Mark this moment (once again), since Adam is agreeing completely with TEC.
Well, lets see how long that lasts ; )
Yup, that's it, in a nutshell: Abraham was declared "righteous" since he "listened, obeyed, and was blessed" by Jehovah for following his orders, and put his faith in Jehovah.
Yes, except for the 'jehovah' part. There is no 'jehovah'.
EVEN WHEN God later asked him to kill his son, Isaac: Abraham followed orders and didn't stop to think of what was in his (Abraham's) heart: he was completely willing to kill his son since God asked him to do so.
Well, the account says nothing about what was in Abraham's heart. But this goes beyond the point that I had made with regard to Snare thinking that i had said it was righteous to follow your own heart (because who knows what might be IN your heart). Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to God, yes... while at the same time knowing that God had already promised him that his offspring would come through Isaac. He even said when Isaac asked him, that God would provide the sacrifice... and God DID provide the sacrifice. So while he might not have known how all of these seemingly contradictory promises/requests would play out, he knew that God would keep his promise.
That's the problem with faith: it represents a WILLINGNESS to follow orders in the name of a higher power without stopping to ask questions, or consulting one's own heart or conscience. Why bother, since one's own human conscience is irrelevant, since believers know that the Bible says that the human heart is treacherous, and cannot be trusted anyway: that's the whole "faulty compass" thing.
Now this part, I must disagree with. What point is there in Abraham questioning God... and being ALLOWED to question God... then, regarding Sodom and Gomorrah? One most certainly can question, think, reason, test. Christ taught in such a way so as to get people TO use their brains, examine their hearts, etc.
Hence why Jihadists trust in Allah, JWs trust in Jehovah's power to resurrect and die refusing blood (based on a lie), when we all KNOW there will be no do-overs, no second-chances for those lives sacrificed in the name of 'faith'.
Well, no, we don't all 'know' that.
But regardless, one SHOULD test, reason, think, ask.
The author of Hebrews said specifically that Abraham HAD done just that... reasoned that God would give Isaac back to him.
TEC Said- Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed simply because they did not know the God of Abraham existed... but rather because of the cries that had gone up to God BECAUSE of the actions of that town. Because of the blood that town had spilled of others, and perhaps even the innocent among them.
Yeah, there's plenty of extra-biblical stories and Hebrew myths that sprung up around the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which I discuss in the blog article (link above). I suspect that the main reason behind the legends is much like how the stories of Paul Bunyan serve as a way to explain the natural appearance of America (eg the Grand Canyon is said to appear as it does today as a result of Paul Bunyan dragging his axe in the ground).
Mmm. I find it interesting (but not surprising) that so far everyone has ignored or deflected from the point that God came in answer to those who cried out to him from the harm done them BY the people of S&G. Preferring instead to defend S&G... the ones who were doing the raping/blood-spilling/etc... of strangers passing through their town.
TEC Said- Does a person need to know God to know that raping/spilling the blood strangers that come into your town is wrong? God acted on behalf of the innocent BEING harmed and destroyed. The blood of those who had been harmed/slain cried out to Him, same as Abel's did. In the story, the two angels were sent to investigate, giving anyone the opportunity to prove their own righteousness, by doing good to those strangers. (do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing so, some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it) But according to the story, it was Lot who took them in, trying to protect them. Every other man, young and old, came to do them harm, and harm Lot also for protecting them... tec
That's all conjecture, of course (and smacks of moral relativism)... adamah
Actually, that was one question, and then things that happened from the story... the angels were sent to investigate, and Lot is the one who met them at the gate and sheltered/protected them.
Just from the story, Abraham did not plead for Lot with God.
but remember that Lot and Abraham were foreigners living in a foreign land as aliens (non-citizens), where the inhabitants worshipped their own Gods and had their own customs. The story smacks of religious hegemony, since it wasn't like they had any authority to move into a foreign land and expect others to worship their Gods, and adopt their customs, etc. It would be like S. Americans who cross into the States illegally, and expect us to become Catholics, do things like they're done in Guatamala, etc, etc.
So?
It was not Abraham and Lot crying out to God about S&G... but others who lived in that land, or who passed through S&G.
In fact, I suspect that's likely the intent of the story of Lot in Sodom: the account was designed to stress the point that given the circumstances under which the account was written (during or after captivity in Babylon), the Jews were strangers living immersed in a foreign culture against their will, and Lot was the poster boy of a boisterous outsider who didn't exactly fly under the radar and lay low, but instead made a showy display of his strange customs and was clueless to how he fit into the surrounding culture: instead of being rewarded for his cluelessness and sticking to "true values", he was made the anti-hero who VIOLATED those same principles every chance he got. The story ends with him becoming the forefather to the enemies of the Chosen People.
And this is NOT conjecture, lol?
Of course, the author's intent was likely lost on the author of 2nd Peter (who wrote his epistle some 1,000 years AFTER the Genesis account was written (!), relying on the Greek Septuagint, no less....), who declared Lot to be not a heel, but a hero (AKA a righteous man) to fit into Xian theology.
More conjecture. Besides that though... you think a man cannot be righteous and then later commit actions that are not righteous?
Of course, Lot didn't make Paul's heroes of faith list, so there's another NT contradiction (as well as the OT/NT contradiction).
Just because one person mentioned Lot and one person did not... does not make it a contradiction. One person claiming that Lot was righteous and another claiming that Lot was unrighteous... then you might have your contradiction.
Peace,
tammy
...OUTLAW