Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Abraham failed the test


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

It comes down to whether or not we trust the scriptures to be telling enough of reality imo to trust the story tells us something actually about God and is not just a collection of myths accepted as history by many.

A lot of stories in the scriptures are not fully explained in the scriptures, so do not really tell us about God... gaps leave room for personal interpretation and understanding.  Everyone has an individual testimony and belief about who God is...

Link to comment
On 8/23/2019 at 11:52 PM, changed said:

Read something interesting today on a Jewish board, googled around a little more, and sure enough, quite a few Jewish people believe Abraham failed the test.  

https://reformjudaism.org/blog/2013/09/03/akeidah-abraham-failed-gods-test-god-loved-him-anyway

https://www.google.com/amp/s/morethodoxy.org/2010/10/12/did-abraham-fail-his-final-test-by-rabbi-hyim-shafner/amp/

etc.

I have thought similar things- that we are supposed to refuse to follow orders which go against our conscience, even if those orders come from apostles, prophets, or even G-d.  

We can discuss all the times where scriptures record people successfully arguing with G-d, or discuss what everyone here would or would NOT do if commanded by a church authority figure, or what constitutes "passing" the test etc etc.

G-d would cease to be G-d if not loving or just... we follow the way of love, justice, and mercy above all it seems...

Then, according to the way you see things, God the Father has failed the ‘test’ as well. Only in the case the Father, his moral failure is far greater than the moral failure of Abraham. 

The evidence of the Father’s egregious ‘failure’ to obey the demands of moral law is attested to  by the fact that his perfectly innocent Son repeatedly pleaded with him that he might not be required to be savagely whipped and disfigured within an inch of his life, and then, in a terribly weakened state, submit to the infamously brutal, agonizing  and protracted form capital punishment known as crucifixion. And then, as if these unspeakably horrific forms of physical torture weren’t enough, God’s Son was also required to have to endure infinite and eternal spiritual punishment for a staggering multitude of sins that he never committed. 

By comparison, if Abraham’s sacrifice of his son had not been arrested by the intervention of the angel, the administration of death to Isaac would have been quick, relatively painless, and though difficult to bear, far less spiritually traumatizing

So if you are correct in your assessment that Abraham’s willingness to follow through with the sacrifice of Isaac was a great moral failure on his part, then how much greater was God the Father’s moral failure when he didn’t come to the rescue of his Son and remove from him the horrific contents of the bitter cup?

But the interesting thing to contemplate is that if, according to your analysis, the Father had come to the rescue and not require his Son to drink to the dregs the bitter cup, there would be no forgiveness of sins, no joy and happiness, no glorious resurrection from the dead, no ascension to the heavenly mansions of the Father, God would cease to be God, and (according to the prophet Lehi) all things would vanish away into nonexistence.

Therefore there is no other way for God’s work and glory to continue than to drink that bitter cup.  So the Lord found a way to help Abraham to gain a more profound understanding of the infinite  price the Father and the Son have to pay in order to save his children and bring them eternal joy.

 

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Then, according to the way you see things, God the Father has failed the ‘test’ as well. Only in the case the Father, his moral failure is far greater than the moral failure of Abraham. 

The evidence of the Father’s egregious ‘failure’ to obey the demands of moral law is attested to  by the fact that his perfectly innocent Son repeatedly pleaded with him that he might not be required to be savagely whipped and disfigured within an inch of his life, and then, in a terribly weakened state, submit to the infamously brutal, agonizing  and protracted form capital punishment known as crucifixion. And then, as if these unspeakably horrific forms of physical torture weren’t enough, God’s Son was also required to have to endure infinite and eternal spiritual punishment for a staggering multitude of sins that he never committed. 

By comparison, if Abraham’s sacrifice of his son had not been arrested by the intervention of the angel, the administration of death to Isaac would have been quick, relatively painless, and though difficult to bear, far less spiritually traumatizing

So if you are correct in your assessment that Abraham’s willingness to follow through with the sacrifice of Isaac was a great moral failure on his part, then how much greater was God the Father’s moral failure when he didn’t come to the rescue of his Son and remove from him the horrific contents of the bitter cup?

But the interesting thing to contemplate is that if, according to your analysis, the Father had come to the rescue and not require his Son to drink to the dregs the bitter cup, there would be no forgiveness of sins, no joy and happiness, no glorious resurrection from the dead, no ascension to the heavenly mansions of the Father, God would cease to be God, and (according to the prophet Lehi) all things would vanish away into nonexistence.

Therefore there is no other way for God’s work and glory to continue than to drink that bitter cup.  So the Lord found a way to help Abraham to gain a more profound understanding of the infinite  price the Father and the Son have to pay in order to save his children and bring them eternal joy.

 

 

are you familiar with reincarnation beliefs?  ... reincarnation solves the problem of justice and mercy without anyone having to be unjustly killed... 

Taoism, yin/yang - best poetry about opposition I have read.

 

Edited by changed
Link to comment
10 hours ago, changed said:

 

are you familiar with reincarnation beliefs?  ... reincarnation solves the problem of justice and mercy without anyone having to be unjustly killed... 

Taoism, yin/yang - best poetry about opposition I have read.

 

I listened to a book the other day (a Medium with psychic abilities) talking about how someone who we think surely belongs in hell, can be reincarnated and given a do over so to speak. Hadn't been a believer in reincarnation before, but slowly wondering if this is a way for some, not all, and a path instead of burning continually in a hell. I like this very much actually. A God like that. Being given a do over, as long as it doesn't mean they repeat the behaviour though. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to a book the other day (a Medium with psychic abilities) talking about how someone who we think surely belongs in hell, can be reincarnated and given a do over so to speak. Hadn't been a believer in reincarnation before, but slowly wondering if this is a way for some, not all, and a path instead of burning continually in a hell. I like this very much actually. A God like that. Being given a do over, as long as it doesn't mean they repeat the behaviour though. 

Reincarnation doesn't fit in our theology because we believe in the resurrection of the body to be joined with the spirit that inhabited that body, which would mean there would be extra bodies with no spirit to fill them because those spirits already had another body.

Switching between bodies wouldn't fit in our theology either because once a spirit is joined to a resurrected body they won't separate (which is death) again.

Unless maybe a spirit could control another body by remote control or something like that.  I'll bring this idea up at the next council of the Gods I attend.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to a book the other day (a Medium with psychic abilities) talking about how someone who we think surely belongs in hell, can be reincarnated and given a do over so to speak. Hadn't been a believer in reincarnation before, but slowly wondering if this is a way for some, not all, and a path instead of burning continually in a hell. I like this very much actually. A God like that. Being given a do over, as long as it doesn't mean they repeat the behaviour though. 

If they have no memory of their past life except in rare situations, then how can they ensure they learn rather than just harm more people?  Reincarnation is just as likely imo to end in giving people the chance to be even more evil as it is to become good unless there is more going on than just getting another chance.

Makes more sense to me to have instead an extended learning period postlife in paradise or spirit prison/hell with lots of teachers where we most likely get a chance to learn what the consequences of our behaviours were, maybe get taught by the people we harmed, or any of a myriad of ways to learn without actually just repeating what didn’t work the first time through. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 8/29/2019 at 12:08 AM, changed said:

 

are you familiar with reincarnation beliefs?  ... reincarnation solves the problem of justice and mercy without anyone having to be unjustly killed... 

Taoism, yin/yang - best poetry about opposition I have read.

 

Taoist poetry about the eternal law of opposition in all things may be beautiful to read, but by the very nature of Taoism such writings must unavoidably set forth a deficient presentation on the subject of eternal opposition. I make this assertion because there is no Supreme Being in Taoism, but only enlightened individuals who spiritually fall far short of standard of the omniscient God of perfect love, light, justice and mercy who stands in diametric opposition to that most hateful, benighted, unjust and unmerciful being who “rules” in the realm of outer darkness.

In Lehi’s paradigm of opposition in all things, there must  be a perfect supreme intelligence, the Creator of all things, who stands in everlasting opposition to the perfectly evil devil who tirelessly works to destroy the creation of God. Without these two most indispensable elements that must exist within the framework of opposition in all things, Lehi asserts there could have been no creation because with out a perfectly good and infinitely wise Supreme Being  there could have been no perfectly good and supernally wise purpose for the creation. The only thing that makes  creation at all possible is the existence of the perfect God of light and love who forever stands in diametric opposition to the perfectly imperfect anti-God we call the devil.

Things cannot exist outside of the existence of a perfect being, because only an omniscient and omnipotent intelligence can assure the immutable demands of the laws of justice and mercy will be perfectly administered and perfectly satisfied. There is no other way...

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment

Of course murder is wrong and immoral.  For example we know rape is a horrible crime and we know it's not as bad as murder.  The church has specifically said this on many occasions like

Quote

“The doctrine of this Church is that sexual sin — the illicit sexual relations of men and women — stands, in its enormity, next to murder.  The Lord has drawn no essential distinctions between fornication, adultery, and harlotry or prostitution. Each has fallen under His solemn and awful condemnation.” (First Presidency Message of October 1942)

Would you still be willing do defend Abraham if he agreed to the lessor sin of raping Isaac? If not then why are you defending him for willing to commit a greater sin? 

Phaedrus 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

Of course murder is wrong and immoral.  For example we know rape is a horrible crime and we know it's not as bad as murder.  The church has specifically said this on many occasions like

Would you still be willing do defend Abraham if he agreed to the lessor sin of raping Isaac? If not then why are you defending him for willing to commit a greater sin? 

Phaedrus 

Before you could accuse Abraham of murder you would first have to prove that killing Isaac would have been murder in God's eyes. That's the question that has to be answered, and it's a tricky question because we as a church don't believe that killing is always murder.  We believe that sometimes God condones killing.  And that means that that Abraham was going to end Isaac's life is not, on it's own, a sign of murder.   

Because the issue is whether or not Abraham failed or passed God's test, His opinion is all that matters. What we think about it is irrelevant.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Taoist poetry about the eternal law of opposition in all things may be beautiful to read, but by the very nature of Taoism such writings must unavoidably set forth a deficient presentation on the subject of eternal opposition. I make this assertion because there is no Supreme Being in Taoism, but only enlightened individuals who spiritually fall far short of standard of the omniscient God of perfect love, light, justice and mercy who stands in diametric opposition to that most hateful, benighted, unjust and unmerciful being who “rules” in the realm of outer darkness.

In Lehi’s paradigm of opposition in all things, there must  be a perfect supreme intelligence, the Creator of all things, who stands in everlasting opposition to the perfectly evil devil who tirelessly works to destroy the creation of God. Without these two most indispensable elements that must exist within the framework of opposition in all things, Lehi asserts there could have been no creation because with out a perfectly good and infinitely wise Supreme Being  there could have been no perfectly good and supernally wise purpose for the creation. The only thing that makes  creation at all possible is the existence of the perfect God of light and love who forever stands in diametric opposition to the perfectly imperfect anti-God we call the devil.

Things cannot exist outside of the existence of a perfect being, because only an omniscient and omnipotent intelligence can assure the immutable demands of the laws of justice and mercy will be perfectly administered and perfectly satisfied. There is no other way...

I would say things cannot exist without being accompanied by the underlying natural laws of the universe - that these laws, or "the Tao", are the ultimate creative and governing force, taking precedence over even God - as "God would cease to be God" if he did not follow the law of justice... or consider the Snow couplet, as men are now, God once was - - intelligences rise and fall, spirits grow and progress, religious groups come and go - all following the real ruler of the universe- which is the unchanging natural laws governing all.

 

The law of justice and love, opposition - to the laws of thermodynamics - this is what exists eternally without change.

Edited by changed
Link to comment
On 9/3/2019 at 1:52 PM, changed said:

I would say things cannot exist without being accompanied by the underlying natural laws of the universe - that these laws, or "the Tao", are the ultimate creative and governing force, taking precedence over even God - as "God would cease to be God" if he did not follow the law of justice... or consider the Snow couplet, as men are now, God once was - - intelligences rise and fall, spirits grow and progress, religious groups come and go - all following the real ruler of the universe- which is the unchanging natural laws governing all.

 

The law of justice and love, opposition - to the laws of thermodynamics - this is what exists eternally without change.

How about a sample of what those "underlying natural laws of the universe" could possibly be?  That there is such a thing as good as well as a thing we call evil?  if so, what's next?  That good is better than evil?  Or that evil is worse than what is good?  What is good, or what is evil, though?  What is it that is better than the other?  And who would you ask to verify the truth of your conclusion?  If you asked an evil person he might say that evil is better than anything that is good.  Or he might even lie and say there is no such thing as what we call evil.  That everything is good, depending on a particular point of view.  Or he might say that all are equally in opposition to each other, with neither any better or worse than the other.  Just the state of things, the way things are, with anyone having an equal right to anything there is, whether good or evil.   Supposing there is even anyone to ask who would know the way things really are, rather than simply giving their own opinion.

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Ahab said:

How about a sample of what those "underlying natural laws of the universe" could possibly be?  That there is such a thing as good as well as a thing we call evil?  if so, what's next?  That good is better than evil?  Or that evil is worse than what is good?  What is good, or what is evil, though?  What is it that is better than the other?  And who would you ask to verify the truth of your conclusion?  If you asked an evil person he might say that evil is better than anything that is good.  Or he might even lie and say there is no such thing as what we call evil.  That everything is good, depending on a particular point of view.  Or he might say that all are equally in opposition to each other, with neither any better or worse than the other.  Just the state of things, the way things are, with anyone having an equal right to anything there is, whether good or evil.   Supposing there is even anyone to ask who would know the way things really are, rather than simply giving their own opinion.

The underlying laws of the universe are manifest in present reality.  Every religious belief is someone's opinion, every spiritual experience from every religious group is someone's own feelings.

 

Screenshot_20190906-004212_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20190906-003813_Chrome.jpg

Link to comment

I don't believe seeing something as good or beautiful requires seeing bad and ugly.  The absence of beauty and good is not bad or ugly, but blah and boring.

IOW, I don't see it as choice of seeing things in positive ways all the time that something gets labeled as bad.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't believe seeing something as good or beautiful requires seeing bad and ugly.  The absence of beauty and good is not bad or ugly, but blah and boring.

IOW, I don't see it as choice of seeing things in positive ways all the time that something gets labeled as bad.

 

Screenshot_20190906-063831_Chrome.jpg

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...