All Activity

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 with stepping in to stop his obedient servant from going all the way. He had to send an angel instead.

"I don't know" is a perfectly legitimate answer to "God", or anything to do with said god. It's a much better answer than relying on what others have written about it, including scripture. So, where to go for answers?

It’s not unique or unusual for quite a number of things written in scripture to be more fully revealed or explained some hundreds of years later. But, seems you have a better understanding and grasp on what happened some 4000 years ago and why it was written in scripture than the apostle Paul did, even though he was noted as being. a Pharisee of the Pharisees…

I always thought WordWolf was the best clue giver in this category. And he was.

The discussion here so far assumes Tongues are genuine and questions whether it proves anything. That is off topic on THIS thread. Examining SIT as part of the "deconversion" process is fair game but not what was happening.

Getting back to the topic of Deconversion: Letting go of ones religion, verses that claim God is light with no darkness in him at all or that he is righteous in all his ways and gracious in all his works causes people to overlook, deny or explain away all the many places which show he's the complete opposite. Giving up critical thinking and avoiding cognitive dissonance do not make for a sound mind.

Last comment for me on this topic (hopefully): For someone who says if God truly wanted the burnt offering, then why did he stop it, I think this only goes to show it was the obedience God was looking for. Obviously, if God let Abraham complete the offering, then he would have had to raise Isaac from the dead in order to carry on the promise He made to Abraham. That would have been quite a miracle though - raising the dead doesn't show up in the OT until later when a prophet does it for a widow woman's son.

Getting medieval is almost certainly "Pulp Fiction." (It's been quoted around.)

I've heard people quote "the Fifth Element" before, but none quoted that. IMHO, it's not the best-known quote from the movie.

Glossolalia is off topic on this thread. Feel free to discuss in doctrinal or, from a skeptical perspective, on a thread in this forum where it is on topic.

If that was the true meaning of a burnt sacrifice in this incident, then where is the account of Abraham getting it right and giving up his son for the greater good after the incident? Seriously, show me. What you are parroting of wierwille simply is not true.

I never said God could not change his mind. I showed verses to prove that He could. That was an important point you overlooked. I didn't hear any words of "correction" from the angel. What I heard said was "12 ...Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." This implies that the angel (or God) had doubt that Abraham would sacrifice has son to God as a burnt offering which is why he waited to the very last second to stop him instead of like maybe earlier when Abraham was gathering the wood and getting the fire - even when tying up Isaac would have been a good time. You really need to let go of weirwille's teaching. The account was a test of Abraham's obedience which God apparently needed. I hope he never gives you such a test of your obedience to him.

Hey TLC So I differ on the Abraham reading. What I pick up is he misunderstood the idea of sacrifice, meaning to give up something of your own for the greater good of all. He read the common reading which was executing and burning on an altar an animal to consumption outside the tithe given to the Levites which they ate. Other cultures also sacrificed animals to their gods in this fashion. The idea of being raised from the dead was probably a foretelling in stars or a couple prophecies but not likely to be mistaken IMO. Regading your idea of “true Christian” or not I think that is up to the Lord to decide and not me to judge. I agree with you on the common phenomenon of glossallalia is not proof that someone believes God raised Christ from the dead that is more of VPs illogic. Peace.

So I did see the website you posted that duplicated VPW work on Abraham and Isaac. I completely do not agree with your logic or necessarily VPs direct statement that God can’t change His will. Anyone can change their will. All they need is a lawyer . Ba dump tish. The point being an angel intervened to save the kid. The angel was a sent messenger from God. So if a direct sent messenger corrects your understanding of Gods Will then it’s pretty clear that killing the kid was not Gods intent or will. In Jonah God literally changed his will because they repented. It literally says it right in the verse you quoted. But you are so busy attacking VP - mostly justly I would add - that you missed the logic right there. No it’s not a good catch it is spreading a virus for logic. Regarding your last paragraph summarizing VP I am 100 percent with you on that- he was a sociopath cult leader that twisted scripture for his own gratification and enrichment and the impact on all his “burnt offerings” is horrible. This account to me shows the blend of inspiration and getting it twisted up with natural reasoning leading Abraham to a pretty dark place. To me it shows even more how faith is necessary to correctly get the scripture intent and not add in barbaric human additional practices which always enslave.

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 the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from fighting the Ammonites – he will belong to the Lord and I will offer him up as a burnt sacrifice.” What would have happened to Wierwille's interpretation of the story if someone other than Jephthah's daughter was the first to come through the door? What if maybe a half-beaten-to-death slave or one of the lawless men he hung out with (vs 3) or even one of his brothers who had, along with all his other brothers, previously kicked Jephthah out of their home because he was only a half-brother (and the son of a prostitute to boot) and who hadn't gone into battle that day because he had tripped over the dog and jabbed himself in his eye with his breakfast fork... happened to come through the door first that dreadful day? To make the story even more ridiculous, what if that person wasn't even going out to meet Jephthah returning victoriously from battle but just wanted to get some fresh air. Point being that the vow was whoever came out first, Jephthah would offer him/her up as a burnt offering. Then keeping with vp's definition of a burnt offering, any one of the above-mentioned characters in this soap opera would have had to be given for "total commitment to God's service." You can't make this stuff up!

Nice catch. Abraham was ready to make his kid a burnt offering. Jephthah made his kid a burnt offering. VPW made his followers into burnt-out offerings. And we haven't even gotten to Job yet!

It took a simple google search to check something vpw wrote and find out he was wrong. He said, "Had this been God's will, as Abraham thought it was, there never would have been an angel needed to suddenly terminate the action because God cannot contradict Himself, He cannot change His will." However, in Jonah 3, it says 1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying, 2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee. 4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. 10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. God changes his will again in 1 Kings 21:17-29 and Numbers 14:11-20. ~~~~~~~~ Also, after messing up the meaning of Genesis 22 which clearly speaks of a burnt offering, he ends the chapter by bringing us into the story via Romans 12:1-2. "What good are we to God as dead sacrifices? He needs us as living, active sons to be faithful and carry out this work, totally committed to Him until death. By living according to God's Word, we are proved by Him and are "burnt offerings." Considering how vpw required his "kids" in the corps to be faithful and carry out the work of his ministry, totally committed to him unto death, his final words now fall far short of being inspirational.

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.

Going by what is written below, it looks like he kept his vow to offer her up as a burnt offering. Judges 12 4 Jephthah assembled all the men of Gilead and they fought with Ephraim. The men of Gilead defeated Ephraim, because the Ephraimites insulted them, saying, “You Gileadites are refugees in Ephraim, living within Ephraim’s and Manasseh’s territory.” 5 The Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan River opposite Ephraim. On that day forty-two thousand Ephraimites fell dead. 7 Jephthah led Israel for six years; then he died and was buried in his city in Gilead.

Mike McCann Dr. David Marrow Nels Coxman Peter Swan David Stewart

Meanwhile, Isaac is looking for some clean underwear.

No clue, not really.

"YOU HEAR ME TALKIN' HILLYBILLY BOY!!!!! I AIN'T THROUGH WITH YOU BY A DAMN SIGHT. I'M A GONNA GET MEDIEVAL ON YOU".

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."

"The Fifth Element" I have a feeling I just did this a little while back. The same result.