Why Women Destroy Nations, Civilizations

[David Merrill]

Many good questions, Allodial:


#4 Whose DNA and bloodline any given female advertising? Rejection of the idea of procreating with a particular female is refusal to facilitate continuing a specific bloodline or DNA.

Or blending one?

This is (conversely) the point I make about Abraham taking Isaac up to the summit of Mount Moriah to sacrifice him. The notion God is out there is just that absurd. Would not that make Him that insecure? - That he needs somebody to kill his son to prove the subject believes?

Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings.

I persist: it was passe to in that day for people to sacrificing their children to mere idols. Abraham was tested but it was revealed that the God he had taken to did not want him to sacrifice his son. Post #40 revised BTW.

Very well. Sorry to make you persist.

It just seemed quite pertinent to the discussion. The recombining of DNA.

Quite relevant I'd say.

Here is the AMAZING thing that the physical act of coitus reflects the Mental Act between the thought and desire. The seed or Sperm is the thought. So when I look upon Abram and Sarai - I see a degraded state of being in fallen mankind. What I mean is when you consider the "turtledove" and why it is a bird of sacrifice acceptable to Yah - it is a lesson unto the knower. For the turtledove pair lay two eggs and these two are male and female - and these two when they hatch are mates for life. This is akin to Adam - Eve. Also it is a perfect picture of the regenerated mind/heart - you could say 1/2 brother [mind] and 1/2 sister [heart].

Now physically Abram could not impregnate Sarai so emotion intervened. It was not until the body was circumcised which is really a story about the mind being regenerate that Abraham [a regenerate mind / or circumcised flesh] could impregnate Sarah [Spirit Womb]. Abram in his flesh [which is akin to his Carnal Mind] could only impregnate the "woman of emotion"...

Shalom,
MJ

I enjoy the quasi-medical and biological interpretations MJ. You really demonstrate for me how the Bible teaches lessons that are so holographic, that can be taught and learned on so many levels.

Simplifying my point; when I spoke of Abraham and Sarah's incest, being half siblings to a Jewish-studied qabbalist there was quite a reaction and defense. There is a lot of guilt there, actually, a cover up. The cover story being taught is that Sarai was Lot's daughter, not Terra's. A couple weeks of study though and it comes down to we really best accept what the Bible teaches, whether allegorical metaphor or not.

Myself, I believe that at about that time, we are at a juncture between history and metaphor as far as the actual people; but that the lessons are open to interpretation and in such are eternal in value.

So in persisting...


The question really comes down to allegorical or not, was Abraham half-brother to Sarah? Ancient papers tell that Sarah's mother was Tehevita and Abraham's mother was Yoni - both wives of Terra, their father.

The only reason to persist for me is that I feel the whole deal of sacrifice evolves around guilt. - Meaning that is what drove Abraham to putting a knife to Isaac's throat when he reached puberty.

The turtledove analogy is helpful but not backed by actual biology. The female does not lay male and female eggs. I looked briefly and find nothing about the in-nest monogamy too. But bringing that midrash into the discussion is very interesting indeed. Especially that this characteristic, true or not, makes the turtle dove an approved sacrifice.

The guilt of Abraham would also include that he allowed Sarah to murder Hagar, and dying of dehydration is horrific. But that the issue survived - Ishmael - to father twelve Arabic nations, always in conflict with the resulting decision to allow Isaac to survive the intended sacrifice is important symbology. What we can do here is remember that the Israelites were hard-hearted and stiff-necked too.

So I am undecided whether or not the whole sacrifice issue is about genetics or guilt?