a simple matter to understand. We, as humans, particularly in the modern age, find it difficult to comprehend something as controversial as sacrificing one's son.
In Judaism, there are two ways to interpret this story. One interpretation is the standard one as understood by the vast majority of bible scholars and bible readers. The other interpretation is much more complex and much more controversial. Both lead to the same conclusion, but both take two completely different paths.
Let's begin with the standard interpretation:
Isaac was a grown man (somewhere between 25 to 37, depending on the source) and could've easily fought off his father if he wished not to be sacrificed. Yet Isaac did not resist and did not make a sound. Like a righteous man, he has accepted his fate. G_d instructs Abraham to sacrifice his son without giving him a reason for it. The practical explanation suggests that it was the most heavenly, most difficult, most powerful test ever given to a man to test his belief in G_d. The story goes on that just before Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac, an angel interferes and manifests a ram (or a goat, depending on the source) where Abraham chooses to spare his son and sacrifice the ram instead.
The second interpretation is not widely accepted, but one that was suggested by several Jewish scholars of old. Keep in mind that this is the unorthodox interpretation and by far the most controversial of the two:
The story starts the same. The only difference is that the angel is too late to stop Abraham from sacrificing his son and Isaac is in effect, sacrificed and has died. Further interpretation suggests that when Abraham has sacrificed his son, many angels cried and screamed in agony to G_d as to why He would allow such a cruel, unmerciful act. It is further explained that G_d resurrects Isaac from the dead by bringing him into His "Raqia Shevi'i" (loosely translates to "Seventh Heaven") and reinstalling, so to speak, Isaac's soul and then bringing him back to life.
As you can see, both interpretations take different paths, but both lead to the same conclusion - Isaac lived. Whether he wasn't sacrificed and lived or whether he was sacrificed and resurrected, the result is the same. This clearly suggests that G_d never intended for Abraham to kill Isaac, but rather sacrifice or attempt to sacrifice Isaac in order to test Abraham's trust in Him.
Some suggest that G_d was indeed testing Abraham's faith in him, though I believe it goes considerably deeper than that, into areas and ideas we may never comprehend. Someone here used the term "obedience" which is grossly incorrect in this case as G_d did not demand obedience from Abraham, but rather inquired into his belief in Him. So, in effect, this was much more a test of trust and free will rather than a test of obedience. Obedience relates more to a command. G_d has not "commanded" Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. G_d has "asked" Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Because it was such a grueling test of free will and Abraham has stepped to the "challenge", G_d has since considered Abraham as his own son and has promised his offspring and his people great lands and wealth.
I could discuss this much further as there are other implications to consider such as the rather large gap between the time of Isaac's sacrifice (when he was around 30 years old, depending on the source) to the time Isaac married Rebekah (when Isaac was around 40-45 years old). There are of course other implications, but I would not venture to discuss them at this point as I have to call it a night.