Hobbs

On second thought, I carelessly conceded too much here. Let's look at the story again:

Shortly after "the spirit of God came upon Jephthah," Jephthah made his vow to God: "Deliver the Ammonites to me, and I'll sacrifice to you the first thing that comes out to greet me when I get home."

What does God do? Does he stand back and let things occur as they would occur without his intervention? Did he intervene to see to it that Jephthah didn't win so that he wouldn't mistakenly think that God helped him win when he actually won it on his own without God's help? Did God say, "Whoa there, Jeph, I'm not touching this one! That's a rather risky vow! For all you know, it could be your daughter who walks out that door (and, being omniscient and all, for all I know, barring divine intervention on my part, it will be her)"?

No. God, knowing of Jephthah's vow, divinely interceded in events and gave the Ammonites into Jeph's hands. God actively took up Jeph's offer. God is not uninvolved in this. He knowingly involved himself in the situation, he actively took up his end of the deal that Jeph offered him; he is fully culpable.

Jephthah made a vow to God: do this for me, and I'll do that for you. God didn't just sit back. He did what Jeph asked him to do. Then, after having gone to all the effor to intercede iin a battle, he didn't lift a finger to see to it that Jeph's prize goat made it out the door before his daughter. And he didn't say "boo" when he could have released Jeph from the vow, the vow which God actively and positively accepted.

This God, remember, is someone who not only allowed the breaking of one of his commandments (children are not to die for the sins of their fathers), and not only explicitly ordered this commandment to be broken and got pissed off when his order was not fully carried out (in the Saul and Amalekite example), he even intervened in the natural course of events to break it himself (in the case of David and Bathsheba's kid).

Not hearing anything from God, what do you think Jephthah was to conclude about what God wanted? In that situation, would you risk God's wrath by breaking your vow to him after He took up His side of the vow by actively interceded in a battle for you at your request? Or would you risk God's wrath by breaking one of his laws in order to avoid breaking your vow to him? What a dilemma! Without Him telling you what to do, god only knows what would or wouldn't piss Him off!

Amaleq13

Calling a post "nonsense" is irrelevant to a rational argument against it. Establishing specifically what does not make sense to you, OTOH, is.

Trying to change the focus of the discussion from the specific story to a more general discussion more akin to The Problem of Evil is also inappropriate. If you want to discuss the broad subject, create another thread. This one is about the biblical story of Jephthah's sacrifice. Other biblical examples of sacrifices or prohibitions against sacrifices are relevant. Examples involving you punching your sister are not.

I am asserting that every time God establishes a pattern of intervention on behalf of an individual and, subsequent to an offered deal to continue that intervention, continues to intervene, God must accept responsibility for the individual's assumption that the deal was accepted.

I agree that allowing the Israelites to lose would not fulfill God's ultimate goal.

I was trying to show that you were missing the point. I will be more explicit in the future. The point is that the murder of the girl is unnecessary and Jephthah's free will need not be violated in order to prevent her death.

Given that Jephthah's free will need not be violated (thus eliminating your objection), what other reason do you have for allowing the girl to be killed?

I've stated the specific relevant factors above. Any scenario with the same factors obligates anyone in a similar position to somehow intervene so as to prevent the unnecessary evil of murdering the girl.

LP675

That’s a shame, I thought you had seen some sense for a moment.

You seem to be taking the same silly line that Amaleq13 took, which I soundly refuted here. Amaleq13 hasn’t been willing to discuss it since, and I suggest you desist with it too.

Hobbs

where LP675 said:


I'll grant you that given the options of either "intervene to see that a bunch of Israelites are killed instead of a bunch of Ammonites in order to save a girl's life" or "intervene to kill a bunch of Ammonites and let a girl die to boot" is a difficult choice to have to make. But you are avoiding the blatantly obvious point that these were not God's only options. He didn't have to do it in the context of Jephthah's stupid vow. Being God, he could easily have sent a plague to wipe them out, before Jeph had a chance to open his stupid pie-hole. Or even acting in the context of Jeph's vow God could easily have said, as I've already pointed out


and given Jeph a chance to rethink his vow. Or, having intervened in battles, God obviously had the ability to have intervened to accomplish the far easier task of chasing a prize goat out the door ahead of the daughter, thus not violating any human's free will. Or God could easily have just released Jephthah from his oath. No one's free will would have been violated and no natural laws would have been violated (i.e. the sorts of things that happen when God intervenes in a battle).

Why are you trying to defend the ancient Hebrew war-god Yahweh? If there is a good and just God, then He most certainly isn't Yahweh, and the Bible obviously is not His inerrant inspired word. Why can't you just face this obvious conclusion? You don't really think Yahweh was justified in doing nothing to release Jephthah from his vow, do you? Perhaps Yahweh had reason to go ahead and intervene on Jeph's behalf in spite of his vow, but Yahweh, with his often used ability to take away people's free will and contravene natural processes at will, has no legitimate excuse for not merely releasing Jephthah from his vow.

What human would you excuse from not taking such simple, risk-free, harm-free steps to save the life of an innocent child, especially when that human actively and knowingly involved himself in the situation that put the child in danger?

Jack the Bodiless

LP765:

I'd appreciate it if you could simply explain why "burning incense without a permit" IS sufficient grounds for direct and immediate divine intervention (according to the Bible).

There are several similar instances I could cite: burning the wrong sort of incense, for instance, or touching the Ark of the Covenant (even if you're just trying to stop it falling off a cart... ZZAP! You're dead!).

Coragyps

Or having a peek inside, which killed 50,070 Bethshemeshite guys....
I Samuel 6:19

Amaleq13

All I dropped was the idea that God might have allowed the battle to be lost. There are clearly other ways God could have corrected Jephthah's mistaken impression that the deal had been accepted. That God could do so without violating Jephthah's free will and without allowing the murder of the girl leaves you with no good reason to defend God's inaction.

LP675

Yes, that’s all I was referring to.

TO ALL: I intend to respond to your posts, which I will hopefully be able to do in a few days (the real world beckons ). Thank you for your patience and participation.

LP

Hobbs

On a similar note: vacation beckons me, so after today or maybe tomorrow I'll be away for a week or so. If the threads I've been involved in are still going when I get back, I'll try to catch up.

WinAce

Such a masterpiece of a parody website as LordCo Centre is far beyond my skills, I'm afraid. However, I'm friends with the webmaster and have designed--or otherwise helped on--19 products to date. I'm also an admin at their forum.