Notice what this evangelical pastor quoted from scripture to defend his tearing families apart:

"Jesus said, 'I didn't come to bring peace, I came to bring a sword,' " the elder Scott said about the divided families."

This is the exact same quote cherry-picked from scripture by evangelical religious fundamentalist pastors to defend their support of George W. Bush starting war with Iraq, a war which similarly has torn apart millions of families in Iraq since Bush began hostilities in March 2003.

The word "insane" just doesn't seem adequate in describing some of these evangelical religious fundamentalists, does it?

In fact, this elder Scott seems to have a lot in common with Osama bin Laden, doesn't he?

It's not that Scott and his ilk don't seriously believe in God; they do, and devoutly. It's that they have an irrational, indeed delusional, self-confidence -- an utter unshakable conviction that they are correct and that they are correctly interpreting God's will. This is the pride which goeth before the fall, but they'll never recognize it. In direct opposition to Enlightenment doubt, they have absolute faith -- not in God, but in themselves.

That practice is common in cults, see e.g. Scientology's "disconnection".

Organized religion. Sigh. For people without the confidence to do the right thing and a desire to receive deferred rewards for pretending not to do things they wanted to do.

There is only really only is-ness in this world. All the things that tangibly are for incalculable reasons, either derived from omnipotence or chaos. You can't fool omnipotence, and you can't impress chaos. That is what is.

Logic and religion are like oil and water.

Seems like all of these fundamentalist Christians spend a lot of time quoting from the Old Testament and not so much from the New Testament.

Jehova's Witnesses do the same thing. They call it "disfellowship." That is the way to get rid of them when the come to your door. Tell them you were disfellowshipped." They are not supposed to speak to you then. I was disfellowshipped because I slept overnight with a woman and they saw her car in front of my house. Problems was, I had never been fellowshipped in the first place, but they knocked on my door and gave me like a subpeona. The woman had been a JW. It was a small town. I guess they had nothing better to do.

i am not bothered by the guy setting himself up as a spokesman for god -- he could make himself spokesman for the pillsbury dough boy and to me it would mean the same thing.

but look what they are doing to these children. that is criminal. social services should be removing any other children in homes where kids have been kicked out like this.

if this is what constitutes christian morality, i'll stay a heathen, thank you very much.

Gee, what a touching tale. And to think our next VP could have been the first Pentecostal Vice President/President. Okay, here's my regular spiel without further adieu, all god-creatures are misdriven liars, no exceptions! If you want to have god(s) you have the burden of proof to contend with or else in any rational summation, you are a fool.

Typically horrifying: a high-social-dominance-oriented leader and a flock of authoritarian followers. Bob Altemeyer already wrote the book.

It's nothing we haven't seen before, and we can thank ourselves that we no longer have to describe our country that way.

State should charge the church for any costs incurred by these abandonments.

Even as they spoil for an apocalyptic holy war against the Islamic world, our more unhinged "Christian" religionists seem to have decided that keeping up with the Ayatollahs is the way to go.

Go figure.

Predators and prey.

Beliefs by these "pastors?" Snort - Re-read Elmer Gantry.

Flim-flam with a vengeance.

Take away the emperor's clothes context of "belief" and the naked criminal stands fully exposed.

Some years ago, on Easter Sunday, I heard an evangelist named, ironically, Dr. Gene Scott, give what I consider to be the greatest exposition of Christianity I have ever heard (including those of Bishop Sheen).

After filling five blackboards with biblical quotes over the course of three hours, explaining scriptural support for the divinity of Jesus, Dr. Scott concluded his sermon by stating, "It all comes down to this: either you believe that the man walked out of the tomb or you don't. If you don't or you have any doubts, then, you are not a Christian. But, that's OK. Because Jesus understood how difficult it would be for even one of his disciples, Thomas, to believe and he forgave him for not believing until he had put his fingers into the wounds."

"But, if you do believe that Jesus walked out of that tomb", Dr. Scott continued, "then, you are a Christian. And, as such, you must accept that Jesus was divine and that his words, as they have been given to us by his disciples, are divine and are more important that those of anyone else in the Bible or who interprets the Bible. And, that being the case, as a Christian, you must lead your life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, first."

I bring this up because it is sad to see so many other evangelical ministers and even the Catholic Church ignoring, "cherry-picking", or choosing to "interpret" the teachings of Jesus in ways that benefit them or support their particular political prejudices.

As stated in this article, Jesus gave his followers a new commandment to love one another as he loved them. He said, "Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's" (what clearer statement of the separation of Church and State!). And, that "It is harder for a rich man to get into Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" (note how that has been reinterpreted in recent years!).

Every Christian knows "The Lord's Prayer", but few pay any attention to the first 8 verses of Matthew Chapter 6 which are part of the same lesson in which Jesus teaches his disciples that prayer. These are the verses where Jesus explicitly teaches them how NOT to pray (which would settle the issue of school prayer).

Few Christians know that Jesus said more about divorce than he did about marriage or homosexuality. Or that God never condemned Moses' parents for putting the baby Moses in the river--an act commonly refered to as "exposure", which was that era's equivalent of an abortion. Let alone appreciate that Jesus' teachings were a direct challenge to the established political and religious authority of his time.

Invariably it seems the most extremely conservative of these "Christian" congregations find more support for their positions in the Old Testament (where there is an instruction for a parent to kill a disobedient child) than they do in the teachings of Jesus, even though Jesus told his disciples that he had come to establish a new law--one that, if you believe Jesus was divine as they profess, must necessarily transcend and supplant the old law of the Old Testament on those issues that Jesus addressed.

And, that is a sad state of affairs. With the kind of reprecussions that we see in this instance.

The gospels (that's the New Testament, El Lobo) are fairly clear on this, actually: the church always takes precedence over your family.

The passage Scott quotes goes in full:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

And also:

"He said to another man, "Follow me."
But the man replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-bye to my family." Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."

Not much ambiguity there. You may well think that this sort of advice is inhuman, but you can't say it isn't Christian. How you resolve that contradiction is your problem.

I thought it was interesting that this article appeared on the same weekend that the cable news channels were featuring shows about Jonestown. To me, the article tells a story that is the same in kind, though lesser in degree. A charismatic, but corrupt and self-indulgent leader, pressure to make large financial contributions to the church, intolerance of dissent, centralization of decision-making---all the standard features of authoritarian communities.

Perhaps it's worth stressing just how odd a document the bible is. These come from a desert tribe living in circumstances utterly different from our own. In the case of the so-called New Testament we have what appear to be records of a pre-existing oral tradition. Paul's writings have clearly been heavily redacted. So the Bible is a mess, and it says a lot of different things.

You think the New Testament is about love? That's because you're a nice person, and you focus on those passages. But they are so obscure that there's always an out for those who are not nice. This lets them focus on the nasty passages, particularly concentrated in the 'Old' Testament.

Consider 'turn the other cheek'. Augustine says it means 'turn the other cheek _if you deserve it_'. He then goes on to quote Proverbs "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful." He also points to the parable of the wedding feast as a justification for forced conversion.

When you've got a text that's almost impossible to understand without the context in which it's written, it leaves itself open to contradictory interpretations. And so you can project on it what you will. So the problem is not the text: it's the people who interpret it, and convince others that they are right, and that to doubt is evil. But, that's got very little to do with any particular religion, and everything to do with a fear of thinking for one's self.

You expect a con artist and cult leader to make sense?

Could I interest you in a nice bridge going cheap?

$50 says he's fucking anything with a pulse.

It amazes me to read of folks who buy into this kind of "Christianity" and pastoral leadership. Does anyone else see an eerie and profoundly disturbing parallel to the Jim Jones ministry as we mark the 30 year anniversary of THAT madman? It appears that for some folks abdicating all personal responsibility by handing over all thinking and determination of what is correct to a strong and willing "leader" is their view of pious, god-fearing behavior. This is not just sad -- it is scary. One can only hope that the numbers of MR. Scott's congregation continues to dwindle steadily down to just MR. Scott himself. God have mercy on him for the damage he has done to children and families!

These Christianists give actual Christians a bad name and prompt usually tolerant people to say things like:

Religion and logic are like oil and water.

They certainly can be, but this a gross generalization. Of course, this is a near trick that is actually a topic in the Bible. Namely, that the devil can use people of misguided faith to turn people off to having any faith. That's a pretty neat trick.

@Elphage:

I'm sorry to hear about your experiences with the JWs, but what you described is in no way typical. Many members of my family are Witnesses (converted from Judaism of all things) and I myself was brought up with familiarity of the religion. I have never heard of Witnesses trying to "disfellowship" a non-baptized person. Ever.

As far as your stated grounds for the "disfellowship", well, that doesn't make sense, either. My own father admitted to committing real adultery, and he was NOT disfellowshipped. Not only is he a member in good standing to this day, but he was also allowed to get re-married.

The experience you described is not normal or like anything I have ever heard of. Please do not attempt to brand all Jehovah's Withesses with what sounds like a terribly misguided effort on the part of a few independently acting individuals.

The electric kool-aid cult acid test:

In his sermons, Scott teaches that his church is scripturally superior to others and views keeping people in the fold as a matter of their salvation.

'nuf said...

Whatsoever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me.

Isn't casting out Jesus a bad thing?

If you are starting from the premise that the vast majority of human beings will, after they die, be tortured for eternity by monsters, because they came to the wrong conclusion about a very arcane theological question (and because God loves them so much), then the Universe you inhabit is already an empty, gaping moral black hole. And it's every man for himself, cause those monsters are going to torture the f--- out of us. Don't be surprised by any of the nonsense these people can justify to themselves.

Just be good for goodness' sake.

Send your dollars now.

This post seems to be based on the idea that the Bible and Jesus are nice and full of nice flowery ideas... a proposition which no person who has actually read the Bible and Gospels can take seriously.

Yes, Jesus says to put church above family, even to the point of completely severing ties to family and leaving them behind. Very clearly. This may not be a good idea. It may be crazy. But it is not some perversion of some sort of imaginary hipster Jesus.

A couple minor (well, maybe) doctrinal points:

Hilzoy mentioned the Abraham and Isaac story, but left out probably the two most important facts about it -- understandably so, since both facts are significant precisely because they are missing from the Text:

To begin with, the Abraham story is the very first place in the Bible that the word "love" appears. God says to Abraham: "take your son Isaac, whom you love..." out into the wilderness and kill him, because I said so. But of course the Text doesn't mention that this is the first reference -- and almost no preacher will, either: too scary, for what it reveals about God's nature -- or perhaps our own relationship with Him.

Think about it -- that THIS, of all places, is where love first appears. Adam is not said to love Eve; Abel is not said to love Cain; God is not said to love Noah. The very first time that the word love appears, God says it -- to denote how Abraham feels about Isaac, the son whom he is commanding Abraham to murder.

For God's sake.

The second, maybe even more important fact about the Abraham story is: Abraham NEVER consents.

He walks into the wilderness with his son, sure. Isaac asks where the sacrifice is -- and Abraham says only that God will provide. Somebody said the rest of the walk is "the most eloquent silence in literature".

A reasonable person could conclude that Abraham calls God's bluff -- not unlike Job, actually, another major piece of the Western tradition that is generally wholly misunderstood.

The other doctrinal thing to get right is "turn the other cheek", which is wildly misrepresented by folks who don't take it literally.

As a rule, someone will ordinarily strike another person with their right hand, naturally hitting the left side of the face. The normal reaction is to turn the head to the right. Thus "turning the other cheek" is actually an AGGRESSIVE response, more like a lunge than a submission.

Try it sometime -- have someone stand in front of you, and make like they've hit you on one side of your face: then turn the other side of your face toward them.

The body language is precisely the same as a counterpunch -- or, for that matter, an entering motion in aikido.

isn't it a shame that our cultural intelligence is still so stoopid as to have to go thru this barbaric bullshit in tiny baby steps just to reveal its inhumanity...

i especially love in the comments "learning" how explicit and clear the gospels are that the church "takes precedence" over the family. I just love how the gospel of grace gets twisted back into law and precepts of judgement by another one of these divine interpreters.

The Yahoos need herding, oh, and regular fleecing, too.

Destructive abusive cults, like that example, have nothing to do with their nominal philiophical story lines. They are extremely common organizational form. There is good liturature about this kind of thing. Steve Hassen's books are a practical place to start. People love to exagerate, calling any group that's different from their norm a cult. Which can be good fun, Hanssen's excellent "bite model" is fun to apply to office politics.

because "you obeyed God."

This is always the slight-of-hand used by whacko religious leaders - pretending that their own views are "the word of God". The bible is fungible enough that even a slightly clever egotist or delusional sociopath can concoct an "explanation" for anything; and way too many people are gullible enough to fall for it because they don't see the necessity of protecting their faith from charlatans like Scott.

Pentacostals are the West's version of Islamic Extremists.

Effing jacktards. Obviously forgiveness is not high on these neo-apocolyptians agenda.

"I thought it was interesting that this article appeared on the same weekend that the cable news channels were featuring shows about Jonestown. To me, the article tells a story that is the same in kind, though lesser in degree. A charismatic, but corrupt and self-indulgent leader, pressure to make large financial contributions to the church, intolerance of dissent, centralization of decision-making---all the standard features of religions."

Fixed it for you.

Matthew 7:15: "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are savage wolves." This is the definition of Pastor Scott.

On the bright side, youn Rob Foster will grow up to be a better person for it.

There's a word for an organization that follows practices like this: a cult.

Oh, dear, now I've done it -- now Amy Sullivan will show up to concern-troll me about showing more respect for religion.

"I'm the one who is in authority, and I'll have to answer to God for that."

I look forward to seeing God's response.

Ms. Hilzoy,

Quoting scripture will not be any use. Mr. Foster's parents worship Star Scott.

Jesus warned of such idolatry and its price.

Hmm, isn't Tuesday the 30th anniversary of the Jonestown tragedy?

Can I mention another example? Sarah Palin. She was asked to fill a position for which she was not qualified. She didn't hesitate - because God was speaking to her? Presumably, or at least that's the excuse I've heard again and again from conservatives and even atheistic liberals who believe that if they were religious like she was, they would have said yes, too. But I grew up Catholic, and there's one thing I know the Bible is pretty clear on: be really, really suspicious of voices that seem to be God's, particularly if they're offering worldly power. Usually, the voice offering command of worldly power is the other guy's. I don't understand how people can reconcile all the wealth and all that desire for worldly power with any reasonable interpretation of the Bible.

Nut jobs all. Destroying real people to curry favor with an imaginary friend.

I don't know why anyone would be surprised at hearing about this sort of thing. When you have God's unlisted number on speed dial, you never have to question your own motives or worry about the consequences of your own actions. You just KNOW you're right.

I fail to see any logical or rational distinction between the beliefs and claims of Pastor Scott and any of the more conservative religious sects of Catholicism or Judaism. Many (perhaps most) people claim their beliefs come from personal communications from God and/or from documents written or inspired by God.

This is beyond disgusting, but I remember parents, mostly fathers, who threw their teenaged sons out during the Vietnam War because the sons openly opposed the war and/or said they wouldn't participate. I didn't understand that then, and I don't understand this now, except it's clear to me now that people who reject their own children for these kinds of reasons didn't deserve to have them in the first place.

The chances of a successful challenge to this church, or the elder Scotts is vanishingly small, i.e., that they can be made to see the error of their ways. Absolute certainty, and social control are what this deranged bunch of religious lunatics is all about. And we should tolerate them up to a point. Child abuse, i.e., brainwashing and indoctrination in such absolutist nonsense, should not be tolerated.

if eviction is the only response a parent has to a rebellious, or independent thinking, adolescent then what 'family values' does such behavior represent? Does someone have to totally surrender their brain at the door when joining such a 'church'? Sadly, yes. The abnormal psychological profile of those attracted to such an overly structured lifestyle has been well documented.

Society needs to make up for the poor young souls who have had the misfortune to grow up in such authoritarian circumstances. Deprogramming and exposure to true love, affection, and nurture is what the boy should have. And the parents should be billed for the cost until he is 18 (which evidently is now). The young man will be forever damaged, but may overcome it if he is truly independent enough. We owe him all the help ge needs.

I think you assume a bedrock good faith on the part of Pastor Star Scott that does not exist. Swindling, manipulating, and controlling the gullible and foolish has become the chief labor of intelligent psychopaths. It's legal, and it pays well.

Don't "believe" in Evolution? Well, here is a prime example of where nature selects against the offspring that do not conform to social doctrine.

no doubt in the next few years this guy will be exposed for 1. molesting boys, 2. embezzling money, 3. drugs or hookers, or 4. all the above.

Oops, someone lifted the tent flap; Oh, it's nothing, just the meek and the powerful squirming together under the dark tent of religion, serving each others needs however sad or twisted they may be.
Nothing to see here, move on...

2 Kings 2:23-24 is a cautionary tale.

Imagine what our civilization would be like if science had stopped progressing 2000 years ago, and everything scientists did today was based on the superstitions and writings from that era.

Or any other aspects of our civilization.

Why is that our religious thought - using the word in the largest context, pertaining to the universe and what our place, if any, is in it - is mired in the beliefs and writings of people living thousands of years ago who didn't have the benefit of our knowledge today? It just doesn't make sense to me.

For every megalomaniac like this pastor, there are dozens of others who actually devote their lives to help their communities. Religious followers are like any other group - some good, some mediocre, some bad. Reality isn't monolithic.

These are the same kind of people that would've followed Jim Jones to Guyana and lined up to give their children the koolaid. Total fuckin' losers!

This is one of those cases in which I think that the actions of a religious person, though justified entirely in the language of faith, can best be understood on the assumption that the person in question does not really believe in God at all, in any serious sense.)

Or the person is a narcissist. Quoting things out of context or just plain making stuff up is not uncommon for someone justifying doing whatever the hell they want to do.

Many people approach God out of fear. If only they do X, then God will love them and not punish them. But that is not the message from Jesus. But people wishing to manipulate others do not work to dispel people's fears and actually do their best to prey on those fears. This story seems like yet another instance of this.

He believes in God, but his God is named Baal.

! John 3:15: Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

I'm sorry but you need to re-think your conclusion. Yeah, it's possible that this minister doesn't believe in God. But there's no evidence for that and plenty to indicate that he does believe sincerely in God, albeit a twisted version. You've apparently internalized the canard that religion is THE source of all morality, and it's just not. In fact -- as this case shows - it can be the source of tremendous immorality when mixed with the wrong personality traits.

I can't remember how many times I've heard ministers declare that Hitler was an atheist. Their evidence? Only someone who did not believe in God could act so badly. Yet even a casual reading of Hitler's statements both personal and public shows that he manifestly was not an atheist. In fact, Hitler believed he was a chosen instrument of God. But many religious people cannot accept this because to them belief = good and unbelief = bad. Someone who sincerely believes in God yet acts in a depraved way throws a monkey wrench into this comforting thought.

Hitler is just an extreme example of an evil believer. Keep your eye on the newspaper. I guarantee that soon you will see buried on page B13 an item about someone who killed his family or bombed an abortion clinic or stoned a rape victim to death for being a harlot because they knew for sure that's what God wanted.

As far as I am concerned these preachers are no more than snake oil sales representatives.

They only thing that drives them is their greedy antisocial personality disorder. They scream in the streets only for attention.

As Matthew said:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the snagogues and in the coreners of the streets, that you may be seen of men."

I'd like to comment further on the reference to the Abraham story. Yes, God tests Abraham by asking him to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham seems willing to do it until the Angel of God tells him not to. So, did Abraham pass the test, by being willing to do as he was told, or did he fail the test by blindly following and being willing to take Isaac's life? Notice how God speaks to Abraham directly on several occasions before the test but that after Abraham shows a willingness to sacrifice Isaac, God never speaks to him directly again.

There is no difference between Scott and David Koresh. Scott leads a cult, basically, and has positioned himself as the voice of God. His followers no doubt have some holes in their lives that this man fills.

Like the girls that leave polygamist cults, this kid was too smart for Scott. Scott knew this, so he asked the boy's weak-minded parents to do the dirty work of shutting the boy up.

Tool: "Opiate"

Thank God gays can't get married.

Some years ago, on Easter Sunday, I heard an evangelist named, ironically, Dr. Gene Scott, give what I consider to be the greatest exposition of Christianity I have ever heard (including those of Bishop Sheen).

Though he's now sadly deceased, Dr. Gene Scott still shows up on TV here in Southern California -- his (much younger) wife Melissa Scott has taken over the ministry. He was a very odd duck, which is probably why he never really went national like Robertson or Fallwell. He spent a lot of time writing down Bible passages in Greek and translating them from a whiteboard.

He also liked to use footage of himself riding bicycles with a bunch of pretty girls in his programs. I miss him -- he was bizarre, but he was honestly bizarre.

Yes. We can all play that old-time parlor game of Contradictory Bible passages. The very fact that the Bible is so contradictory is the best proof that none of it is the word of a god, otherwise he's a pretty confused god and probably shouldn't be paid much attention.

These are the same kind of people that would've followed Jim Jones to Guyana and lined up to give their children the koolaid. Total fuckin' losers!

Watch the episode of "The American Experience" about Jonestown, but have your Kleenex handy. The parents did not poison the children -- Jones' thugs took them away from the parents and did it. In some cases, they walked around the tent, pulled the babies from the parents' arms, squirted the Kool-Aid in their mouths, and then handed them back to the parents so they could watch them die.

Then the parents were given the "choice" of drinking cyanide or being hacked to death with machetes. It's all on the audiotape that Jones made.

Since I saw that, I rarely use the term "kool-aid drinkers" anymore, because the people in Jonestown did not poison themselves voluntarily. They were murdered.

I should be noted that this week is the 30th anniversary of the Jonestown mass suicide.

This icehole is "just" another cultist, but we in the SF Bay Area has seen what such cultists can bring about.

"If you are starting from the premise that the vast majority of human beings will, after they die, be tortured for eternity by monsters, because they came to the wrong conclusion about a very arcane theological question (and because God loves them so much), then the Universe you inhabit is already an empty, gaping moral black hole."

Everything I know I learned from South Park, as this cogent comment reminds me. Humor is funny because it's true, and South Park's Hell they tell the churchgoers that the correct faith is Mormons. How that made me laugh. "Mormons" was the perfect punchline for the joke that there could be "one true faith" if there truly were a loving "God."

There are many cults. When cults force parents into child abuse, the state needs to start acting.

With great care, but it cannot be ignored.

"Religious followers are like any other group - some good, some mediocre, some bad. Reality isn't monolithic."

I think you meant to say "religion" isn't monolithic.

I'm afraid reality IS monolithic.

Religion is very profitable in America. Any time your offer of salvation comes with a price tag, it is suspect.

I don’t want to hijack the thread, but since Abraham and Isaac have been mentioned, and since I have spent a lot of time wrestling with this particular episode, I’d kind of like to toss my own interpretation out there for consideration. Abraham does consent to sacrifice his son whom he loves in obedience to God’s command. Anybody can easily understand how horrifying this command must have been to Abraham, but especially those of us who are parents. We recoil in horror at the thought of sacrificing our child for God and breathe a sigh of relief when we read that God “relented”, sending an angel to stop Abraham at the last moment. We are told that this was simply a “test of Abraham’s faith – a test that Abraham “passed.”

There are a couple of problems with this interpretation, however. In the first place, we are to believe that God changes his mind at the final moment and relents. But God is supposed to be unchanging, by definition, it is impossible for Him to change His mind. Therefore, we can conclude that when he sent His angel to stay Abraham’s hand, He wasn’t changing His mind, He never meant for Abraham to actually sacrifice his son. It was all a test.

But again there’s a problem, if God is omniscient, then what need does He have of “testing” Abraham – He already knows what the outcome of the test will be. Therefore, it cannot have been a test, in the sense of finding out whether Abraham would obey or not, it was a test in a different sense of the word. God was “testing” Abraham’s faith – his “trust” in God, not in the sense of proving it, but in the sense of straining it to its limit, much as an athlete builds his or her strength by “testing” their body against greater and greater challenges. God was preparing Abraham for an important role in His plan that required him to grow in faith. The “test” was not a question, but an exercise, to which the actual sacrifice of Isaac was unnecessary – it was Abraham’s willingness to trust God utterly that was crucial. Once this was accomplished, the task was accomplished.

Ultimately, Abraham, who loved with a Father’s heart, but yet loved imperfectly was not required to shed the blood of his only son for the sake of God. That ultimate sacrifice was reserved to God to bear for our sakes.

"...God never condemned Moses' parents for putting the baby Moses in the river--an act commonly referred to as "exposure", which was that era's equivalent of an abortion."

Masters2cents, if that's how you read the second chapter of Exodus, maybe you didn't read the first chapter. Why do you think they first hid him, and then put him in the ark while his sister Miriam kept watch?

Dabodius.
Caring deeply about the fictional reasons of fictional people is a sign of dumbassery.

If that were the case, HairlessMonkeyDK, intelligent people would not read novels or watch films and argue about the stories they tell.

HairlessMonkeyDK-

I wasn't really addressing you, and don't particularly care about the crudely expressed opinion of an anonymous boor, therefore, caring about what you have to say about the matter would be twice as foolish of me.