Ed

If you are claiming that the bible teaches literal human sacrifice you are absurd. Read Jeremiah 19:5-6 among several others that condemn it. And the fact that the bible has conferred a degree of certitude about what it teaches has contributed most of what is best about western civilization.

Mallberta

Really? Most of what I like about western civilization (such as it is) has little or nothing to do with the bible, and less to do with the church.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, the Bible does indeed teach literal human sacrifice. There ARE also verses that condemn it (these are Biblical contradictions), but Jeremiah 19:5-6 is not among them:
OF COURSE the Bible doesn't say that human sacrifices to Baal are OK! They're sacrificing to the wrong deity!

Does God approve of human sacrifice?

Note that, despite the Biblical contradictions on this issue, there is NO verse which says that human sacrifice itself is wrong: that is a lie concocted by apologists.

Human sacrifice to OTHER GODS is wrong, but the Caananite habit of sacrificing the firstborn child (if it's done to YHWH) is a contradiction. Sacrificing captives to YHWH is a good thing to do: no contradiction there (incidentally, this is probably why human flesh is not listed as "unclean": it wouldn't be suitable for sacrifice if it was unclean).

Once again, you have demonstrated that you do not know the Bible.

Ed

All of those fit my definition, ie who they are, except for religion and politics. Your definition may the current one, but originally IIRC the word came from "gen" (genetic or ethnic group) and "ocide" (kill).

Quote:

kara: Even if you want to play havoc with the definition of the word, it is impossible for every member of the tribes destroyed by Yahweh to be guilty of the sins they were supposedly destroyed for--many of them were surely young children. But the young children were also murdered...because of who they were, who their parents were.

No, as I stated ALL humans from birth have a tendency to rebel against their creator and King, that is what they were killed for, NOT because of who they were or who their parents were.

Jack the Bodiless

The Bible says you're wrong.

I strongly urge you to READ it someday. Until you do, you will continue to make blunders like this.

Doctor X

Ed:

Ipse dixit and wrong. Incidentally, it is not me but others--such as the referenced Judaic and biblical scholars who recognize it. To quote Collins:

Late text. I quoted and explained it in the post above. Since you apparently neglected this, I shall redirect your attention to it:

Thus, the texts reflect/refer to a time when child sacrifice was a requirement as demonstrated in Exod 34:19-20.

You also ignored this passage:

Ezek 20:25-26:

[quote]The RSV and other translations preserve perhaps a better translation:

[quote]in that they preserve the reference to immolation--"passing through fire." Levenson cites this in support of the contention:

Quod erat demonastandum.

Such as child sacrifice.

Such as--another thing you must have missed--the herem:

Quod erat demonstrandum time two. . . .

--J.D.

Ed

See above where I addressed all of these issues. Don't you read the responses people make to your posts?

Quote:

brig: Your God, as represented in the OT, is a warmongering, jealous, hatefully, genocidal maniac who abuses people in all manner of speaking. Where he a leader in the Middle East today he would make Sadaam Hussein look like an angel, and surely our "Christian" nation would make war upon him for all the crimes he committed against humanity.

No, see above. BTW, you still have not provided a rational and objective reason for why you think any of those things are even wrong.

Quote:

brig: There is NO reason, sinful nature or not, to committ genocide. Any person with a moral conscience shouldn't even have to think twice about such things. If your faith has retarded your moral conscience to such a degree that you cannot see the immorality of slaughtering of innocence, raping women, ripping unborn children from the wombs of their mothers, capturing other tribes and enslaving their women and children, etc ... I am afraid you are lost and no amount of religion and prayer can save you from the moral void your interpretation of your faith has twisted your conscience into.

Since they were destroyed for what they did, ie rebelling against the king of the universe, and preventing his representatives, ie israel, from acquiring their land. So it does not qualify as genocide. Unless you are going to say that capital punishment for all murderers is genocide of murderers.

Quote:

brig: If your God is morally perfect, absolutely good, loving, compassionate and merciful I am quite confident that He would agree. Brighid

How do you know? Have you encountered a morally perfect being?

Ed

Huh?

Ed

Yes, it was his doing but only indirectly, that is what these verses mean. He allowed the Assyrians to attack the Babylonians and do all these things. But he did not directly cause these things, as we know from Job, how he allows evil things to happen sometimes for greater good. And he does not endorse such behaviors.

Quote:

Deu 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Ed: This was because the people of ancient Israel were held to a higher standard than Christians. After Christ came he allows freedom of conscience as plainly shown by the actions of himself and his disciples. jtb: So genocide is a "higher standard" of morality? What a great man Hitler was! He held the German nation to a higher standard than those degenerate democracies!

No, the higher standard was not allowing unbelievers to be a part of the nation.

Quote:

jtb: BTW, Jesus never advocated religious freedom. The Christians merely lacked the power to compel obedience.

Of course they could have, ever hear of the jewish sicarii and their knives? The disciples could have quite easily just threatened to stab and kill someone if they didnt convert. But instead they just used arguments and evidence. And then left them alone if they didnt convert.

Quote:

Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee [for] an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth Deu 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: Ed: The nations were destroyed because their time of reckoning had come for their sins. But as I stated earlier God was being gracious to them by letting them live for a time, because all sin deserves immediate death. jtb: Completely untrue. Those nations were destroyed because God gave that land to the Israelites "for an inheritance", that's why there were different rules for them. Again, you're contradicting your Bible.

You are partially right, technically there were two simultaneous reasons for destroying them, the reason I gave and the reason you gave. What different rules?

Quote:

jtb: And "all sin deserves immediate death"? Ah, yes, that great Christian tolerance again! Deu 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; and no matter how much she cries for her family, after you have shaved her head and clipped her nails and allowed her to wail for a month, you can rape her and make her your wife No, in Deut. 21:13-14, it states that if the marriage does not work out she is free to go and should not be humiliated and treated like a slave. So there is no rape here. jtb: No, Deut. 21:13-14 does NOT say that, and you KNOW it does not say that, because we have discussed this before. The woman CANNOT choose divorce. Only the MAN can end the "relationship", if he "has no delight in her" he can get rid of her.

Yes, the man has the primary option but she can control it by not delighting him.

Quote:

1.) Is it morally acceptable to rip the unborn fetus from the womb of a sinning mother (who just happens to be from a different "tribe"/ "nation)? Using the Golden Rule of do unto others as you would have them do onto you would it be acceptable to rip the unborn fetus from the womb of your wife Ed? Ed: No, see above. But women do this voluntarily everyday with abortion. jtb: So your "no" means that you disagree with the Bible (which, of course, doesn't condemn abortion either). 2.) brig: Is it morally acceptable to "ravish" or rather rape women? Ed: No. jtb: Again, the Bible is wrong. brig: 3.) Is it morally acceptable to destroy the houses of worship of non-Christian people (such as was done in KristalNacht)? Ed: No, see above how Christ teaches freedom of conscience. jtb: ...In the Book of Ed, which only you can read. brig: 4.) Is it morally permissible to search a town to flush out the non-believers and if any are found to murder every inhabitant of that town? Ed: No, see above. jtb:"No" in the Book of Ed, "Yes" in the rest of the Bible. Isn't this a Biblical contradiction? brig: 5.) Is it morally acceptable to take the women and children of a conquered nation for your own? Ed: Depends on the situation with children. Though of course the adult women have a choice, see above. jtb: If the "adult women" aren't virgins, or aren't among the virgins selected as "wives", they have no choice at all: they are to be massacred. ...Whoops, I forgot. You don't read the Bible, so you didn't know that. brig: 6.) Is it morally acceptable to force a woman to become your wife (thereby taking away her free will) and consumating that act with rape? Ed: No. jtb: So the Bible is wrong. ...And so it goes. You are still pretending that the Bible is the blueprint for human morality, even though you keep disagreeing with it. Why is that, Ed?

No, see above where I dealt with all of this.

Jack the Bodiless

Ed:
Was this an attempt at humor?
Yes, it IS genocide. It is the slaughter of an ENTIRE NATION for the "crimes" of some of their ancestors.

It is directly equivalent to slaughtering 6 million Jews for the "crime" of having Jesus killed.

Do YOU believe it is "moral" to kill all the relatives of a murderer, and everyone else in the town where he grew up? Because that's what you're saying.
I have encountered plenty of people who are more "morally perfect" than God.
That last sentence is pure fiction. God does indeed endorse such behaviors, repeatedly, throughout the Old Testament.
Just as the "higher standard" of the Nazis was not allowing Jews to be a part of the nation.

Note, also, that both "higher standards" involve not just eviction, but slaughter. At least the Nazis had a BETTER reason for this: a child of the "Jewish race" can never become an Aryan and will have "half-breed" children at best, whereas an Amalekite child CAN be raised as a "true believer".
They were a small sect of heretical Jews. Just how long do you think they would have survived if they wandered around Jerusalem stabbing everyone who didn't join them?

Chritianity would have been exterminated in a few days.
The reason I gave is the Biblical one.

As for the different rules: why not try this? Read the Bible. Specifically, Deuteronomy 20. The different rules for the two groups of people are made perfectly clear.

...OK, I forgot that you don't read the Bible. So I'll quote the relevant section:
Try telling a rape victim that she is in control of the situation because she can choose "not to delight him".
You "dealt with this" by rejecting the Bible and then denying that you have done so!