Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 05-16-2004, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

ED: Fraid not, first born tithe for humans was always redeemed. Contrary to the flawed DH

jtb: Ed:

Why would there be a "first-born tithe" in the first place? Why would there be anything to "redeem"?

According to Jewish tradition, a coin is offered to the rabbi INSTEAD OF the first-born child.

Therefore there MUST HAVE BEEN an original tradition of offering the child. Otherwise these traditions of "substitution" or "redemption" would not exist: there would only be a tradition of offering the coin, without it being regarded as a SUBSTITUTE for child-sacrifice.

It has several threads of meaning and origin. The tithe (10%) is representative of 100%. It means that ultimately everthing you have belongs to God including your children. Also the first born human tithe pointed to the past, ie Abraham and Isaac. Which of course ties back to the first meaning. Thirdly it pointed to the future, the redemption of us by the substitute of God's Son.

Jack the Bodiless · 05-17-2004, 05:35 AM

Quote:

jtb: Ed, I'm finding it very hard to believe that EVEN YOU can be THIS obtuse.

There is NO VERSE which bans the sacrifice of people who are NOT the sons or daughters of the Hebrews.

You KNOW that Deuteronomy 12:31 does NOT apply to the sacrifice of non-Hebrew captives. It is OBVIOUS that it does not apply. We have ESTABLISHED that it does not apply.

That is not what I said, talk about obtuse!

Projection, Ed? YOU were the one being obtuse.

It is a simple fact that there is no Biblical verse that condemns the human sacrifice of captives. You have wasted a great deal of time and bandwidth in seeking to deny this simple fact.

Quote:

Ed: If it was ok to sacrifice pagan humans then he never would have condemned the actions of the pagans in Deut. 12:31.

jtb: That verse does NOT say that it's wrong to sacrifice pagans.

It says that the PAGANS are wrong to sacrifice their SONS AND DAUGHTERS.

Yes, but either way pagans are going to die, if He wanted to kill pagans then he would not have condemned what they were doing.

Try reading the Bible sometime. Deuteronomy 12:31 reads: "Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods".

This says nothing about the "wrongness" of sacrificing pagans. It says that the specific act of sacrificing SONS AND DAUGHTERS (which the pagans were doing) is wrong. God is saying that he doesn't want the HEBREWS to sacrifice THEIR sons and daughters.

Quote:

Ed: No, the ancient hebrews considered herem part of war killing, which was not forbidden by the sixth commandment. But the sixth commandment prohibited premeditated killing not connected with war and capital punishment. Therefore, any premeditated sacrificial killing would have been considered murder.

jtb: The sixth commandment DOES NOT prohibit premeditated killing. This is obvious, because Moses commands the Hebrews to KILL most of their captives, AFTER the battle.

But it was related to the battle, they considered herem part of the killing of war. Like a mop up job after the battle.

The sixth commandment is "thou shalt not murder", where "murder" refers to UNLAWFUL killing.

It does not prohibit any form of LAWFUL killing.

Therefore it is useless if human sacrifice is deemed to be lawful.

Quote:

jtb: If you want to argue that the murder of captives is OK because it's "connected with war": then so is the human sacrifice of captives. This was done by MANY ancient peoples, to give thanks to the gods for victory in battle.

But only the hebrews were allowed to do it, for any other modern or ancient people it is morally wrong.

...Evidence?

Quote:

jtb: Because you're not supposed to sacrifice stuff you don't want! God gets a share of the BOOTY. Non-virgin female captives weren't considered "booty": they had no value to the Hebrews.

Evidence?

The Bible says they are to be killed.

Quote:

jtb: ...WHAT "heave offering of money"?

There is NO "heave offering of money" in Numbers 31.

No, there are other cases in the OT where the term heave offering is used with money. See my quotation earlier where I quote a verse where this is so. So not everything in a heave offering was destroyed.

...But you DIDN'T quote a verse in which money is specifically used as a heave offering!

Quote:

jtb: And there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that "the virgins were used as wives NOT destroyed or killed". You KNOW that you're making that up, so why do you state it as if it was a fact?

Who appointed you as a prophet, Ed?

God wants all Christians to be prophets, ie proclaim his truth.

I want to be sure that I understand what you're claiming here.

Are you saying that if you invent stuff, then it's OK to claim that what you've invented is fact, because God is speaking through you?

Quote:

jtb: You can't even pretend that it's UNLIKELY that the virgins were sacrificed, given what we know about the Hebrew fondness for blood sacrifice and genocide. The Bible specifically says they were part of the sacrifice, and there is NO reason to believe otherwise.

Fraid not, see this whole thread.

...In which you have presented NO reason to believe otherwise.

Quote:

jtb: ...Evidence that Jephtah was "biblically illiterate"?

Of course he'd do the job properly! Why assume otherwise?

His actions show his illiteracy. That is how you judge someone's knowledge about something, their actions related to that subject matter.

Jephtah's actions do NOT show "Biblical illiteracy".

Quote:

Ed, we both KNOW that you're making stuff up. We both KNOW that you have no actual knowledge of "the ancient hebrew undestanding of the sixth commandment".

...So what's the point of pretending otherwise?

Again, just how much stuff are you prepared to invent?

It is not invention, it is called research.

I thought it was called "divine inspiration"?

Are you God's appointed prophet, or are you not?

Quote:

Why would HEBREWS suddenly start sacrificing their firstborn children for no reason?

They must have believed that God required it, yes?

Because the later hebrews practiced syncretism. They combined the pagan practices of human sacrifice with the hebrew practice of animal sacrifice.

Evidence that this was a "later" practice?

Quote:

jtb: Of course, even Jeremiah and Ezekiel never say that the sacrifice OF CAPTIVES is wrong.

Because herem was not considered sacrifices by the hebrews. See my detailed explanation about the major differences between herem and hebrew sacrifical rites.

...In which you failed to provide any reason why captives couldn't be sacrificed as part of a victory celebration, as was the custom in the region.

If YHWH wanted his followers NOT to indulge in this routine custom: why didn't he say so?

Quote:

Ed: All the evidence points to there not being any human sacrifice among the jews at the time of Jephthah, so it would be QUITE exceptional.

jtb: All of WHAT evidence?

The historical record.

Which ancient historian from Jephtah's time has declared that human sacrifice was NOT taking place?

Quote:

jtb: There is NO HINT that Jephtah's actions were considered "illegal" either by God or by the priesthood. He made a rash promise and suffered the consequences, but the SACRIFICE is presented as a "just" outcome of his promise.

Where is it presented as just? If it was presented as just then his daughter would not have cried. She would have just gladly submitted to his father's will with a smile.

Where is it presented as illegal?

Did she cry because her father was breaking the law? No, she cried because she was going to DIE.

Quote:

Although there is no explicit command to not sacrifice non-hebrews, it plainly can be deduced thru several different threads of moral principles as I have demonstrated in this thread.

You have not "demonstrated" any such thing.

Quote:

lp: Except that if one adopts similar old-Universe interpretations of other mythologies, one finds similar rates of miraculous events.

Except there are no other religious writings that teach that the physical universe had a definite beginning except the bible.

The Bible does not teach this. The verb used in Genesis 1:1 is more properly translated as "separated": God separated the Heavens from the Earth, he isn't credited with "creating" them.

He created in John, but the "Logos" concept was stolen from the Greeks.

Quote:

Therefore there MUST HAVE BEEN an original tradition of offering the child. Otherwise these traditions of "substitution" or "redemption" would not exist: there would only be a tradition of offering the coin, without it being regarded as a SUBSTITUTE for child-sacrifice.

It has several threads of meaning and origin. The tithe (10%) is representative of 100%. It means that ultimately everthing you have belongs to God including your children. Also the first born human tithe pointed to the past, ie Abraham and Isaac. Which of course ties back to the first meaning. Thirdly it pointed to the future, the redemption of us by the substitute of God's Son.

You are confirming my point. The custom is a substitute for human sacrifice.

Ed · 05-17-2004, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
But even in the OT rape was plainly mistreatment due to the belief that women are in the image of God just as man is and therefore entitled to respect. ...

lp: Something not directly evident -- women don't seem to be allowed to be important leaders.

In cases where the men fail to take the lead God let women take over, ever hear of the female judge Deborah?

Quote:

Ed: Though I do admit that rape was not considered as serious in ancient times because everyone was just trying to survive ie everyone was on the edge of death.

lp: LOL.

Nevertheless a fact.

Quote:

Ed: Due to the horrible treatment of women in Canaanite societies, these women could plainly see that hebrew society was far superior.

I've yet to see any testimonials to that effect from any outside sources -- and not even in the Bible itself.

Women could inherit property in ancient Israel unlike many surrouding societies. Also, women were considered spiritually equal to men in that they were both created in the image of God. In the surrounding pagan societies women were often considered subhuman and purely property.

Ed · 05-18-2004, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

ED: No, if you include the NT marital rape is plainly forbidden by the verses that say that a man is to love his wife like his own body. And also the Golden Rule of course.

jtb: I have already pointed out elsewhere that the Golden Rule is of limited use here: many rapists manage to convince themselves that the rape is in the victim's best interest. "She said no, but she really meant yes".

YOU have used a similar argument, in claiming that exterminating a woman's relatives and then forcing her to marry the murderer of her relatives is "in her best interests".

The GR is used in conjunction with the teaching that men should treat their wives like their own bodies. You would not want to rape your own body.

Quote:

jtb: There is also the obvious fact that you can't apply NT verses to OT times, because the NT had not yet been written.

My comment was in response to your assertion at the time regarding the whole bible.

Quote:

ED: Due to the horrible treatment of women in Canaanite societies, these women could plainly see that hebrew society was far superior. It would be like killing the Nazi father of girl that had married a jew. She would be very sad but would eventually understand why it happened.

jtb: Wrong analogy, as we're discussing a Holocaust allegedly perpetrated by Jews.

Umm do you even know what analogies are? It is not the details that are that important, it is the principle.

Quote:

jtb: There is no evidence that women in Caananite societies were treated "horribly". As YHWH was himself a Caananite deity, the treatment of women in most other Caananite societies was probably fairly similar.

No, women were allowed to inherit property in some situations, also they were considered to be spiritually equal to men since both men and women are created in the image of God. Also, the hebrews did force some women into prostitution like the Canaanites did.

Jack the Bodiless · 05-19-2004, 04:45 AM

Quote:

ED: Due to the horrible treatment of women in Canaanite societies, these women could plainly see that hebrew society was far superior. It would be like killing the Nazi father of girl that had married a jew. She would be very sad but would eventually understand why it happened.

jtb: Wrong analogy, as we're discussing a Holocaust allegedly perpetrated by Jews.

Umm do you even know what analogies are? It is not the details that are that important, it is the principle.

Your analogy just doesn't make any sense, Ed.

It would be WRONG to kill the Nazi father just for "being a Nazi", and the daughter would NEVER be likely to forgive those who did it!

Remember that you're talking about the near-total genocide of an entire people. Guilty and innocent, soldier and civilian, good and bad. There is only one hope of survival: to be female, virgin, and desired by the conquering soldiers.

This is evil, and it doesn't become any less evil by changing the name of the conquered people from "Midianite" to "German".

Quote:

jtb: There is no evidence that women in Caananite societies were treated "horribly". As YHWH was himself a Caananite deity, the treatment of women in most other Caananite societies was probably fairly similar.

No, women were allowed to inherit property in some situations, also they were considered to be spiritually equal to men since both men and women are created in the image of God. Also, the hebrews did force some women into prostitution like the Canaanites did.

I assume you missed out a "not" there.

We have been here before. You failed to provide any evidence that "temple prostitutes" were forced into it.

Of course, even if they WERE, this would be a much lesser evil than genocide anyhow.

lpetrich · 05-19-2004, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

In cases where the men fail to take the lead God let women take over, ever hear of the female judge Deborah?

However, she was the only one.

Look at this site -- there is a larger fraction of female moderators and admins than there is female rulers in the Bible. And check on who won the popularity contest in the "crush" thread in the Lounge.

(peope not worried about rape because they were starving to death...)

Quote:

Nevertheless a fact.

There is further counterevidence: many people in ancient times did things that they would not have done if they had been perpetually on the brink of starvation, like dancing, creating artwork, building big buildings, and so forth.

Quote:

Women could inherit property in ancient Israel unlike many surrouding societies.

Evidence?

Quote:

Also, women were considered spiritually equal to men in that they were both created in the image of God.

Pure proof-texting -- the Adam and Eve story implies that women are troublesome to men. Among the numerous other sexist/misogynist things in the Bible.

Quote:

In the surrounding pagan societies women were often considered subhuman and purely property.

Evidence?

However, women could become priestesses and the like in the religions of their neighbors.

Which is more than can be said about Ed's ideal system, in which women are not allowed to instruct adult men.

lpetrich · 05-20-2004, 07:18 PM

Some statistics on this site:

Out of 53 moderators, around 9 are female.
Out of 15 administrators, around 2 are female.

Also consider this tabulation of the "crush" thread's votes. Of the top ten, seven are female, including the three biggest winners. The two top winners have some very notable achievements:

QueenofSwords with her Nutwatches, reviews, and all-around posting style
christ-on-a-stick with her Salvation Story, her description of her adventures in fundyland

If the Bible is such a super-feminist document, then why do some of the women here out-achieve most of the women in the Bible?

Ed · 05-20-2004, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

As far the possibility that she would desire to stay married you need to learn more about ancient history. In ancient times single women without families were pretty much under a death sentence or an obvious target for rape or involuntary prostitution.

lp: Evidence presented: {}

Ed: They didn't have a police force for one. Talk to your local history professor for more evidence.

jtb: Remind me again about how "morally advanced" the Hebrew society was. Single women should have been in no danger, right?

They certainly would have been safe in Celtic society, for example.

They would have mostly been in danger from the surrounding Canaanite raiders. But hebrew society was not totally devoid of rapists and murderers. So you think the Celts lived in a utopia.

Quote:

Ed: All the so-called moral atrocities are the result of man's rebellion against God either as punishment for it or as a symptom of it. This IS the plain language of the bible.

lp: That's the same sort of "reasoning" the Nazis had used -- Jews are so unredeemably evil that they deserve to be exterminated -- even Jewish babies.

Ed: No, the Nazis reasoning was based on myth while the reasons I mentioned above are based on reality.

jtb: Evidence that Jewish beliefs are based on reality: { }

The existence and characteristics of the universe.

Quote:

lp: I find it depressing that Ed is so willing to defend genocide. Including killing whole populations of babies. I wonder if he has seriously thought through his positions, as opposed to taking an attitude of "I am chust followink orders."

Ed: No, genocide is the killing of people for who they are while God allowed the meteing out of capital punishment on evildoers.

Evidence that the slaughtered Amalekites were evildoers: { }

Romans 3:23.

Quote:

jtb: Evidence that they were slaughtered just for being Amalekites: the Bible says so.[/b]

It is a little more complicated than that, but I am not going to rehash all that again.

lpetrich · 05-20-2004, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

I find it depressing that Ed is so willing to defend genocide. Including killing whole populations of babies. I wonder if he has seriously thought through his positions, as opposed to taking an attitude of "I am chust followink orders."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

No, genocide is the killing of people for who they are while God allowed the meteing out of capital punishment on evildoers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Evidence that the slaughtered Amalekites were evildoers: { }

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Romans 3:23.

[quote]...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...[/url]
Yawn.

Ed, I challenge you to demonstrate that -- without waving the Bible around.

Jack the Bodiless · 05-21-2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

jtb: Remind me again about how "morally advanced" the Hebrew society was. Single women should have been in no danger, right?

They certainly would have been safe in Celtic society, for example.

They would have mostly been in danger from the surrounding Canaanite raiders. But hebrew society was not totally devoid of rapists and murderers. So you think the Celts lived in a utopia.

A Hebrew woman would have thought so, yes. The Celts allowed women to become warriors. Try telling a single Celtic woman that she couldn't survive without a man, and you'd probably find out what a Celtic longsword can do.

I note that you've still not explained why the "morally superior" Hebrews would allow Caananite raiders across their borders to attack unmarried women only.

Quote:

Ed: No, the Nazis reasoning was based on myth while the reasons I mentioned above are based on reality.

jtb: Evidence that Jewish beliefs are based on reality: { }

The existence and characteristics of the universe.

...Which are fundamentally incompatible with the Bible, of course.

Quote:

lp: I find it depressing that Ed is so willing to defend genocide. Including killing whole populations of babies. I wonder if he has seriously thought through his positions, as opposed to taking an attitude of "I am chust followink orders."

Ed: No, genocide is the killing of people for who they are while God allowed the meteing out of capital punishment on evildoers.

Evidence that the slaughtered Amalekites were evildoers: { }

Romans 3:23.

...Oh, dear. After a comparison with the Holocaust was made, you now seek to make excuses by using a verse which justifies the Holocaust.

...So you think the Jews deserved to die in the Nazi camps because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"?

The Bible says exactly why the Amalekites were killed: because of the actions of their ancestors. You know this: it is inescapable.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-20-2004, 07:18 PM	#247
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Some statistics on this site: Out of 53 moderators, around 9 are female. Out of 15 administrators, around 2 are female. Also consider this tabulation of the "crush" thread's votes. Of the top ten, seven are female, including the three biggest winners. The two top winners have some very notable achievements: QueenofSwords with her Nutwatches, reviews, and all-around posting style christ-on-a-stick with her Salvation Story, her description of her adventures in fundyland If the Bible is such a super-feminist document, then why do some of the women here out-achieve most of the women in the Bible?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.