DiscussMormonism.com

Whether Abraham existed or not, his is the quintessential story of Man coming to the realization that heinous crimes are not what God is really looking for as a measure of faith or reward.

+1

I wouldn't pass the abrahamic test.

If it were about my daughter or my four stepchildren, three grandchildren or seventeen stepgrandchildren (the listed 5+20 are all equal for me, by the way) I would say "f* you, no".


There is no god.
If there were one --- assumed but not allowed --- then he/she/it would not do or institute the many crap written in Bible or quran or whatever so-called scripture.

Odd that you chose the adjective "heinous" in as much as it is defined as " very bad or evil : deserving of hate or contempt". -
I always thought this might be the introduction for the concept of "heinous"...a clear indication that morality is divine in nature...not natural.

On the one hand we have an obvious criticism of the Abraham/Isaac episode from the scriptures - whereas it appears that good/evil are to be determined by some sort of natural instinct......whereas anything that conforms to this natural instinct must be "good" and anything that contradicts that instinct is "evil".
Take for example the killing of one's offspring - no matter the reason. It seems that some posters consider this command from God to be "evil"....or "heinous"....yet, it is perfectly "natural" -
I mean, when food is scarce the Lion will eat its own young - infanticide is not an uncommon event in nature...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

I would consider that this story is more about God introducing the notion of "heinous"...i mean, given Abraham's own experiences and our modern sensibilities, it is easy to conclude that this must have been a "troubling" time for Abraham...yet, i cannot find in the scriptures any mention of Abraham having any conflict, hesitation, or remorse towards compliance with this commandment from God. (there is some post-mortem speculation like Hebrews 11:17-19)...I mean, in Genesis 15,17, and 18 we see Abraham clearly "question", argue, or even challenge God's commands...so, why is this narrative different?

So, while i appreciate the wit of the OP, it seems like it may have skipped ahead in conclusion.
Deut 12:31 makes a more obvious statement about all of this
"You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods."

subgenius wrote:Take for example the killing of one's offspring - no matter the reason. It seems that some posters consider this command from God to be "evil"....or "heinous"....yet, it is perfectly "natural" -
I mean, when food is scarce the Lion will eat its own young - infanticide is not an uncommon event in nature...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

....yet, it is perfectly "natural"

Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human species that may be interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs. Research indicates that various forms of this are found throughout the animal kingdom.[1][2] As of 1999, nearly 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors; this is well documented in about 500 species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals

If you can justify your version of God asking you to kill your own son, you can pretty much justify anything such a God would do or ask.

Fence Sitter wrote:If you can justify your version of God asking you to kill your own son, you can pretty much justify anything such a God would do or ask.

What's worse, people look up to Abraham as a good example!

Bazooka wrote:

subgenius wrote:Take for example the killing of one's offspring - no matter the reason. It seems that some posters consider this command from God to be "evil"....or "heinous"....yet, it is perfectly "natural" -
I mean, when food is scarce the Lion will eat its own young - infanticide is not an uncommon event in nature...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

....yet, it is perfectly "natural"

Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human species that may be interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs. Research indicates that various forms of this are found throughout the animal kingdom.[1][2] As of 1999, nearly 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors; this is well documented in about 500 species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals

Wow, glad to know you support infanticide.
Yet I clearly stated that this episode is the introduction of morality as it were. That something being "perfectly natural" is actually not the measure for good, bad...preferred or not preferred.

For example:
infanticide - "attributed to stress causing factors ... ... considered pathological and maladaptive"

see, there is "moral" implication there...yet....

So, while we see homosexuality occur "naturally" in a severe minority population across a severe minority of species this in no way validates or invalidates its moral implication. However, good science - especially evolutionary science - can only conclude that homosexuality as a "natural" occurrence is maladaptive and the product of defective genes or defective psychology.

(by the way, nice how you compared the LGBT to intestinal parasites (gut worms)...especially since, ironically, gut worms may be transmitted by anilingus)....
but there is hope...science is moving in the right direction
"Hope for commercial gut worm vaccine"
http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/ ... e.22899420

Fence Sitter wrote:If you can justify your version of God asking you to kill your own son, you can pretty much justify anything such a God would do or ask.

Are you proposing that such an act has always, forever and ever, been "undesirable" for human beings?

I mean, I think it is significant that the narrator omits details form this story in the scriptures and even from the Hebrew texts.
I mean surely Isaac was not a moron, obviously he was old enough to help construct a "human sized" altar, gather wood, etc...

No one can offer a rationale as to why suddenly Abraham was so compliant when several episodes prior depict him as questioning, argumentative, and coercive to God....especially since Abraham had such an intimate and similar experience in his own life.

As for "justification"...posters like Bazooka pretty much justify all sorts of abhorrent acts simply by likening them to the actions of a "gut worm".

ludwigm wrote:I wouldn't pass the abrahamic test.

If it were about my daughter or my four stepchildren, three grandchildren or seventeen stepgrandchildren (the listed 5+20 are all equal for me, by the way) I would say "f* you, no".


There is no god.
If there were one --- assumed but not allowed --- then he/she/it would not do or institute the many s*** written in Bible or quran or whatever so-called scripture.

Man sins. God simply spelled it out so that man would get it. Man is rather dense. Other than Christ, man is unable to fulfill the LAW. That is because of his sinful nature, and why Christ needed to become the REAL sacrifice that all the animal sacrifices of the Bible only hinted at...