Mormons facing the Abusive God

[_Nightlion]

You cannot imagine that with every step up Mount Moriah Abraham was willing by sheer faith against all odds for God not to allow him to complete his task? Or that he was thereby proving unto God his obedience even against his own will? I say he always had that hope.

I’m of the opinion that the original story actually had Abraham killing Isaac, and the part where the angel intervenes is a later addition by an editor that had theological motivations.

I didn’t see hope in the text, I saw a grim duty.

I am not calling you a cheater. But changing the game like you do is not according to Hoyle and smacks of a sticky wicket.

About hope on the level of faith, hope and charity. To me it a far different thing than just not wanting to be annoyed in life. To you it comes off as swatting a fly. To me it is to react well to the abuse of being sunk in the deepest pit of Nova Scotia with the Rocky Mountains piled on top and still able to come out on top. (You know that is what Joseph once said)

[_huckelberry]

Wave–particle duality is a description, not a contradiction. I'm not sure that a description of a theory in physics is a good analogy for assumed contradictions in deity. That aside, you seem to be basically be saying that 'it's all a mystery.' God is a mystery that we just have to accept and basically take on faith. Do I have it about right?

Hi Morley, "contradiction in God"? It is hard to imagine a contradiction in God. It would inject chaos into the foundation of order which is the foundation of being. I cannot think of any theology which would attempt that.

"Basically take on faith". That is a phrase which is painful to my ear. Am I actually guilty of that sin? Perhaps not entirely free of the taint. But the sin is not the same as recognizing there are things which I really do not know and that I must live with the resulting uncertainty. That God is a mystery is the only part of your paraphrase which I can agree with. Yes there is much about God and creation I do not know.

I realize I have responsibity in such a large communication miss as evidenced by your response. After posting my comment about contradictions I realized it had problems. The analogy is too large a leap.

Thinking about what sort of limitations could be involved in creation, perhaps it is easier to look first at the clearer or more observable idea that creation works as a whole. It is not composed of parts choosen off of a shelf but instead is composed parts which all share their nature in relationship with all of the other parts in creation.Whatever extent God has to choose the shape of creation to start with. That choice entails enourmous lmitation as a consequence. To try to step out of that family of beings order of things would result perhaps in chaos and for people in those fragmented artificial representations of people which Stak suggested would be the result of resurection.

[_Darth J]

Applying this hermeneutic to the mainstream LDS Church is almost a form of abuse itself, because you can clearly see the fruits of the church simply have no way of dealing with the significant evil that exists in this world daily.

Discuss.

Thus saith the Lord: "No more wire hangers!"

[_MrStakhanovite]

I am not calling you a cheater. But changing the game like you do is not according to Hoyle and smacks of a sticky wicket.

About hope on the level of faith, hope and charity. To me it a far different thing than just not wanting to be annoyed in life. To you it comes off as swatting a fly. To me it is to react well to the abuse of being sunk in the deepest pit of Nova Scotia with the Rocky Mountains piled on top and still able to come out on top. (You know that is what Joseph once said)

I'm curious about the bolded section, what changes am I making?

[_Nightlion]

I am not calling you a cheater. But changing the game like you do is not according to Hoyle and smacks of a sticky wicket.

About hope on the level of faith, hope and charity. To me it a far different thing than just not wanting to be annoyed in life. To you it comes off as swatting a fly. To me it is to react well to the abuse of being sunk in the deepest pit of Nova Scotia with the Rocky Mountains piled on top and still able to come out on top. (You know that is what Joseph once said)

I'm curious about the bolded section, what changes am I making?

You changed horses from faith being garnered from abuse to mere hope. Then to hope-lite. Rather than admit Abraham hoped in faith you toss in a myth that completely nullifies my scenario. Now you act curious as if you have no idea.

It is like trying to make a point to a puff of smoke. Nothing there. I was not thinking of your avatar but okay there ya go.

[_MrStakhanovite]

You changed horses from faith being garnered from abuse to mere hope. Then to hope-lite.

But you made the same assertion that was rejected by God at the end of Job, that the abuse served some grander purpose:

I personally am familiar with how abuse can invent faith and love and charity from out of nothing but the hope against hope of wanting these things and somehow knowing God must be out there. And more insisting that he is. Such are the justice demands of abuse.

But God says no such thing to Job.

Rather than admit Abraham hoped in faith you toss in a myth that completely nullifies my scenario.

It is not a “myth”, it’s a rigorous exegesis of the Hebrew text backed up by Jewish midrash that Abraham did indeed sacrifice Isaac. There is nothing in the text that suggests that Abraham hoped about any outcome, and given how Abraham literally laughs when God tells him Sarah will conceive at 100 years, or how Abraham called God out over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, if he hotly objected, he’d have spoken up or lamented.

The text is explicit Nightlion, Abraham returned alone from the mountain top.

[_Morley]

Thinking about what sort of limitations could be involved in creation, perhaps it is easier to look first at the clearer or more observable idea that creation works as a whole. It is not composed of parts choosen off of a shelf but instead is composed parts which all share their nature in relationship with all of the other parts in creation.Whatever extent God has to choose the shape of creation to start with. That choice entails enourmous lmitation as a consequence. To try to step out of that family of beings order of things would result perhaps in chaos and for people in those fragmented artificial representations of people which Stak suggested would be the result of resurection.

You seem to be putting God somewhat outside of creation--or as a co-creator with laws that were already in place. Your answer to the problem of evil seems to be that God has no choice.

I don't know what this means: "To try to step out of that family of beings order of things would result perhaps in chaos and for people in those fragmented artificial representations of people which Stak suggested would be the result of resurection." Clarification?

[_Nightlion]

Rather than admit Abraham hoped in faith you toss in a myth that completely nullifies my scenario.

It is not a “myth”, it’s a rigorous exegesis of the Hebrew text backed up by Jewish midrash that Abraham did indeed sacrifice Isaac. There is nothing in the text that suggests that Abraham hoped about any outcome, and given how Abraham literally laughs when God tells him Sarah will conceive at 100 years, or how Abraham called God out over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, if he hotly objected, he’d have spoken up or lamented.

The text is explicit Nightlion, Abraham returned alone from the mountain top.

And Jacob was already born? And all that about Isaac being blind in his old age and still giving the birthright to Jacob was bullcrap?

I suspect that Christopher Nemelka types wrote up lots of Midrash mishmash. There was an entire black ops priesthood behind the scenes cooking the books, moreso in the Northern Kingdoms with the Ephramites who took their witchcraft to England in my opinion, because I am a thinker more than a reader.

by the way it was Sarah who laughed at the though of her having a son, not Abraham.

It's okay to read something like faith and hope into texts that show an outcome for both. Like you can be assured that they traveled from place to place when the texts actually does not count each step. You can argue that steps were not taken because the text specifically fails to mention it, but why?

[_MrStakhanovite]

I suspect that Christopher Nemelka types wrote up lots of Midrash mishmash.

Well, the text supports the idea a great deal.

by the way it was Sarah who laughed at the though of her having a son, not Abraham.

Back it up to Genesis 17, where Abraham is walking and talking with YHWH. A good translation of 17:17 can be found from Richard Elliot Friedman:

And Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said in his heart, “Will he be born to someone who’s a hundred years old!? And will Sarah, who’s ninety years old, give birth?!

It's okay to read something like faith and hope into texts that show an outcome for both.

No it is not, that is eisegesis, reading what you want into the text to get a desired result.

Like you can be assured that they traveled from place to place when the texts actually does not count each step. You can argue that steps were not taken because the text specifically fails to mention it, but why?

Rule number one of biblical hermeneutics is that we only have the text. What does the text say and what doesn’t the text say?

In the case of the binding of Isaac in Genesis 22, Abraham tells his boys “We’ll come back to you” but the story concludes “And Abraham went back to his boys.” Another important clue is that in verses 11-15 (where the Angel of YHWH stops Abraham) are not in included in Exodus 24 on Mount Horeb, even though there are 18 parallels of language between Gen 22 and Exodus 24.

Like my mentor and Reb always tells me in our study sessions, “Don’t ask me! Look at the text! What does the text says!?!”

[_honorentheos]

Stak -

I'm curious what you think about other alternative hypothesis' from the JEDP evaluation of the Abraham account? For example, that Abraham may have decided on his own to sacrifice the ram when he saw it in the thicket and the second message of the angel being added to make it appear that God brought this about rather than it being an act of disobedience on Abraham's part?

Is it your view that the most compelling evidence comes from the return of Abraham without mentioning Issac? or is there other information embedded in the accounts as they break down between authors that you feel push us in your direction?