- ji on Unbinding Isaac: Aaron Koller on the Trauma and Theology of Genesis 22: “Yes, it was Abraham’s faith that justified him (counted as righteousness), not his deeds. God works in mysterious ways, and sees the end from the beginning. God had worked with Abraham for many years, but Abraham was still not perfect. Maybe the best answer would have been for Abraham to push back on God, as he had when the angels were on their way to Sodom — maybe Abraham should have known that human sacrifice was repugnant — but Abraham had faith in God and trusted God, and he set out. God intervened and provided an acceptable sacrifice, and we have used this story as hinting towards Jesus’ death, and thus God used this time to teach Abraham. But Abraham’s faith was counted as righteousness, even though his deeds could be seen as mistaken. A covenant relationship does not mean mindless obedience, exact obedience — a covenant relationship means let’s engage, let’s talk. We read about not being a servant but being a son and an heir — a son and an heir can engage with his father, and can talk to his father. Abraham acted like a servant, but maybe should have acted like a son. Even so, Abraham’s faith was counted as righteousness. I am troubled by calls for exact obedience, as I don’t think that is what God wants from us. God wants faith, and understanding, and purposeful obedience and the learning that occurs therewith. God wants a covenant relationship. God counts our faith (more than our deeds) as righteousness. Thus, might a man-made call for exact obedience to God be misplaced? And if so, might a call for exact obedience to a man (a prophet?) or an institution (a church?) also be misplaced? A covenant relationship includes engagement and talking, and maybe even occasional mild pushback, and the learning that occurs therewith.” Feb 21, 15:23
- on Abraham: A Study in Humanity: “This is one of my favorite T&S posts ever. You actually make me want to go back and read the stories again. Thank you!” Feb 21, 06:24
- on Abraham: A Study in Humanity: “Great piece! I ironically have had the inverse trajectory as you: all throughout my youth and mission and YSA and most uncritically believing years, I was still always low-key uncomfortable with the disturbing elements of the Old Testament, especially the story of Abraham. It’s only as I’ve gotten older that I’ve come to better appreciate and admire the OT, precisely in the ways you’ve outlined here, as an extended record of the *failures* of faithful men, of how none of us are truly righteous and all are without exception in dire need of repentance, as a massive compendium of what NOT to do.” Feb 21, 06:15
- on Outer Darkness, Voids, Dark Nebulas, and the End of the Universe: “Similar to your idea of Outer Darkness (I like your capitalization of it when imagining it as a proper place) being a place without light, I like to think of the depth of the Atonement of Jesus Christ as being a place completely without the Light of God. “My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” is a natural plea when all light is withdrawn. In the physical world, absolute zero (-273.15°C, or -459.67°F) is the temperature when 100% of all heat is absent–the coldest of cold. Spiritually, the depth of the Atonement when the Savior felt all pains, sufferings, and sins, is spiritual “absolute zero”–the level completely without God’s light that cannot get any darker. Is Outer Darkness similar?” Feb 20, 23:29
- on Abraham: A Study in Humanity: “John-I agree, it is a wonderful moment when you realize faith no longer requires constant mental gymnastics and suppression of your conscious. Rose-excellent point! I totally should have included Isaac. I can’t imagine what that must have been like for him. It’s interesting that afterwards Abraham dos not go back to Sarah’s camp, and there is no record of them interacting again. I hope Isaac went back to Sarah. Also, it is astounding how often Abraham is used as justification for doing something…troubling. Another example that comes to mind is “lying for the Lord” :/” Feb 20, 15:23
- on Abraham: A Study in Humanity: “You write, “My heart breaks for all the people involved in this story—particularly Hagar, Ishmael, and Sarah, as well as Abraham.” We add might, Isaac, whose father was willing to offer him as a sacrifice to God. That story used to inspire me–until it didn’t. How many faith traditions have used that Abrahma’s story to justify homicide, genocide, and war? How many religious zealots have used his example to justify slavery, homophobia, and sexism? How many do today?” Feb 20, 14:02
- on Abraham: A Study in Humanity: “Great article. Much better to accept leaders in their weaknesses than to jump through convoluted hoops to say wrong behaviors were right. Thanks for sharing!” Feb 20, 12:38
- on CFM 2/23-3/1: Poetry for “Is Any Thing Too Hard for the Lord?”: “I’ve been reading Richard Rohr lately, who talks a lot about the cross and the death of Jesus in it’s symbolism, etc., taking often a non-traditional view. With that caveat, what jumped out at me in this is one of the primary differences between Jesus and Isaac. Now perhaps God and Abraham could be said to be in the same role, but I don’t know that Jesus and Isaac were. Jesus had a complete and full understanding of what to meant to allow himself to be sacrificed. Did Isaac? Since we don’t have his age confirmed, there’s no real way to know. But Jesus did understand the bigger, purpose, meaning, value of his sacrifice. I can’t imagine that Isaac did, even if he was in his 20s. No conclusions. Interesting ideas only.” Feb 20, 11:41
- on Are Religious Gay People Unhealthy?: “It’s not that non-religious people have a health advantage necessarily, just that the religious health advantage goes away, so it can be statistically tied. And in a sense yes, self-identified “spirituality” is a stronger predictor than self-identified “religiosity,” but in practice the two typically go together (“spiritual but not religious” people are actually quite rare), and a religious sexual minority is, on average, healthier than a non-religious one. Yes, there is indeed always the chance that venue/spirituality or whatever is actually just proxying for a deeper variable.” Feb 20, 07:44
- on Are Religious Gay People Unhealthy?: ““The advantage doesn’t hold when the study sampled from gay venues like bars or gay organizations, and the health benefits for self-identified spirituality are greater than they are for self-identified religion.” Are you saying that changing the study sample venues to gay bars or organizations changes the results so that non-religious people have the health advantage? (What other venues were used?) And are you also saying self-identified gay spiritualists are more healthy than self-identified gay religionist? The thought that I kept having as I read the article (I would have loved to examine the chart but my eyes just aren’t that good) was that perhaps the causal relationship to health is a deeper element than what is mentioned here and what is being measured is correlated to the deeper element not these more superficial ones (like venue and spiritual vs religionist vs none), if that makes sense.” Feb 19, 22:58
