The voices inside the minds of men continue to rationalize abuse of others. Imagine if there was a massive machine that could hear the thoughts of men, and there was a very large group of people monitoring these thoughts. This would be true proactive policing. The problem is, the voice has a source and the person is not necessarily producing these thoughts organically. So even if it is heard in a person's brain that they are contemplating such an act, does not mean they are going to carry it out. So when is it, if we could hear and monitor, that it is "just" to intervene? We can be concerned, but is it right to be?
We teach children with stories of mayhem, torture and murder, and we then wonder why we have so many psychopaths in our midst? God Mobsters have a lot to answer for.
And if God was merely testing Abraham's devotion to him, why?
If he's omnipresent and omnipotent he would have already known the extent of Abraham's devotion.
If God was trying to show Abraham Abraham's level of devotion to God to Abraham, why?
Abraham already knew.
Was God trying to teach a lesson to Isaac? What lesson would that be, and again, why?
This story makes no sense unless God isn't omnipotent or omnipresent.
In this story, he's just a needy psychopath.
This Abraham and Isaac story was supposed to be emblematic and in preparation for the God and Jesus story. If we need to question the sanity of Abraham, then shouldn't we also need to question the sanity of the whole premise of Christianity? That someone needed to be tortured and killed in order to save humanity from their mistakes? I don't disagree with your assessment of Abraham, and there is a bigger picture. It isn't any more sane than the Abraham/Isaac scenario.
Most of the bibble reads this way, or can result in questions like this.
For the same reason the rest of the murderous fairytales called the Bible are taught as some kind of life lesson. Aesop’s fables are much more worthy of being life guides than the Bible or the Quran.
Aesop had worthwhile morales.