Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 03-25-2004, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Deu 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

jtb:These verses say that CHILD SACRIFICE BY FIRE is wrong.

There is NO Biblical verse which claims that HUMAN SACRIFICE IN GENERAL is wrong.

Ed: Fraid so, given that fire is the only way the ancient hebrews performed sacrifices.

jtb: What part of the Biblical phrase "his son or his daughter" do you not understand?

What part of my own phrase "CHILD SACRIFICE" do you not understand?

A son or daughter can be either a child or an adult, so both are ruled out.

...So now you're saying that the Midianite captives couldn't have been human sacrifices because they were the sons and daughters of the Israelites.

Where is the Biblical evidence that the children of the Israelites left to become the Midianites, and when did this supposedly happen? Do you mean this in a metaphorical sense, with the Midianites being "children of Noah" like everyone else?

The phrase "There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter..." obviously applies to the son or daughter of that one person, not the descendant of a distant shared ancestor: it's HIS son, or HIS daughter. So you're saying that the Midianites were attacked and massacred by their actual parents, the Israelites!

...Evidence????

just how far will you go to preserve your fantasy? Just how much are you prepared to invent?

Quote:

While there is no explicit verse stating that "human sacrifice in general is wrong", it is plainly implied by the above verse and Deut. 12:31 where even what the pagans are doing to their sons and daughters are condemned. Plus the sixth commandment, "You shall not murder." Also there is no laws dealing with humans in the sacrificial laws or stating that humans are clean animals that can be sacrificed.

Irrelevant, because that verse refers to sons and daughters.

...What exactly is your comprehension problem, Ed? ARE you admitting that the human sacrifice of people who are NOT "sons and daughters" is perfectly OK?

Why are you so hopelessly confused?

BTW, as "murder" is defined as UNLAWFUL killing, it doesn't help your case at all. It is quite obvious from the Bible that the massacre of prisoners is lawful.

Quote:

No the herem does not have any of the characteristics of hebrew sacrifices.

It was a specific type of Hebrew sacrifice.

Quote:

Both of you ignore the passages in the torah where there is redemption for the human first born.

We have not "ignored" those passages, we have explained them. The practise was abandoned, and the Bible was altered.

Quote:

jtb: That, also, is not the STATED reason for the massacre of the Amalekites.

The STATED reason is "vengeance" for a 400-year-old incident not perpetrated by any of those on whom this "vengeance" fell.

We were not talking about the Amalekites, we were talking about the Canaanites and the herem. I have dealt with the Amalekites elsewhere.

What part of "The Bible SPECIFICALLY states exactly why the Amalekites were killed, and it is NOT the reason you gave" did you not understand?

This stems from your refusal to accept that the massacre of rival tribes was "genocide". Not from any discussion of human sacrifice. Please TRY to keep up.

And you have not "dealt with" the Amalekites elsewhere. You denied the Bible THEN, too.

Quote:

One thing I forgot to mention is that Moses specifically said they are to be kept alive in verse 18. So if they killed them then they would have broken Moses explicit command, also as stated above they would have broken the Sixth Commandment.

Nonsense. Moses was telling them to KILL the women and children, EXCEPT for the virgins, who were to be kept alive for a specific purpose (as booty). And God got a share of that booty. So you're making stuff up, as usual.

Quote:

And eating and spending are not equivalent to destroying by burning so it is obvious that heave offering can be understood symbolically. See below where money is called a heave offering and plainly not destroyed or burnt:

Num 18:26 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, [even] a tenth [part] of the tithe.

It's talking about tithes, not money. A tithe was one-tenth of everything.

See Deuteronomy 18, in which the Levites eat the food given to God as a sacrifice: "they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire". So, unless you're suggesting that the priests ATE the virgins...

Ed · 03-25-2004, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
...There is also the gruesome fate of Jephtah's daughter.

The Bible doesn't say WHO actually killed her. But it DOES say that the priesthood had an absolute monopoly on performing sacrifices: God cursed a king with leprosy for the crime of performing his own sacrifices.

The priests would have placed Jephtah's daughter on the altar, slit her throat, and burned her body. To them, this was routine.

It is actually rather bizarre to suppose that they would have had any problem with this. YHWH was a god who demanded blood sacrifices, and also the total slaughter of captives (in many cases). These were experienced butchers, of animals and of people. And they worshipped a deity who supposedly liked that sort of thing.

No, in ancient times the person who made the vow, carries out the vow. And there is no mention of any priests being involved. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that the sacrifice of humans on hebrew altars was routine. Jepthah just made a stupid and evil vow and erroneously believed that he had to carry it out. But it was plainly forbidden by the sixth commandment and Deut. 18:10 among others.

Ed · 03-25-2004, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by blt to go
I have been watching this thread, sometimes following it, sometimes not, and have been constantly amazed that Jephthah's daughter has never been mentioned.

(If I missed it, I apologize to whomever, and I am certain I will learn about it in the next five posts )

JUD 11:30 Jephthah vowed a vow to Yahweh, and said, If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand,
JUD 11:31 then it shall be, that whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Yahweh`s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
JUD 11:32 So Jephthah passed over to the children of Ammon to fight against them; and Yahweh delivered them into his hand.
JUD 11:33 He struck them from Aroer until you come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and to Abelcheramim, with a very great slaughter. So the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
JUD 11:34 Jephthah came to Mizpah to his house; and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances: and she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter.
JUD 11:35 It happened, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you are one of those who trouble me; for I have opened my mouth to Yahweh, and I can`t go back.
JUD 11:36 She said to him, My father, you have opened your mouth to Yahweh; do to me according to that which has proceeded out of your mouth, because Yahweh has taken vengeance for you on your enemies, even on the children of Ammon.
JUD 11:37 She said to her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may depart and go down on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.
JUD 11:38 He said, Go. He sent her away for two months: and she departed, she and her companions, and mourned her virginity on the mountains.
JUD 11:39 It happened at the end of two months, that she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she was a virgin. It was a custom in Israel,
JUD 11:40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

Ed -- sorry. While I agree that Mosaic Law did not demand the Jews to offer their first born as a burnt sacrifice, this is a CLEAR example of human sacrifice.

I believe it is impossible to read this through, and NOT say that she was sacrificed. Note that in vs. 31 he says "burnt offering."
There have been arguments that she was not killed, but frankly, His statements, reaction, her reaction all would indicate that she died. By fire.

Dr. x, jtb and others--here is the problem of this story for you. Note that this is treated as an an anomaly.

If it was common, or even allowed, for child sacrifice, what would one more be? Especially in "thanks" for winning a battle. This would not be recorded as an unusual event. Further, note that this turns into an annual ritual of remembering Jephthah's daughter.

Why? Annual events (I obviously hesitiate to use the word "Holiday") do not arise out of trivial or common events.

I agree blt.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-26-2004, 02:28 AM

Ed:

Quote:

No, in ancient times the person who made the vow, carries out the vow. And there is no mention of any priests being involved. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that the sacrifice of humans on hebrew altars was routine. Jepthah just made a stupid and evil vow and erroneously believed that he had to carry it out. But it was plainly forbidden by the sixth commandment and Deut. 18:10 among others.

The priests HAD to be involved, because it was FORBIDDEN for non-priests to perform religious rituals after the priesthood had been set up: see 2 Chronicles 26:16-21.

...And nobody is claiming that the Hebrews performed daily human sacrifices like the Aztecs did. What sort of "archaeological evidence" would exist, if only a small fraction of the sacrifices were human?

I have already pointed out that it's ridiculous to assume that the sixth commandment prevents the killing of humans. The Bible plainly says otherwise. Deuteronomy 18:10 is also irrelevant, because it's quite obvious that Jephtah's daughter WAS sacrificed.

blt to go · 03-26-2004, 01:10 PM

Hello.....

Are we finally back to Jephthah's daughter?

jtb - I was looking for the responses to your reason for non-anamoly. apparently I did not miss it.

Thanks, ed, for digging this up this ancient piece of work.

Ed · 03-28-2004, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:
blt: Dr. x, jtb and others--here is the problem of this story for you. Note that this is treated as an an anomaly.

If it was common, or even allowed, for child sacrifice, what would one more be? Especially in "thanks" for winning a battle. This would not be recorded as an unusual event. Further, note that this turns into an annual ritual of remembering Jephthah's daughter.

Why? Annual events (I obviously hesitiate to use the word "Holiday") do not arise out of trivial or common events.

jtb: This sacrifice dates from long after the practise of child sacrifice had ended: it's from Judges, not Exodus. Furthermore, it's a sacrifice of an adult (or not a newborn baby, at least) who isn't a hated enemy, not a captive taken in battle. This makes it a noteworthy anomaly..

Ummm...again you obviously do not know much about the Documentary Hypothesis. According to the DH Exodus and Judges were both written in the 7th century BC. So from the anti-supernatural perspective there was no before or after! Sacrfice of a new born baby was forbidden in Deut. 18:10 and the first born human was always redeemed according to the scriptures. Actually the hebrews did not start sacrificing humans until the 8th century and 7th century when they started rejecting YHWH as their God and were technically no longer among God's chosen.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-29-2004, 01:54 AM

Ed:

Quote:

There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that the sacrifice of humans on hebrew altars was routine...

...Actually the hebrews did not start sacrificing humans until the 8th century and 7th century when they started rejecting YHWH as their God and were technically no longer among God's chosen.

So, after denying every case of human sacrifice presented in the Bible (except Jephtah's daughter), and asserting that there is NO evidence that the Hebrews performed human sacrifice... you now admit that the Hebrews were sacrificing humans?

Fascinating.

Of course, the Bible never says that it's wrong anyhow (except for the specific case of sacrificing their own kids). So the sacrifice of captives has nothing to with being "no longer among God's chosen", it's just that YOU have a problem with it.

Moses did not, according to Numbers 31. There is no reason AT ALL to assume that he might.

Quote:

Ummm...again you obviously do not know much about the Documentary Hypothesis. According to the DH Exodus and Judges were both written in the 7th century BC. So from the anti-supernatural perspective there was no before or after!

If Exodus was WRITTEN in the 7th century BC, that doesn't mean that all the material INCORPORATED in Exodus was devised at that time. However, this is irrelevant: even if the sacrifice of newborn infants WAS still going on, the sacrifice of Jephtah's adult (or near-adult) daughter would STILL be exceptional. It is presented as a moral lesson: "don't make rash promises". Baby-sacrifice is irrelevant to that lesson.

NOGO · 03-29-2004, 07:41 PM

What the story of Jephthah's daughter clearly demonstrates is that in those days the father had right to kill his own children and nobody questioned anything.

The reason for the murder is irrelavant. Anybody can claim that he made a wow to yahweh.

Children had no rights. If they did it would matter not that her father made a wow. That is his problem.

The story then tells us that wows to yahweh are above the law.

Thus the fifth commands is
Thou shalt not kill except if you made a wow to yahweh.

NOGO · 03-29-2004, 07:46 PM

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

I heard all of this before.

Frankly no Christian can ever tell us that yahweh hates human sacrifice.

The story has it that yahweh sent his own son to be sacrificed for our sins.

So yahweh likes human sacrifices. Jesus' death was a human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. If you have any doubt about this read Hebrews 9.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

NOGO · 03-29-2004, 07:56 PM

This is one of Ed favourite subjects.

Unfortunately for him the idea of the original sin originates with Paul who misread Genesis and the story in the Garden of Eden.

There is otherwise strictly nothing in all of the OT on the original sin.

Jesus, who according to Paul saved us from the original sin, says strictly nothing on the subject.

There is a grreat void on the subject until Paul created it from misdrash of the OT.

Pure fantasy

03-29-2004, 07:46 PM	#159
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Human sacrifice :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: I heard all of this before. Frankly no Christian can ever tell us that yahweh hates human sacrifice. The story has it that yahweh sent his own son to be sacrificed for our sins. So yahweh likes human sacrifices. Jesus' death was a human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. If you have any doubt about this read Hebrews 9. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

03-29-2004, 07:56 PM	#160
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Original Sin This is one of Ed favourite subjects. Unfortunately for him the idea of the original sin originates with Paul who misread Genesis and the story in the Garden of Eden. There is otherwise strictly nothing in all of the OT on the original sin. Jesus, who according to Paul saved us from the original sin, says strictly nothing on the subject. There is a grreat void on the subject until Paul created it from misdrash of the OT. Pure fantasy

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

03-26-2004, 01:10 PM	#155
blt to go Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: michigan Posts: 513	Hello..... Are we finally back to Jephthah's daughter? jtb - I was looking for the responses to your reason for non-anamoly. apparently I did not miss it. Thanks, ed, for digging this up this ancient piece of work.

03-29-2004, 07:41 PM	#158
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	What the story of Jephthah's daughter clearly demonstrates is that in those days the father had right to kill his own children and nobody questioned anything. The reason for the murder is irrelavant. Anybody can claim that he made a wow to yahweh. Children had no rights. If they did it would matter not that her father made a wow. That is his problem. The story then tells us that wows to yahweh are above the law. Thus the fifth commands is Thou shalt not kill except if you made a wow to yahweh.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.