The name of "Allah"

Gxg (G²);64092712 said:

Sigh..

And as said before - giving an opinion is NOT the same as dealing contextually with what a book (such as the Quran) or Islamic tradition actually says. Moreover, as others noted already where it was the case that not all forms of Islamic Tradition even came close to doing as you noted (and again, the Quran itself never rejected the Crucifixion), it is misspeaking to say that they reject the Crucifixion - as well as claiming it's not a matter of interpreting it differently. If speaking on Islamic Tradition of a certain group, one should state that plainly - as opposed to speaking overall with regards to Islamic tradition. For many who are believers and yet growing up within Islamic systems have long noted that many Islamic traditions are already in line with the Bible...

Of course it was noted/understood you were speaking of individual Muslims - and I never disagreed with that. What I noted was agreement with Slave when it came to claims that the exact details in many parts of the Quran are not found within Scripture - as well as noting that it's not necessary for details to be the same point for point in order to concepts to be present just as it's not necessary for things to be present point for point in the Talmud in order for it to compliment the Torah and what was said by the Prophets. Some things are paraphrased and were not written with the INTENT of being a point-for-point repeat - and this is what the Quran notes when it references the People of the Book (Christians and the Jews) in telling others to go back and read what the Torah and the Bible say collectively. It (the Quran) was never a book MEANT to convey it had all the details like the 613 elements present in the Torah - nor was it meant to look exactly the same as other things.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what to say.
I never said anything factually wrong, and you're unable to twist my words.

"not all forms of Islamic Tradition even came close to doing as you noted"

Are you commenting on the crucifixion issue?

Again, there are always exceptions; I commented on the normative, or what I believe to be normative. But I said nothing with malice toward Muslims or even the Quran. I think you're arguing for arguing's sake.

Maybe re-read one or two of my previous posts, see if my deliberate wording becomes clear to you.

G: "It (the Quran) was never a book MEANT to convey it had all the details like the 613 elements present in the Torah - nor was it meant to look exactly the same as other things."

Yes - and so we agree that the Quran does not contain the 613 Mitzvot. I guess you're an Islamophobe too, now - fueled by "burning hatred" lol. Soon you'll have other users hammering down on your intolerant statement, I bet.

For the record I don't, even sarcastically, consider myself "Islamophobe". Just saying you're everything you say I am, by virtue of completely agreeing with me (as is the case for the user calling himself "Slave").

Hoshiyya said:

Yes - and so we agree that the Quran does not contain the 613 Mitzvot. I guess you're an Islamophobe too, now - fueled by "burning hatred" lol. Soon you'll have other users hammering down on your intolerant statement, I bet.

Click to expand...

Eh - I'm used to it I already take enough heat for not joining on with the bandwagon that assumes all things President Obama must be Muslim - even though I've spoken out on the issue before for the sake of consistency ( #9#51 / #53 #90 ) - as well as been called worse n real life....so it really is not anything consequential in the long scheme of things.

But as it concerns the 613 Mitzvot - if it concerns Word for Word - of course the Quran doesn't have it. However, as it concerns the Spirit thereof/concept, there's nothing to say that it's not present ....and that is where Slave was coming from.

For the record I don't, even sarcastically, consider myself "Islamophobe". Just saying you're everything you say I am, by virtue of completely agreeing with me (as is the case for the user calling himself "Slave").

Click to expand...

I don't think you're an Islamophobe either and never thought such - as disagreeing with Islam doesn't equate to hating all things within it. People do the same within the Body of Christ when it comes to assuming someone agreeing with Islam/noting where it agrees with what the Bible says on certain points must be a "Islamist!!!" or "Mohommad Lover" - and those kinds of reactions are never beneficial nor accurate.

And as noted, no - we DON'T agree on everything completely since there has been disagreement at several points...and one would have to ignore the disagreements/reinvent what the arguments were in order to say such. We may agree at certain areas - but much of the rest was a matter of reacting based on what you thought another said rather than what they noted - and speaking past others.

I have no idea what to say.
I never said anything factually wrong, and you're unable to twist my words.

Click to expand...

Still haven't shown where the Quran or Islamic Tradition overall has always said the Crucifixion never occurred - and it doesn't take one trying to twist anything to note where things were already off...although it is always reactionary to assume others disagreeing with you are somehow trying to twist words (and thus, ascribe negative intent to actions) - in the same manner you felt Slave did to you. Hopefully that can discontinue in the future during discussion.

It is what it is, H.

"not all forms of Islamic Tradition even came close to doing as you noted"

Are you commenting on the crucifixion issue?

Again, there are always exceptions; I commented on the normative, or what I believe to be normative. But I said nothing with malice toward Muslims or even the Quran. I think you're arguing for arguing's sake.

Click to expand...

Again, reading past what was said isn't the same as dealing with what was said - as exceptions to a system do not equate to those exceptions NOT being what the system was either meant to be (or what the system used to be before alterations occurred) - and it's assuming more than what was stated by others since I already noted where my focus was on what was normative and how relative that can be. Frankly, it seems (IMHO) you're choosing to act as if one's unaware of what was said plainly for the sake of argument - despite where it was already addressed. Seeing that no one claimed you laid out malice toward Muslims or the Quran, it's a moot point arguing on it since that is again a false scenario of arguing based on what WASN'T said and instead inserting ideas that were never even in view.

If that is your choice, so be it.

Maybe re-read one or two of my previous posts, see if my deliberate wording becomes clear to you.

Click to expand...

I'd suggest doing the same to what was already noted - as it seems you tend to be responding before really understanding what was said fully.

Gxg (G²);64092783 said:

But as it concerns the 613 Mitzvot - if it concerns Word for Word - of course the Quran doesn't have it.

Still haven't shown where the Quran or Islamic Tradition overall has always said the Crucifixion never occurred - and it doesn't take one trying to twist anything to note where things were already off...although it is always reactionary to assume others disagreeing with you are somehow trying to twist words (and thus, ascribe negative intent to actions) - in the same manner you felt Slave did to you. Hopefully that can discontinue in the future during discussion.

Click to expand...

"Still haven't shown where the Quran or Islamic Tradition overall has always said the Crucifixion never occurred "

Well Islamic tradition normatively denies that Christ was crucified, that is completely un-controversial - I think, at least. Again, there are certainly exceptions - to every single rule. I also said Islam was monotheist, but I'm sure there is one or two Muslims out there who disagree.


" But as it concerns the 613 Mitzvot - if it concerns Word for Word - of course the Quran doesn't have it. "

Racist!
Your anti-Muslim hatred is PALPABLE. I'm PALPING in it right now, it's so palpable!
The walls are covered in it. They're sticky with palp.

G: "Seeing that no one claimed you laid out malice toward Muslims or the Quran, it's a moot point arguing on it since that is again a false scenario of arguing based on what WASN'T said and instead inserting ideas that were never even in view. "

Not at all. Slave suggested I had "burning hatred" for Muslims. Hatred, malice, same thing.
(http://www.christianforums.com/t7769378-6/#post64091276)

SayaOtonashi said:

NO only that but what about that temporary marriage in the Quran or the fact Women in the Quran are allowed to be beat?

Click to expand...

Temporary marriage was the equivalent of what occurred with Divorce in Moses's time - and the beating dynamic is one many Muslim men have taken out of context and been corrected on....and yet noted the parallel dynamics with what occurred with practices such as stoning for adultery or aggression of the woman toward the husband - and even dynamics with slavery:

Of course, on the Bible aspect of things, that has LONG been debated when it comes to the reality of how passages of slavery were taken out of context to allow for a host of problems (more here and here at Slavery in the Bible: Does God Approve of It? /Evidence for God from Science • View topic - Slavery in the Bible ) - and the same has been argued with the Quran.

For more, one excellent book on the matter is Miniskirts, Mothers and Muslims: A Christian Woman in a Muslim Land


The author is the Western wife of an Arab from a conservative Muslim family. And IMHO, her personal experience is both profound and enlightening. Themes include: status; the place of women; the veil; stereotypes; segregation and restrictions; family life; hospitality and witness.

Hoshiyya said:

Well Islamic tradition normatively denies that Christ was crucified, that is completely un-controversial - I think, at least. Again, there are certainly exceptions - to every single rule. I also said Islam was monotheist, but I'm sure there is one or two Muslims out there who disagree. .

Click to expand...

Islamic tradition - as it concerns what's often seen today in many places - does deny Christ was crucified. Although the time period makes a difference in light of how tradition will vary based on the age one lives in.....and what's understood based on a tradition will vary as well. How others understood a majority view to be in the times of the Early Body of Christ when Islam was developing (as in the time of St. John of Damascus) is different than how many in the majority understand a text/concept to be - and in the time of the Early Church, it was never the case that Islamic tradition was understood in the majority to mean that Christ was never crucified. They knew what the language of the Quran was about and didn't respond as many camps today do...

There was an excellent article on the issue I'd highly recommend entitled The Crucifixion in Shi'a Isma'ili Islam - The Matheson Trust | For and Antioch Believer!: What does the Quran say about Jesus death?



Islam is indeed Monotheist - as is Judaism - although I'd note that it really is best to understand what it holds to as Radical Monotheism

Racist!
Your anti-Muslim hatred is PALPABLE. I'm PALPING in it right now, it's so palpable!
The walls are covered in it. They're sticky with palp

Click to expand...

Ha....

yet the divorce bill was to the wife not the parents. nothing in the bible states marriages is for temporary. Deut which is the O.T divorce law said a husband gives his wife the bill and she leaves since she is divorce. NOt only that but two different views on women in the torah, bible and quran. How Christan are see has problematic by so many

Gxg (G²);64092890 said:

Islamic tradition - as it concerns what's often seen today in many places - does deny Christ was crucified.

Islam is indeed Monotheist - as is Judaism - although I'd note that it really is best to understand what it holds to as Radical Monotheism
Ha....

Click to expand...

"Islamic tradition - as it concerns what's often seen today in many places - does deny Christ was crucified. "

Finally coming around to what I said in the very beginning, eh?
Your hatred for Islam must burn so hot.

Indeed, regarding what you say here, 'there is no way on earth you can be serious. You must have some burning hatred against Muslims and do not wish to be compared to them. No other explanation.'

"Islam is indeed Monotheist"

What an unfair generalization!
Why I could list examples of non-monotheist Muslims who might be OFFENDED (God forbid!) at what you just said!
Huff, puff, why I oughta....!

Hoshiyya said:

"Islamic tradition - as it concerns what's often seen today in many places - does deny Christ was crucified. "

Finally coming around to what I said in the very beginning, eh?
Your hatred for Islam must burn so hot.
!

Click to expand...

Not really - though as said before, it seems you're finally understanding what was always present from the jump and noting from the beginning. For Islamic tradition in many places claiming that Christ was not crucified does NOT equate to Islamic Tradition in general (or historically from the jump) always saying in the majority that Christ was not crucified -

Indeed, regarding what you say here, 'there is no way on earth you can be serious. You must have some burning hatred against Muslims and do not wish to be compared to them. No other explanation.'

Click to expand...

Seeing that he never said he was Against the concept of Islam being Monotheist, that is something where you read into his comments in thinking he was speaking about that specifically when he was addressing other comments you offered.

"Islam is indeed Monotheist"

What an unfair generalization!
Why I could list examples of non-monotheist Muslims who might be OFFENDED (God forbid!) at what you just said

Click to expand...

Of course there are non-Monotheist Muslims - and that goes to the central issue which has ALWAYS been present with Non-Trinatarians...and that is assuming that all who are Trinitarian in their view MUST be against the concept of Monotheism - when in fact it's the case that they support/advocate for Monotheism - as we previously discussed in threads such as What is a Non-Trinitarian Messianic? when the issues came up.

The same goes for Islam - as Islam being Monotheist doesn't mean that Muslims are against Monotheism and somehow an anomaly for noting plurality in the Godhead (i.e. believing that Allah Had Sons in a identification sense like Israel being God's Firstborn according to Exodus 4...not in the sense of having sexual relations to produce a Son as the Greek Gods did with man and what many Muslims tend to interpret the Trinity as being about just as many Early Christians advocated/were dealt with by other Christians who kicked them out of the Byzantine Empire)

The Trinity as radical monotheism has always been a present factor for many Muslims just as it has been for Jews in Judaism when it comes to believing in Christ and yet noting their not being against the concept of the Holy Spirit or Yeshua being the same and yet seperate from the Father. And again, there's context - as it concerns how Muslim culture believe/accept the concept of a Trinity

Gxg (G²);64092927 said:

Not really - though as said before, it seems you're finally understanding what was always present from the jump and noting from the beginning. For Islamic tradition in many places claiming that Christ was not crucified does NOT equate to Islamic Tradition in general (or historically from the jump) always saying in the majority that Christ was not crucified -


Seeing that he never said he was Against the concept of Islam being Monotheist, that is something where you read into his comments in thinking he was speaking about that specifically when he was addressing other comments you offered.
Of course there are non-Monotheist Muslims - and that goes to the central issue which has ALWAYS been present with Non-Trinatarians...and that is assuming that all who are Trinitarian in their view MUST be against the concept of Monotheism - when in fact it's the case that they support/advocate for Monotheism. The same goes for Islam - as Islam being Monotheist doesn't mean that Muslims are against Monotheism and somehow an anomaly for noting plurality in the Godhead (i.e. believing that Allah Had Sons in a identification sense like Israel being God's Firstborn according to Exodus 4...not in the sense of having sexual relations to produce a Son as the Greek Gods did with man and what many Muslims tend to interpret the Trinity as being about just as many Early Christians advocated/were dealt with by other Christians who kicked them out of the Byzantine Empire)

Again, there's context - as it concerns how Muslim culture believe/accept the concept of a Trinity

Click to expand...

Are you for real lol?
You must be purposefully trying to create or prolong debate.

"Seeing that he never said he was Against the concept of Islam being Monotheist..." I never said that either. He suggested some-thing or any-thing I said was motivated by hatred for Muslims, which is beyond ludicrous.

But this has clearly spiralled away from where it began.

Hoshiyya said:

G: "Seeing that no one claimed you laid out malice toward Muslims or the Quran, it's a moot point arguing on it since that is again a false scenario of arguing based on what WASN'T said and instead inserting ideas that were never even in view. "

Not at all. Slave suggested I had "burning hatred" for Muslims. Hatred, malice, same thing.

Click to expand...

Nonetheless, as it concerns context, I already stated where I never suggested that you yourself had "burning hatred" for Muslims as Slave did - nor did I note agreement with the idea when it came to my specific comments (from #64 ).

To go past that is reading into things - as it doesn't take agreeing with a reaction another seems to have made in order for one to note/have agreement with them on other points they stated (Which I laid out point for point).

Hoshiyya said:

Are you for real lol?
You must be purposefully trying to create or prolong debate.
.

Click to expand...

LOL..

Really...seeing that you chose to come after a comment I made agreeing with another, it's humorous hearing you talk on prolonging debate since you've been choosing to go back and forth with false scenarios as well as comments (including sarcasm) on things no one argued

And as said before, if you cannot avoid being reactionary in trying to assume negative intent the moment disagreement occurs, it's not really something that addresses the topics or the subjects - for one could easily make the same claim you tried to make on "purposefully trying to create or prolong debate" even though it'd be pointless since only those who choose to comment prolong anything and people can walk away at ANY time if they wanted to -

"Seeing that he never said he was Against the concept of Islam being Monotheist..." I never said that either.

But this has clearly spiralled away from where it began

Click to expand...

Obviously - as happens whenever people read past what others say in favor of arguing what was never noted.

And if it could go back to focusing on what Slave said rather than the other comments, that'd be good.

As it is, claiming you never said you were against the concept of Islam being Monotheist is needless since it was understood you were not - and what was noted was that there's no need bringing up any type of language that's sarcastic when it comes to others (as myself) noting Islam is Monotheist and acting as if it's a big deal - or trying to create scenarios on the matter (I.E. Talking on those who may be Muslims but non-Monotheist in your claim) that were never in view.

Gxg (G²);64092940 said:

Seeing that you chose to come after a comment I made agreeing with another, it's humorous hearing you talk on prolonging debate since you've been choosing to go back and forth with false scenarios as well as comments (including sarcasm) on things no one argued


Obviously - as happens whenever people read past what others say in favor of arguing what was never noted.

And if it could go back to focusing on what Slave said rather than the other comments, that'd be good.

Click to expand...

"you've been choosing to go back and forth with false scenarios as well as comments (including sarcasm) on things no one argued"

Sigh.
I don't think I did - as already explained.

All my statements still stand in my opinion, maybe you should re-read my initial statements which "Slave" in turn reacted to. They're very carefully stated factual claims which you ended up wholly or largely admitting to agreeing with, I think.

I responded to you up til now, since I thought you were reasonable. If "Slave" wants to dialogue and retract his suggestions about "hatred for Muslims" or simply have a intelligent discussion I'm certainly up for that.

Hoshiyya said:

I don't think I did - as already explained.

.

Click to expand...

Sigh..

Whether or not you think you did anything is irrelevant to dealing with what was already said and avoided. ...no different than Slave/you feeling he noted something when he addressed where he wasn't for it.

All my statements still stand in my opinion, maybe you should re-read my initial statements which "Slave" in turn reacted to. They're very carefully stated factual claims, I think.

Click to expand...

As you talk on re-reading initial statements, it has already been noted that you did not do the same with others - from Slave's comments (some of which you reacted to) to my own from #64 which you reacted to as well when I noted agreement and you assumed I was somehow gunning for you - leading you to make a challenge on something that was not even present. Many of Slave's claims were carefully stated as well as factual - but of course, there'll always be disagreement.

I responded up til now, since I thought you were reasonable

Click to expand...

K - although not necessary to share, as if you're the only one with that thought when it comes to others (myself included responding ). As said before, however, I wasn't really concerned originally with responding to you since my comment was to Slave in regards to one thing he said - of which you ran with and took past what was ever said. For the sake of clarity as well as setting the record straight on what was in mind when response was given, it is for that which I responded. And whether or not that is agreed to makes no difference when it comes to sharing plainly what one may think for others to examine

If "Slave" wants to dialogue and retract his suggestions about "hatred for Muslims" or simply have a intelligent discussion I'm certainly up for that

Click to expand...

Slave was already doing intelligent discussion - and it's already understood that he can come back anytime he wants to if he wishes. Thus, there's no need explaining that as if it was not known. His suggestions on that point he noted with "burning hatred" are unfortunate and may be off - but that has zero to do with the rest of what he said - and at the end of the day, it's rather inconsequential to the scheme of things.

SayaOtonashi said:

yet the divorce bill was to the wife not the parents. nothing in the bible states marriages is for temporary.

Deut which is the O.T divorce law said a husband gives his wife the bill and she leaves since she is divorce.
NOt only that but two different views on women in the torah, bible and quran. How Christan are see has problematic by so many

Click to expand...

Seeing where the scriptures already note that marriage as it is here on Earth will NOT be the same in the hereafter (based on what Christ said), there are again plenty of reasons many have noted marriage is not forever - and whether the Bill is for the parents or the wife doesn't change where the Quran allows for Divorce in the same way the Bible does.

What you said was already dealt with as it concerns what Deuteronomy discusses - and no one has ever said the Quran, the Torah and the Bible all have the same view of women (even though there are dozens of points where unison occur).

sevengreenbeans said:

In any case, thank you for what you've added to the discussion here.

Click to expand...

Ditto on the thoughts

Ok.. I stand corrected. Visionary and GXG, you are right Esau did sell his birthright. However is this still not the same as giving up his birthright? Because he did not see the importance of it? He may have later but not at that time.

"I find this verse interesting. "lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright."

Its states here that Esau was a fornicator and a profane person. So in essence he gave away his birthright for food. When you sell something you are giving it away for money. In Esau's case it was food. So really he gave away his birthright.

"As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated".

So it was Esau and not Ishmael. And Ishmael was not the right offspring from Abraham and Sarah. Ishmael came from Hagar not under God's promise. The promise was to Sarah and Abraham, not Hagar and Abraham. So this is what I was thinking. Now the Muslims try to claim that the promise came from Ishmael. It came from Isaac.

Moriah Ruth

Moriah Ruth 777 said:

you are right Esau did sell his birthright. However is this still not the same as giving up his birthright? Because he did not see the importance of it? He may have later but not at that time.

"I find this verse interesting. "lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright."

Its states here that Esau was a fornicator and a profane person. So in essence he gave away his birthright for food. When you sell something you are giving it away for money. In Esau's case it was food. So really he gave away his birthright.

"As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated".

Click to expand...

A lot of people tend to forget that Esau giving away his birthright doesn't equate to his not being loved by the Lord/honored at any point - nor does it mean that all things done by Jacob were automatically praiseworthy.

For Esau, when scripture notes him to be someone who despised his birthright/being sexual, there is the dynamic of how that was something that described his earlier life - as opposed to how he was FOR ALL TIME. He went through growth and maturity just as Jacob did - and that's something that can be forgotten when seeing scripture note things and not considering what era or timeframe it was speaking of.

The word that is used in Hebrews 12:16 to describe Esau is the Greek word inappropriate contentos...and this is the word from which we get our English word inappropriate contentography. To study the life of Esau further, one needs to delve into the Genesis account of the story. We find the story of Esau in chapters 26-27. In the Genesis account, we find nothing that is an outright description of Esau as sexually immoral. ....but there are two beliefs as to why Esau is called inappropriate contentos.

The first is the belief that several times in the Old Testament the metaphor of adultery is used for idolatry - for Pagan worship often included some type of sexual immorality. While others say that Esau is called sexually immoral because he married two Hittite women (Genesis 26:34) which brought bitterness to the family, it makes sense to see that it is a combination of the two and that they both point to Esau as an “apostate”....with it being the case that he is even called a proto-apostate. Like the metaphor used of adultery for idolatry, Esau gave up his first love due to how he was impulsive/motivated by selfishness, self-interest, self-will, materialism, and physical appetite....leading him to later become a bitter root in his family (As Hebrews 12 also warns when asking believers to avoid any bitter root in the same passage as asking for others to avoid sexual immorality) and they were forever broken as a unit.

Many tend to contrast actions with Jacob as if Jacob was flawless - for Jacob was handpicked by the Lord, being chosen before he had done any good or bad, being yet in the womb. They base this on what Malachi 1:1-3 and Romans 9:12-14 / Romans 9 says:
Later he received the blessing of the Angel which he wrestled with. Something that always interests me is why God chose Jacob. Romans 9:11-12 notes the same as what happened in Genesis 25:21-23. Was it right for God to choose Jacob, the younger brother, to be over Esau? On the issue, I'm reminded of Malachi and what he noted. For In Malachi 1:2-3, the statement "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated" also refers to the nations of Israel and Edom rather than to individual brothers alone. With the brothers themselves, it could be said that God chose Jacob to continue the family line of the faithful because he knew his heart was for God...and he chose Jacob as the one through whom the nation of Israel and the Messiah would come. But he did not exclude Esau from knowing and loving Him.

The phrase "Easu I have hated" does not refer to Esau's eternal destiny, as Esau was still blessed of God and others came from his line that the Lord used.... And His father still blessed Esau...something that God Himself honored. Additionally, though Esau's choice of living was not the best, he still had a change of heart toward his brother in Genesis 33.

His godless living was by no means appropriate---as Hebrews 12:14-17 seems to make clear---but by no means was it the case that he had no sense of honor. Genesis 28:9 seems to indicate such when Esau chose to marry a daugther of Ishmael in Genesis 28:9 in the hopes that marriage into Ishmael's family would please his parents, Isaac and Rebekah. This was done in light of how the foreign women he married previously (Genesis 26:34) upset his parents greatly...

Something else to consider is how Jacob himself made numerous mistakes just bad as Esau did. It is true that Esau traded the lasting benefits of his birthright for the immediate pleasure of food..acting on impulse and satisfying his immediate desires without considering the long-range consequences of what he was about to do..."despising" his birthright and legally giving it up to Jacob. However, the birthright was not actually his until the blessing was pronounced--as the birthright could be taken away before the actual blessing was given.


And in Genesis 27:5-10, Rebekah took matters into her own hands by resoirting to doing something wrong (i.e. tricking Isaac into the blessing) to try to bring about what God had already said would happen...as the Lord told her at the children's birth that Jacob would become the family leader (Genesis 25:23-26). For her, the ends justified the means.

And with Jacob, when asked to participate in the plan, he was instead more afraid of getting into trouble while carrying it out (Genesis 27:11-12). He hesitated when he heard of Rebekah's decietful plan, yet went through with it anyhow.....and although Jacob got the blessing, decieving his father cost him dearly.

These are some of the consequences of that deceit:
Ironically, Jacob would have recieved the birthright and blessing anyway (Genesis 25:23) had he simply trusted God----and yet, like Sarah did with Hagar (Genesis 16, Genesis 21:8-20), he made things more difficult than necessary. Imagine how different his life would have been had he and his mother waited for God to work his way, in His time.......but God was nonetheless able to work it out.

Moriah Ruth 777 said:

"I find this verse interesting. "lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright."

Its states here that Esau was a fornicator and a profane person. So in essence he gave away his birthright for food. When you sell something you are giving it away for money. In Esau's case it was food. So really he gave away his birthright.

"As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated".

So it was Esau and not Ishmael.

Click to expand...

On where Esau grew just as Jacob did and was blessed - despite the birthright - one has to go back to the promise given to Rebekah when it came to the babies in her womb...

"The elder shall teach the younger"

Jacob taught Esau to serve. ....

For many read the text of scripture assuming that all of Esau must be hated by the Lord without qualification and claim that anyone of Esau is cursed...yet the scriptures note where even Esau learned to grow in his relationship with the Lord and his brother, whom he forgave for stealing his birthright/blessing and served humbly when they reconciled----and many of Esau's descendants also were used of the Lord. Moreover, Easu was not cursed fully as many assume and (as said earlier) one of the Sons of Esau (Caleb) was blessed, as were many others..more discussed in, here and here.

Edomites, interestingly enough, had a Covenant with the Lord that he honored. Some of this I've been realizing more and more after studying the Book of Genesis and seeing the line of Easu in action. For Issac's attempt to bless Esau in Genesis 27:1-45 was subverted by Rebekah, who favored Jacob and helped him recieve the blessing of the firstborn.....though that event only builds on the earlier incident where Esau sold his birthright to Jacob (Genesis 25:29-34) alongside confirming the earlier incident where the divine statement was made in Genesis 25:23 that the older will serve the younger.
The blessing Issac gave to Easu in Genesis 27:39-40 may seem like a curse at first glance...but in many ways, it seems to be a blessing that is meant to be like a "counter-measure" toward his brother. It was much like a Consolation prize of sorts (i.e. an award given to those who do not win an event but are deserving of recognition). For although Jacob was given authority over his older twin brother, Isaac indicates/pronounces that Esau will eventually free himself from his brother's control....and later, Esau's descendants settle outside the Promised Land, to the east of the Jordan River, eventually taking control of Seir, which is later named "Edom"..as seen in Genesis 36:1-42 (I Chronicles 1:51-54), with the geneology of Easu. His sons and grandsons produced 14 chiefs, and a number of kings emerged from among Esau's descendants.

According to Genesis 27:39-40, Esau was given a blessing by his father (empowered through the Lord) that would ensure his survival. Essentially, according to the blessing, Esau would have no success tilling the ground or growing vineyards and so implies that he would likely live in the dessert areas of the land. On Esau and his descendants, the blessing of "living by his sword" is often seen as a negative---but in many ways, it was a positive since it was a warrior's blessing. He would truly live/have life by means of the sword...and his descendants may or may not prosper from the land, but they would not starve, as they would have the power to either hunt or take game from others.

As another said best:
As seen in Deuteronomy 2:1-1-8, the nation of Edom--descended from Esau (Genesis 25:30, Genesis 32:3, Genesis 36:1)---were people whom the Lord warned Israel not to provoke due to the blood relationships through Esau. And the Lord told the Israelites directly that certain land was given strictly to Edom due to the covenant/kind of relationship they had with the Lord ( Genesis 36:8-10, )

Numbers 20:14-21 also gives more in-depth information....concerning how the the Edomite/Israelite relations often were one of tension, if not bitter hostility, as seen in how the Edomites denied passage through their land to Israel. At that time, apparently, they were afaid that the Israelities--known to be a great horde of people--would either attack them or devour their crops (Deuteronomy 2:4-5, Deuteronomy 2:3-5 / Deuteronomy 2 ) and thus they did not trust Israel's word.

And yet despite that, the Israelites were commanded not to attack/hate the Edomites:
Nothing further is recorded of the Edomites in the Tanakh until their defeat by King Saul of Israel in the late 11th century BC ( 1 Samuel 14:46-48 ). 1 Samuel 21:6-8 mentions Doeg the Edomite , later seen in I Samuel 22:9-22....the man who betrayed David and killed the priests of Nob and committed an act that Saul's Israelite servants refused to do. David later spoke sharply against it in Psalm 52 when condeming Doeg for thinking of himself as a great hero in the deed he committed.

Forty years later King David and his general Joab defeated the Edomites in the "valley of salt", (probably near the Dead Sea) in 2 Samuel 8:12-14 and I Chronicles 18:12. It was at that time that an Edomite prince named Hadad escaped and fled to Egypt, and after David's death returned and tried to start a rebellion (I Kings 11:14-22), but failed and went to Syria. From that time Edom remained a vassal of Israel. David placed over the Edomites Israelite governors or prefects, and this form of government seems to have continued under Solomon. When Israel divided into two kingdoms Edom became a dependency of the Kingdom of Judah. I Kings 22:47 is a great place to go for further information on the issue. In the time of Jehoshaphat (c. 914 BC) the Tanakh mentions a king of Edom ( II Kings 3:7-9 ), who was probably an Israelite appointed by the King of Judah. It also states that the inhabitants of Mount Seir invaded Judea in conjunction with Ammon and Moab, and that the invaders turned against one another and were all destroyed. Edom revolted against Jehoram and elected a king of its own. Amaziah attacked and defeated the Edomites, seizing Selah, but the Israelites never subdued Edom completely. 2 Kings 8:20-22 and 2 Kings 16:5-7 is also a place where one can go for further information. As it turns out, the Edomites aided the enemies of Israel in conquering them in the time they were in rebellion ( 2 Chronicles 28:16-18 , Psalm 137:6-8 )---and the prophets spoke out against Edom ( Isaiah 21:10-12, Isaiah 34:8-10 , Jeremiah 49:16-18 , Ezekiel 25:11-13 , Ezekiel 35:14-15, Ezekiel 36:4-6 , Joel 3:18-20, Amos 1:10-12, Amos 2:1-3, Obadiah 1:7-9, Malachi 1:1-5 )

But in the Lord's disciplining of Edom, it doesn't seem to say that all Edomites were forever wiped out. The viewpoint noted by many is that they became the Idumeans, who later were absorbed into much of the other cultures. According to Josephus (Antiquities XIII, 9, 1), the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus (Hyrcanus I) "conquered in Idumea the cities of Adora [Adoraim] and Marisa [Maresha] and subjected all the Idumeans [Edomites]. He allowed them to stay in the land, however, if they were willing to introduce circumcision and live by the other Jewish laws. In truth, out of love for their homeland they accepted circumcision with the other Jewish customs and were henceforth likewise Jewish."

This account has lately been qualified by Peter Richardson, pp. 54-62, following Aryeh Kasher, pp. 46-78: the Edomites already performed circumcision on their own, but indeed the cities of Adora and Marisa had become so thoroughly hellenized that their citizens had given up the practice. Josephus's account applies to these cities only. There are indications in Strabo and Ptolemy that Idumea was peacefully annexed by Hyrcanus. Many Idumeans (already circumcised) accepted Judaism voluntarily (partly, perhaps, in response to the missionary fervor of the Hasmonean revivalists), while others kept their old religion without leaving. Among the converts was a man who would be Herod's paternal grandfather. The descendants of the converts were caught, it would seem, between two identities. Josephus reports on Costobar, Herod's brother in law (the name is constructed with that of Cos, the chief Edomite God). Descended from priests of Cos, he hoped to lead his fellow Idumeans to independence from the Jews and Jewish customs. On the other hand, Josephus also reports on Idumeans who gave strong support to their fellow Jews in the first revolt against Rome. ...more here.

As it concerns other descendants of Edom/Easu were blessed, it can be problematic for one to make sweeping statements as if everything of Esau was automatically a bad thing. For a good read, one can investigate The Edomites: their history as gathered from the Holy Scriptures ...