God and Abraham Exchange Lies and Mentally Abuse Isaac

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
searchengineguy
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God and Abraham Exchange Lies and Mentally Abuse Isaac

Post by searchengineguy » Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:29 am

Chapabel wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:35 pm
As predicted, the reprobate rejects truth and can only issue forth profanity. Case closed.
I love truth. How do you get truth out of deception? Thank Christ that there is no proof that Abraham and Isaac even existed.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 879
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: God and Abraham Exchange Lies and Mentally Abuse Isaac

Post by Chapabel » Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:28 pm

Only a fool would thank a God he doesn't believe in for a story he finds repugnant that has characters he claims never existed.

searchengineguy
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God and Abraham Exchange Lies and Mentally Abuse Isaac

Post by searchengineguy » Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:04 pm

That's called irony, which was wasted on a Dumbass like you.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: God and Abraham Exchange Lies and Mentally Abuse Isaac

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:54 pm

searchengineguy wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:02 am
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 11:31 pm
searchengineguy wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:37 pm
Why?
Because it will help you to understand what people are saying to you.
What have I missed?
You missed Chapabel explaining why he would not sacrifice his child and instead read him as saying he would. He was saying if per impossible he had been in Abraham's position whilst somehow still being himself (your hypothetical) he would have hoped to have had the same faith. You read that as him saying he would kill his child in his current situation and started harranging him for it. This is a recurring pattern with you.
1.read on some website that Christian think X along with an argument against X
2. Present this on the site
3. Get told by Christians that they do not believe X but believe Y
4. Argue against X as if the Christians on the site had said they believed it and no one had mentioned Y

More broadly speaking what you got wrong was:
1. a confusion about how language works. In order for your interpretation of God and Abraham as lying to work then there would have to be a single decontextualised language function. Propositions would derive there meaning from some kind of universal language structure and not from the context in which they are used. So a term like 'only son' would have a single universal meaning with no reference to the context or culture in which the phrase was used. By coincidence that universal meaning is the one most common in your own culture.
2. a confusion about the type of literature you are reading. This is clearly not modern natualistic writing. The telling is stylised to make a point therefore you cannot derrive from the story the kind of information you need in order to make an analysis of the psychological state of subordinate characters.
3. a confusion about the nature of morality. You assume without question that the moral standards of your own culture are universal and absolute and project these onto all of history in the guise of what is normal.

searchengineguy
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God and Abraham Exchange Lies and Mentally Abuse Isaac

Post by searchengineguy » Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:30 am

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:54 pm
You missed Chapabel explaining why he would not sacrifice his child and instead read him as saying he would. He was saying if per impossible he had been in Abraham's position whilst somehow still being himself (your hypothetical) he would have hoped to have had the same faith. You read that as him saying he would kill his child in his current situation and started harranging him for it. This is a recurring pattern with you.
Well you missed Chapabel explaining why he would not sacrifice his child then, didn't you? He never said that at all if you read carefully. Chappy read God's mind and said that "God wouldn't ask me to do that". How could he possible know what his god is thinking? Chappy can't cop out and say that "It isn't God's nature to be fine with human sacrifice, as the god in the story conspired with Abraham to set up the attempted murder. Plus I pointed out that God was ok with Jephthah murdering his own daughter as an act of faith to God. Chappy has by his own admission shown that he has that sort of sickening "faith".

I stand by what I replied to him;
This means that if you get these thoughts into your head, you would actually carry out the act hoping that your god would raise him from the dead, or now that he's dead, feel that he's in a "better" place. Or that your god has a "special" plan for him.

If your son had not cried out in fear as you bind, stab and burn him to death, this means that he would be totally ok with it and shows his love and faith in God too.

I hope your children read this and get help for you before it's too late!
1.read on some website that Christian think X along with an argument against X
2. Present this on the site
3. Get told by Christians that they do not believe X but believe Y
4. Argue against X as if the Christians on the site had said they believed it and no one had mentioned Y
This is a baseless accusation. You should know better than this Moon!
More broadly speaking what you got wrong was:
1. a confusion about how language works. In order for your interpretation of God and Abraham as lying to work then there would have to be a single decontextualised language function. Propositions would derive there meaning from some kind of universal language structure and not from the context in which they are used. So a term like 'only son' would have a single universal meaning with no reference to the context or culture in which the phrase was used. By coincidence that universal meaning is the one most common in your own culture.
Since when did "only son" mean more than one can exist? The only way that would work if God considered that Isaac was more valuable than Ishmael, Abraham's first son born from Sarah's slave girl Hagar, and so insignificant that he didn't rank as a son. This is stinking thinking too.
3. a confusion about the nature of morality. You assume without question that the moral standards of your own culture are universal and absolute and project these onto all of history in the guise of what is normal.
A "universal" morality would dictate that it is NEVER ok to stab and burn your own son to death as a human sacrifice. Even in self defence (which wasn't mentioned in the story), once you got the upper hand by binding you stop. We are talking about OUR moralities Moon. You or I would never do something like that. Chappy has admitted that if he was placed in that position, he hoped he would do the same thing if he had enough "faith".

This is dangerous thinking, and you are supporting it!
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: God and Abraham Exchange Lies and Mentally Abuse Isaac

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:26 pm

searchengineguy wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:30 am
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:54 pm
You missed Chapabel explaining why he would not sacrifice his child and instead read him as saying he would. He was saying if per impossible he had been in Abraham's position whilst somehow still being himself (your hypothetical) he would have hoped to have had the same faith. You read that as him saying he would kill his child in his current situation and started harranging him for it. This is a recurring pattern with you.
Well you missed Chapabel explaining why he would not sacrifice his child then, didn't you? He never said that at all if you read carefully. Chappy read God's mind and said that "God wouldn't ask me to do that". How could he possible know what his god is thinking? Chappy can't cop out and say that "It isn't God's nature to be fine with human sacrifice, as the god in the story conspired with Abraham to set up the attempted murder. Plus I pointed out that God was ok with Jephthah murdering his own daughter as an act of faith to God. Chappy has by his own admission shown that he has that sort of sickening "faith".
He explained in terms of dispensational theology. That is not with regard to his nature but the kind of relationship God has with mankind in particular eras. Any theology whatsoever is an attempt to know what God is thinking so to counter a theological argument by saying, 'you cannot know what God is thinking' is just to say you reject the idea of theology. If you do then there is no point in asking questions that demand theological answers because you already have your standard answer worked out in advance.
I stand by what I replied to him;
This means that if you get these thoughts into your head, you would actually carry out the act hoping that your god would raise him from the dead, or now that he's dead, feel that he's in a "better" place. Or that your god has a "special" plan for him.

If your son had not cried out in fear as you bind, stab and burn him to death, this means that he would be totally ok with it and shows his love and faith in God too.

I hope your children read this and get help for you before it's too late!
Then to be fair to you I think we have to put this down to functional illiteracy on your part.
1.read on some website that Christian think X along with an argument against X
2. Present this on the site
3. Get told by Christians that they do not believe X but believe Y
4. Argue against X as if the Christians on the site had said they believed it and no one had mentioned Y
This is a baseless accusation. You should know better than this Moon!
It's a pattern I see over and over in your arguments. So lets see whether it is baseless. What do we know? 1. We know you lift a lot of 'your' arguments ready made from atheist websites. We have found you doing that again and again. So that part is not baseless. 2. We know you argue against things people are not saying, and have said repeatedly they are not saying. So that part is not baseless. 3. We know you often completely ignore the things people say to counter your arguments. So that is not baseless.I suspect this is often because you don't understand what people are saying to you and I think the kindest thing may be to put this down to functional illiteracy again.
More broadly speaking what you got wrong was:
1. a confusion about how language works. In order for your interpretation of God and Abraham as lying to work then there would have to be a single decontextualised language function. Propositions would derive there meaning from some kind of universal language structure and not from the context in which they are used. So a term like 'only son' would have a single universal meaning with no reference to the context or culture in which the phrase was used. By coincidence that universal meaning is the one most common in your own culture.
Since when did "only son" mean more than one can exist? The only way that would work if God considered that Isaac was more valuable than Ishmael, Abraham's first son born from Sarah's slave girl Hagar, and so insignificant that he didn't rank as a son. This is stinking thinking too.
No, of course it is not the only way it would work. Even if it was that would not demonstrate a lie and this would be another example of you starting with one argument and shifting to another as soon as your claim is challenged.
3. a confusion about the nature of morality. You assume without question that the moral standards of your own culture are universal and absolute and project these onto all of history in the guise of what is normal.
A "universal" morality would dictate that it is NEVER ok to stab and burn your own son to death as a human sacrifice. Even in self defence (which wasn't mentioned in the story), once you got the upper hand by binding you stop. We are talking about OUR moralities Moon. You or I would never do something like that. Chappy has admitted that if he was placed in that position, he hoped he would do the same thing if he had enough "faith".

This is dangerous thinking, and you are supporting it!
But Abraham did not stab and burn his son. Nor did Chapabel say he would do that. again I think it best to put this down to functional illiteracy.

searchengineguy
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God and Abraham Exchange Lies and Mentally Abuse Isaac

Post by searchengineguy » Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:08 am

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:54 pm
You missed Chapabel explaining why he would not sacrifice his child and instead read him as saying he would. He was saying if per impossible he had been in Abraham's position whilst somehow still being himself (your hypothetical) he would have hoped to have had the same faith. You read that as him saying he would kill his child in his current situation and started harranging him for it. This is a recurring pattern with you.
searchengineguy wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:30 am
Well you missed Chapabel explaining why he would not sacrifice his child then, didn't you? He never said that at all if you read carefully. Chappy read God's mind and said that "God wouldn't ask me to do that". How could he possible know what his god is thinking? Chappy can't cop out and say that "It isn't God's nature to be fine with human sacrifice, as the god in the story conspired with Abraham to set up the attempted murder. Plus I pointed out that God was ok with Jephthah murdering his own daughter as an act of faith to God. Chappy has by his own admission shown that he has that sort of sickening "faith".
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:26 pm
He explained in terms of dispensational theology. That is not with regard to his nature but the kind of relationship God has with mankind in particular eras. Any theology whatsoever is an attempt to know what God is thinking so to counter a theological argument by saying, 'you cannot know what God is thinking' is just to say you reject the idea of theology. If you do then there is no point in asking questions that demand theological answers because you already have your standard answer worked out in advance.
Of course the most ardent theists ALWAYS have their apologetics worked out in advance. If they didn't they would flounder a lot more than they do now once you deviate from what they are used to. I'm not saying that atheists DON'T have standard answers worked out in advance btw. We often do. But we aren't bound by answers quoting Bible verses that ARE inflexible.
I stand by what I replied to him
Then to be fair to you I think we have to put this down to functional illiteracy on your part.
Try being even fairer and admit that your god and patriarchal father used untruths and deception in the story.
1.read on some website that Christian think X along with an argument against X
2. Present this on the site
3. Get told by Christians that they do not believe X but believe Y
4. Argue against X as if the Christians on the site had said they believed it and no one had mentioned Y
This is a baseless accusation. You should know better than this Moon!
It's a pattern I see over and over in your arguments. So lets see whether it is baseless. What do we know? 1. We know you lift a lot of 'your' arguments ready made from atheist websites.
Sure I get a lot of my ideas from atheist sites. No argument there. You also draw on theist books and online articles. I don't claim to know what Christians think, they all have inconsistent theologies. So you are in error here again.
2. We know you argue against things people are not saying, and have said repeatedly they are not saying. So that part is not baseless.
It is baseless if you cannot provide consistent examples. You are guilty of the same thing occasionally, so I can't see your point.
3. We know you often completely ignore the things people say to counter your arguments. So that is not baseless.I suspect this is often because you don't understand what people are saying to you and I think the kindest thing may be to put this down to functional illiteracy again.
It seems that you can't understand what Chappy is saying, and I put this down to herd mentality.
More broadly speaking what you got wrong was:
1. a confusion about how language works. In order for your interpretation of God and Abraham as lying to work then there would have to be a single decontextualised language function. Propositions would derive there meaning from some kind of universal language structure and not from the context in which they are used. So a term like 'only son' would have a single universal meaning with no reference to the context or culture in which the phrase was used. By coincidence that universal meaning is the one most common in your own culture.
Since when did "only son" mean more than one can exist? The only way that would work if God considered that Isaac was more valuable than Ishmael, Abraham's first son born from Sarah's slave girl Hagar, and so insignificant that he didn't rank as a son. This is stinking thinking too.
No, of course it is not the only way it would work. Even if it was that would not demonstrate a lie and this would be another example of you starting with one argument and shifting to another as soon as your claim is challenged.
Ok, give me a heads up why Ishmael would not be considered a son.
3. a confusion about the nature of morality. You assume without question that the moral standards of your own culture are universal and absolute and project these onto all of history in the guise of what is normal.
A "universal" morality would dictate that it is NEVER ok to stab and burn your own son to death as a human sacrifice. Even in self defence (which wasn't mentioned in the story), once you got the upper hand by binding you stop. We are talking about OUR moralities Moon. You or I would never do something like that. Chappy has admitted that if he was placed in that position, he hoped he would do the same thing if he had enough "faith".

This is dangerous thinking, and you are supporting it![/quote]
But Abraham did not stab and burn his son. Nor did Chapabel say he would do that. again I think it best to put this down to functional illiteracy.
Abraham had EVERY intent to stab and burn his son. Chappy stated that he wished that he had the faith to do it too if he was placed in that position.
If you can't understand that, I put it down to your indoctrination that Christian theology can never be wrong or immoral.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

User avatar
Claire
Posts: 1389
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: God and Abraham Exchange Lies and Mentally Abuse Isaac

Post by Claire » Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:16 pm

SEG wrote:God's Lies
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac,
Abraham humped his wife's slave who gave birth to his other son Ishmael
Only son as in only legitimate son at the time.
SEG wrote:Adam's Lies
5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship,
He knew that Isaac would not be worshipping, he thought he would be cooking.
Where did you read Isaac didn't worship with Abraham?
SEG wrote:
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:
He knew that there would be no lamb offering and conspired with God to sacrifice his own son.
Considering the context, the word "lamb" in that translation is meant to signify "sacrifice", just as the word "victim" in the following translation does as well:
And Abraham said: God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust, my son.
God did provide a sacrifice for a burnt offering as Abraham said: a ram (Gen. 22:13), though he initially thought it was to be Isaac, for reasons explained below.
SEG wrote:A good, loving and just god would never command human sacrifice.
God's command for a great sacrifice was a test of great faith, obedience, and honor to the extreme limit. And, Abraham did sacrifice his son, because as Jesus said: "it's true that his heart had already sacrificed him during their journey, with his will to obey, which was arrested by the angel when his heart of a father was already breaking, as he was on the point of rending the heart of his son".
Last edited by Claire on Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"He that keepeth his mouth and his tongue, keepeth his soul from distress" -- Prov. 21:23

searchengineguy
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God and Abraham Exchange Lies and Mentally Abuse Isaac

Post by searchengineguy » Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:33 pm

SEG wrote:God's Lies
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac,
Abraham humped his wife's slave who gave birth to his other son Ishmael
Claire wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:44 am
Only son as in only legitimate son at the time.
Yes but it wasn't qualified as that, was it? Are we all God's children, or is it only legitimate children that count?
Therefore it was lying.
SEG wrote:Adam's Lies
5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship,
He knew that Isaac would not be worshipping, he thought he would be cooking.
Claire wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:44 am
Where did you read Isaac didn't worship with Abraham?
More to the point, Where did you read Isaac did worship with Abraham? Being bound up so that you can't escape and run away so that you don't get stabbed and burnt to death by your crazy old man doesn't count as worship. This is a terrible story and you guys are defending it!
SEG wrote:
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:
He knew that there would be no lamb offering and conspired with God to sacrifice his own son.
Considering the context, the word "lamb" in that translation is meant to signify "sacrifice", just as the word "victim" in the following translation does as well:
And Abraham said: God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust, my son.
God did provide a sacrifice for a burnt offering as Abraham said: a ram (Gen. 22:13), but he initially thought it was to be Isaac, for reasons explained below.
Thought it was Isaac? You mean he conspired with the voices in his head.
If this was about blood lust, then why did He stay Abraham's hand?
This story demonstrated that his imagined voices in his head were to be obeyed without question. He already achieved what he wanted to show Abraham. He demonstrated that it was a good thing to commit the worst atrocities in his name and that his imagined god was capable of despicable things. As stated earlier, he should have passed the test by refusing to commit murder as a human sacrifice, as a loving god would never demand something as atrocious as that. He did the opposite and was rewarded!
God's command was a test of great faith, or trust, obedience, and honor to the extreme limit by means of great sacrifice.
It's a sickening story. You are just so blinded by faith you can't see it.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

User avatar
Claire
Posts: 1389
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: God and Abraham Exchange Lies and Mentally Abuse Isaac

Post by Claire » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:48 am

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:God's Lies
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac,
Abraham humped his wife's slave who gave birth to his other son Ishmael
Only son as in only legitimate son at the time.
SEG wrote:Yes but it wasn't qualified as that, was it? Are we all God's children, or is it only legitimate children that count? Therefore it was lying.
Huh? Please be clearer.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Adam's Lies
5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship,
He knew that Isaac would not be worshipping, he thought he would be cooking.
Where did you read Isaac didn't worship with Abraham?
SEG wrote:More to the point, where did you read Isaac did worship with Abraham? Being bound up so that you can't escape and run away so that you don't get stabbed and burnt to death by your crazy old man doesn't count as worship. This is a terrible story and you guys are defending it!
What I read was Abraham and Isaac would go worship (Gen. 22:5). So, you didn't read anywhere Isaac didn't worship?
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:
He knew that there would be no lamb offering and conspired with God to sacrifice his own son.
Considering the context, the word "lamb" in that translation is meant to signify "sacrifice", just as the word "victim" in the following translation does as well:
And Abraham said: God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust, my son.
God did provide a sacrifice for a burnt offering as Abraham said: a ram (Gen. 22:13), though he initially thought it was to be Isaac, for reasons explained below.
SEG wrote:Thought it was Isaac? You mean he conspired with the voices in his head.
He thought it was because God commanded that it be. Back to the point, the word "lamb" in the translation you used for Gen. 22:7 doesn't signify the animal as you think, rather a sacrifice, just as the word "victim" does in the translation I used, which God did provide. So, Abraham didn't lie.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:A good, loving and just god would never command human sacrifice.
God's command for a great sacrifice was a test of great faith, obedience, and honor to the extreme limit. And, Abraham did sacrifice his son, because as Jesus said: "it's true that his heart had already sacrificed him during their journey, with his will to obey, which was arrested by the angel when his heart of a father was already breaking, as he was on the point of rending the heart of his son".
It's a sickening story. You are just so blinded by faith you can't see it.
Is it sickening God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, only to test his will to the extreme limit, and stayed his hand from killing physically?
"He that keepeth his mouth and his tongue, keepeth his soul from distress" -- Prov. 21:23

Post Reply