Equinox

And that Isaac incident. If this were know to be "against god", then why would Abraham say "Okie Dokie, sounds like a plan....", instead of a least thinking that this must be some demonic vision, and not god's word, or some such? Or did God like and request burnt human sacrifices first, and then later decided he didn't like them anymore after the time of moses?

Minimalist

Perhaps Holding thinks his god was a pussy?

:devil1:

Timetospend

How would Abraham have known? The law of Moses had not given yet.

Clearly, he was in a learning mode; apparently he would know God's voice if the many interactions in the Genesis account actually occurred. Furthermore, if you read Genesis 22 and Hebrews 11, you will see that the text suggests that he was trusting in God to do what is right. He probably thought many thoughts; in both of these cases, given Abraham's thoughts on the final outcome, he seemed to be thinking that Isaac would survive somehow.

The outcome of the "incident" does not appear to support the apparent assumption that you make in you ending question.

Thanks,

neilgodfrey

The Judges story involves 3 active characters, Jephthah, his daughter and God, not just the first two with the third sitting with the rest of us in the audience.

Jephthah's vow is to God and conditional on God giving him victory against the Ammonites. In response to Jephthah's vow God gives him the victory -- that is the way the narrative reads. The alternative is to think the author is pulling our leg and the victory over the Ammonites was as "coincidental" as J's daughter wandering out to be the first at the gate instead of the usual cow. Did the God whom the narrative depicts as deciding the outcome of the battle not also have some say in who got to the gate first -- did not the other party to the vow have some say in what he was requiring for doing his part in the battle?

The narrative follows up by presenting J and his daughter as devout as Abraham and Isaac. There is no condemnation in the narrative of their mutual submission to the vow.

The ethical issues are only a problem for subsequent rabbinical and other authors. If God did not want human sacrifice he had only to declare the battle a loss or a draw, or to have had the pet pig outpace the daughter. There is no reason given in the narrative to assume otherwise. All the excuses and apologies are an attempt to get around and sidestep the plain narrative thread and to salvage either Judaism (rabbinic commentary) or Christian heritage (the implication of the Hebrews note).

And as postscript:
I don't "know" of course, but I also wonder if the author was actually condemning the cult of sacrifice and even implicitly the Abraham-Isaac story, but doing so with an ironical narrative that stretched the logical limits of what he was parodying. But I'm assuming the whole thing was a product of Hellenistic times or close to, and that's another topic.

Neil Godfrey

WishboneDawn

Do you mind if I ask what denomination your family is? I'm just curious about this now.

DaMan121

Eh, atheism is justified by the lack of evidence of your invisible friend created by a bunch of superstitious folk thousands of years ago. Pointing out these type of stories just shows how completely irrelevant and prehistoric your bible is as a source of morality. Thats it. Showing your make believe god is evil is not being presented as evidence he doesn't exist - there is nothing illogical about an evil god existing.

Sheshbazzar

From the Hitman that points his crooked finger at Yahweh's servant Jepthath.
I suppose that the irony that is inherent in your stance in this would totally escape you.
Damn HITman, you just done broke my irony meter!

DBT

Where is the text being mangled? Examples please.

Jack the Bodiless

Nope.

You still haven't grasped the fact that merely saying "human sacrifice was against the Law of Moses" won't make it true.
You STILL haven't grasped the importance of citing book, chapter and verse for these quotes. Though, IIRC, the last one is from Ezekiel or thereabouts... not anything that was even allegedly written by Moses.

Nowhere in the Bible is there any prohibition on human sacrifice. There WAS a prohibition on the Caananite custom of sacrificing every firstborn child by fire, but NOT a prohibition on human sacrifice in general (such as the 32 Midianite virgins sacrificed to God by Moses and his followers in Numbers 31:41).

Even the Hebrews were formerly required to sacrifice each firstborn child (which, incidentally, explains why the story of God's massacre of the Egyptian firstborn in Exodus was a sign of his power). Though renounced in later books, references to it still exist in Exodus 22:29 "The first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me", and Leviticus 27:29 "No one devoted, that shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death". And, of course, Ezekiel later confirms that this did happen: Ezekiel 20:26 "and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through [the fire] all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am Jehovah".

WVIncagold

you do realize the heart is a muscle that pumps blood and all emotions are in the brain? Or maybe not after all bronze age sheep herders were so much more wise than we are today. The very words in these two sentences show the total lack of understanding of the world besides why would a being that is incorporeal need a muscle to pump blood? Of course it could come into his heart unless he is alive and part of the natural world. So which is it sugar is he a metaphysical super being who lives in an alternate plain of existence or is he a part of the natural world and susceptible to time and the laws of nature?:wave: