Nathan_Jr

Someone said “GSC grads.” A gloveless concept. Reminds me of that charlatan.

Oh, Irony. Back so soon? Bless your little heart.

He said ‘one eyed.’ Reminds me of that charlatan.

"Did Abraham actually sacrifice his son Isaac in the earliest versions of the story we find in Genesis 22?" This is the question Dan McClellan asks at the start of this fascinating 3 minute video. Apparently, according to ancient and medieval Jewish scholars, the answer is YES. And textual evidence points to a story changed over the centuries to hide the infanticide. McClellan is scholar of the Bible and a believer. He hosts the podcast Data Over Dogma. This is his latest upload. So timely for what we've been discussing. A miracle!

Right, but he welcomed all comments. Taoists and Buddhists are atheists. Beleef is not part of these traditions as I understand them.

Atheists are not precluded from an experience or conscious awareness of the transcendent, the mystical, the “spiritual.” Nor are they precluded from “a walk endowed with power from on high.” I use these terms and phrases for convenience, in spite of their insufficiency.

I almost forgot! (It was a long post.) Your treatment of Jonah is gold.

“…according to the book Born Again to Serve by the American Christian Press, Pillai and Wierwille worked through every orientalism in the Bible from Genesis through Revelation over a six-week period in 1953.” —K.C. Pillai’s Wiki page Six weeks? Worked through every orientalism in… the… Bible!?!? EVERY? In six weeks? Yep. The ”work” checks out.

*exasperated sigh* I should remind everyone that those gloves, shrunken by a thorough saturation in blood, merely appeared not to fit. In fact, Nicole gifted those gloves to OJ and he wore them the night he slaughtered her and Ron Goldman. Pillai and victor hope you won’t read Leviticus 1, but the writer of Judges and his character Jephthah surely had read it. They knew exactly what a burnt offering meant. Jephthah may have hoped and beleeeved for a goat to bolt out of his front door to meet him, but no, it was his daughter! What luck! Jephthah made a vow and a gamble. A reckless gamble. If Jephthah wanted to purchase that military victory by committing his virgin daughter’s life to service in the temple, he would have said so, but he didn’t. He gambled and he lost. As the lesson of Isaac is about commitment, intention and obedience, the lesson of Jephthah is about honoring one’s vow to God - keeping one’s end of the bargain, integrity of the deal, and honoring bets made, no matter how horrific the cost.

This morning I regretted writing that sentence "I had no idea how polytheistic Christianity was until I took 'the class.'" It was too late to edit the post. Thank you for calling it out. I should have written something like: I had no idea how polytheistic Christianity or pseudo-Christianity could be, until I took the class.

This is as labyrinthine a rabbit hole as how El became Yahweh. There should be plenty of books, articles and videos on the subject. I suspect someone here has an answer, but I think you are on the right track. It seems to me, if I remember correctly, the contemporary Christian idea of Satan is an evolved amalgamation. The ha-satan of Job is not the god of this world Paul writes about, and different still from what people mean today when they say Satan. ———— I had never heard so much daily talk about the devil until I married into that Way family. The adversary received more credit than God - no joke, no hyperbole, no figger of speech. The power of God depended upon beleeef, but the power of the adversary depended on nothing and was an absolute factual certainty. According to them, the devil was everywhere, especially over your shoulder - Look out! God and Christ were absent in another realm. I had no idea how polytheistic Christianity was until I took “the class.”

Well, it was a test. "How far will Abraham go? How deep is his commitment? I've got to find out. Hmmm... a test... a test... rock ridge... rock ridge..." "I've got it!! I'll tell him to make his precious Isaac a burnt offering to me. We don't want him to actually go through with it and slaughter the lad, we just need to see if he would. It's a test, remember? Tell you what, if it looks like he's going all the way, pop up at the last minute and stop him. I'll make sure an animal appears nearby, a goat or sheep or something. Keep your eyes peeled for movement in the thicket. Now, let's get to work..."

Over the years, posters here have said victor paul wierwille is The Man of God, The Seventh The Man of God, and The Teacher. Consider for a moment how offensive those words must be to those who love God and to teachers. How offensive? N-word-with-hard-R offensive, that's how! No one has ever asked those posters to self edit in order to mitigate the risk of offense.

Thanks for the invitation, Raf. Kind of you to consider me, but I must, on principle, decline the invitation at this time. I can't offend anyone. The offended must choose to participate in the offense. Without that conscious participation, how can one be offended?

To say Ken Hamm is an idiot of the highest order is not an insult. It is an observable, demonstrable fact. How idiotic is the highest order? It’s at the level of flat-earth and four-crucified stupidity - the highest level. That someone would be offended by another’s description of a third person is difficult for me to understand. I can conceive of it, but it’s hard to understand. I don’t mean to invite discussion of this. I missed some posts. Not sure what’s going on and it doesn’t really matter, but I couldn’t resist another opportunity to write “four-crucified stupidity.”

Ken Hamm was mentioned.

I never assumed he was anything other than a literary figure.

Mmmph

Opinions and interpretations arise at anytime and forever. Everyone has them, even Pharisees, especially Paul. What does the text say, when it says it, how it says it, and where it says it? Read the text. Resurrection is not mentioned, nor is it implied. Abraham's faith, trust, fidelity, obedience was tested. (His beleeeving was NOT tested.) Would he slaughter his beloved, precious son if he was commanded? Turns out he would. And the commander couldn't be bothered to stop his obedient servant from going all the way. He had to send an angel instead.

Sounds rather mundane. Surely, the Lord would not have let Jephthah get off that easily had he broken his vow. I'm increasingly convinced Jephthah burned his daughter as promised.

let, Let, LET this be repeated... Charity wrote, "Having said all this, God’s need to test Abraham’s complete obedience in such a homicidal way shows he’s a narcissistic death-obsessed god. The fact that he pulls a ram out of his hat at the last second doesn’t change a thing."

Abraham was rewarded for his intentions, for what was in his heart, for his faith, NOT his beleeeving. His intentions were to slay his precious son. Because that's what God commanded him to do. But it's such a twisted scenario! I've read that story countless times and it always gives me anxiety. It really is a well-crafted narrative. A nail-biter all the way to the cliffhanger when the angel says, "Psych!" I mean WTAF! What a test! As dark as a Jordan Peele or Jason Bateman film, just not as good. And if victor is right about burnt offerings (he is demonstrably wrong), what did they do with the ram? "Oh, well," says Abe. "I'll let y'all deal with getting the ram untangled from that thicket, if you don't mind. I need to vomit and lay down awhile. Really need some alone time. Thanks for the mindfock."

If Jephthah did NOT make his daughter a burnt offering, which is to say, set her ablaze until only ash and smoke remained, but allowed her to live a celibate life instead, and the Lord never said a word either way, what does that make Jephthah? A liar? An oath breaker? A defecator into the mouth of God like victor? Do I need to read the rest of the book of Judges to find out what kind of calamity befalls Jephthah because he broke his vow to the Lord? Does he lose his eyeball before he dies a painful death? Will someone please spoil it for me?

The way I read it, and I'm not alone, is that she died a virgin because that's what she was at the moment her dad made good on the negotiated deal he made with the Lord. I don't need it to fit a theological glove. The story doesn't embarrass me. But I could be reading it wrongly - there's a chance. After all, hey, I didn't write the book. (Nor did God.) Judges 11 30 Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, saying, “If you really do hand the Ammonites over to me, 31 then whoever is the first to come through 52 the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from fighting the Ammonites—he 53 will belong to the Lord, and 54 I will offer him up as a burnt sacrifice.” 39 After two months she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. She died a virgin. 70 Her tragic death gave rise to a custom in Israel. 40 Every year Israelite women commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite for four days. 70 tn Heb “She had never known a man.” Some understand this to mean that her father committed her to a life of celibacy, but the disjunctive clause (note the vav + subject + verb pattern) more likely describes her condition at the time the vow was fulfilled. (See G. F. Moore, Judges [ICC], 302-3; C. F. Burney, Judges, 324.) She died a virgin and never experienced the joys of marriage and motherhood. https://netbible.org/bible/Judges+11

Thats the pneuma!!!