Ed

But nowhere in Numbers 31 does the text say that the women were "devoted" so again there was no human sacrifice. Also see my post to Jack where I show that the heave offering can be symbolic.

Quote:

Dx: Funny what happens when one reads the texts. --J.D.

Yeah it is funny, especially when agendas cause some to read them with blinders on.

blt to go

EXACTLY!!!

Thus I ceased debating with Dr. X. If, one is to argue that Mosaic Law mandated the first-born Jewish children being sacrificed by fire, one would have to look at the ENTIRE picture.

If one is to state that Exekiel and Exodus are "factual" or should be literally applied, and thus the proposition of child sacrifice. One also has to deal with Judges and the apparent problem with Jephthah.

I could, just as easily state that the Numbers 31 was a story, but Jephthah was NOT. If I did, I would be hounded that (like most Christians) I have degraded to: "If you were a chrisitan you could understand scripture. You are not so na na na na...."

I am intellectually honest enough to recognized the problems created by Exodus and Ezekiel. I will not dismiss them with, "just a story...."

Again, I would certainly state that this is a STRONG argument for child sacrifice (Again, I would place it third) and I was concerned that it was not brought up before.

I was concerned that the problem of "anomaly" was recognized and therefore it was being ignored. Frankly, I did not anticipate that it would be treated as a "story" and therefore completely dismissed.

Once explained as such, the debate ends.

Doctor X

Should the individual remove his blinders he will cease making such errors in comprehension that has plagued his responses the entire thread.

It seemed a good choice for him to quit when he was behind.

Which has been done. Next. . . .

No one has stated that. A review of the above posts with a modicum of responsibility will demonstrate that the argument deals with description of a religious practice, preserving the mandate of the religious practice--as in the E portion of the Pentateuch, and explanations/condemnations of the practice--Jeremiah/Ezekiel.

One would be a much more effective debator if one actually debated the points others make rather than rely on imagination. However, I suppose it is better than just assuming that the entirety of scholarship that disagrees with him are "anti-semitic" as the individual above attempted.

Irrelevant. As stated a few times above, whether or not the Jephthah story "happened"--and it has literary qualities that suggest it did not--what is important is that the story requires a deity to accept human sacrifices much like Mesha's deity.

Various meanderings that do not reflect the actual reponses of posters follow. It is unseemly to create conflict which does not exist, however.

--J.D.

Ed

How can stating the way somethng appears be a lie? I was just stating how your arguments appears, it appears for some unknown reason that you want to demonize the ancient hebrews.
Since I do not know your actual reason, I cannot be lying about it.
Only you know why you are taking the verses out of context to make the erroneous point that the jews ritually sacrificed humans.

Quote:

dx: The individual had his clock cleaned by those who actually bothered to read the texts. The point of the opening post had to do with the morality of a god that would punish someone for doing something he forced him to do.

Where was my clock cleaned? All you have done is taken verses out of context using the discredited Documentary Hypothesis as a basis for doing so.

Quote:

dx: It has been proven, with citations of the texts and the peer-reviewed literature the following: 1. A history of sacrifice refered to in the text. 2. A deity that accepted and required sacrifices.

See above for the shaky basis for these assertions.

Quote:

dx: 3. The requirement of the herem.

The herem is significantly different from ritual human sacrifice. It generally occured in situ, not at any special sacred place or altar, it was not performed using the standard hebrew methodology for sacrifice, ie fire, and its purpose was not to remove sin from the hebrews engaging in it like all other ritual sacrifices among the hebrews.

Quote:

dx: 4. A history of polytheism.

Actually contrary to the standard evolutionary scenario there is evidence that humans were originally monotheistic and only later became polytheisitic.

Quote:

dx: 5. A motivation on the deity to demonstrate his power through destruction.

Only a god could know the true motivation of another God. So are you claiming to be a god?

Quote:

dx: What has the individual had to offer in response? 1. Ignoring the texts. 2. Misquoting the texts. 3. Purposely mischaracterizing the posts and motivations of others. 4. Branding Jewish scholars "anti-semitic" because they refute his unsubstantiated claims. 5. Temper-tantrums and behavior not worthy of the unspeakable denizens that infest the nethers of lesser species.

Evidence I did ANY of these things?

Quote:

dx: Since I have seen no evidence that the individual will bring anything worthy of debate in a forum that will demand he actually know the texts and scholarship rather than make wild claims then shrink into argumentum ad hominem and libel, I, for one, see no justifiable reason to move this anywhere or continue the discussion. As I have stated above, I only deal with gentlemen, and an individual that lies about other poster's posts and smears respected scholars with the ridiculous label "anti-semitic" is no gentleman. . . . and that is all I have to say. . . . --J.D.

Wild claims? I would say that your claims are far wilder than mine. There is no real textual or archaeological evidence for any of your claims as I have demonstrated above.

Doctor X

When an individual willfully misrepresents scholarship he lies.

Fortunately those without such a biased perspective recognize this as a lie as well.

Yet the individual feels he is honest when he accuses others whose motives he admits he does not know of "demonizing" ancient Hebrews or being "anti-semitic."

The individual has failed to rebut the evidence given above. Thus does he appear to lie to himself as well.

The individual is refered to the posts above.

Now the individual willfully misrepresents scholarship and the posts above. The Documentary Hypothesis has not been "discredited," though I am sure scholarship will welcome his paper on how it has, just as astronomers "welcome" papers proving the world is flat.

However, what he hates most is that the CONTEXT of the passages rebutted him. He may try to pretend they do not say what they say; however, the Noble Readership is not inflicted with his inability to read honestly.

"Above" demonstrates otherwise, of course.

No.

the purpose of the sacrifice of the first born was not to remove sin either.

Irrelevant to the discussion as well as incorrect. The earliest recorded religions were polytheistic.

Now this is pathetic:

The individual ignored the texts concerning the Pharaoh and YHWH hardening his heart. He misquoted the Ezekiel passage. He mischaracterized the posts of others and the motivations of others in the post above. He accused OT scholars such as Richard Elliott Friedman of being an anti-semite. His temper-tantrums remain his only consistent response.

Quod erat demonstrandum. "If by his works ye may know him."

The individual then wallows in his various unsubstantiated claims contradicted by the texts as noted above.

--J.D.

Ed

Actually when you read the rest of the context, this only applies to apostasy. Apostasy is one of the most serious sins. Other sins just grieve God and his Holy Spirit, which is pretty serious of course. But there are rankings of sin in the scriptures. But apostasy is the only sin that is similar to crucifying Christ all over again because it is experiencing some of what it is like to be a Christian and then rejecting it.

Quote:

rym: By an OT person sinning, they were sentencing a dove, bullock, etc. to death by immolation, or themselves to death usually by stoning. OT sin was only defined by actions, not intent.

Generally that is true but there are some verses that point to the importance of intent and thoughts, see Job where he makes a covenant with his eyes not to lust.

Quote:

rym: NT sin is defined by not only action, but intent. But, the sin didn''t even require intent. Thinking about something sinful, without the intent to do so, was called sin by Jesus. By NT standards, we sin by turning the TV, considering the images that come across the airwaves these days. That sin doesn't put us in any danger because we are forgiven of the sin by what Jesus did already. What that sin does is put Jesus back on the cross and put him to open shame. Which would be worse according to everything you know about the Bible?

No, just thinking about sin is not sinful, because otherwise you could not even read the bible because it describes some sins. What Jesus and Paul condemned is DWELLING on sinful thoughts. See above about putting Jesus back on the cross.

Quote:

rym: NT Christians are held to the standard of putting Jesus on the cross everytime they sin. OT Hebrews are faced with Sheol, or Hades in the greek. The Preacher shows Sheol as having these attributes: Ecc 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. Sounds a little bit like nothingness, or oblivion to me. Certainly can't torture a person if they don't know about it happening.

Ecclesiates is limited to what can be observed from a strictly human point of view, ie "under the sun". Many though not all hebrews did believe in an afterlife. Read Job and Daniel and 2 Samuel 12:21-23.

Quote:

rym: The Uber Cross of Doom once again strikes back at the Christians with their own freaking book. I love my Uber Cross of Doom.

Fraid not. See above about what Hebrews 6 actually teaches. BTW, next time show some respect and not sacreligiously use Jeebus for Jesus.

Doctor X

Someone contact me when the individual decides to discuss the texts.

--J.D.

The Other Michael

The greater part of the discussion seems to be more about BC&H types of things, so I'm pushing this over to that forum.

Michael
MF&P Moderator (rockford)

Ed

That is a interesting story, but I have a hunch you are leaving some things out. You may have been harboring doubts in the back of your mind for a longer period. Also, I don't know what kind of "research" you did. Maybe you only looked at books written by unbelievers and anti-intellectual fundies. That is not very balanced research. Maybe you did not read any books by intellectual evangelical scholars and etc. A sincere search is not immoral but the conclusion could be. But no search is purely objective, your subconscious plays a role.

Quote:

dv: Further, this idea that disbelief is immoral is intricately tied to the interaction between God and Pharaoh. In general, I agree with Brighid, Doctor X, and Jack the Bodiless that from the way that I read the text, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart from the very beginning and then punished him for it. However, for the sake of argument, lets assume that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. To draw analogy with my life experiences, as I look back, from the first moment that I began questioning religion in a scholarly way I believe that it was inevitable that I now no longer believe in God. My parents raised me to see to act based on what I believe to be true, rather than what is convenient. Based on the way that I think, and my professional training (I’m an engineer) looking back, I could come to no other conclusion than that God does not exist. Does this count as me “hardening� my heart? If so, then doesn’t God, as my Creator share some of the responsibility? After all, it is primarily the way that I think, analyze concepts, and question that lead to my atheism. Assuming God’s existence, didn’t he give me those faculties? Doesn’t he share in my “immoral disbelief�?

I notice you said that you could come to no other conclusion than that GOd does not exist. That sounds like you were already leaning in that direction when you began your search. This confirms by comments above. Also hyperskepticism is not a virtue. It can cause you to have a tendency to distrust people in your personal relationships. That is probably also a problem you had with God. Someone, maybe your parents or preacher gave you the erroneous belief that God would answer ALL your questions. But this is not what God wants to do. In no relationship can you know everything about the person. Even married couples that have been married for over 50 years still learn new things about their spouse and then there are some things that are never told by either spouse.

Quote:

dv: I suppose that I’m saying that I don’t believe that we as humans have unlimited free will. There are always circumstances that prevent a completely free choice. As an example, I related that I’m an engineer. By my own free will, could I wake up today and write a Pulitzer prize winning news article? No, I really couldn’t. Even granting that Pharaoh “hardened� his own heart (which as I said earlier I believe to be un-Biblical), God, as his creator must share some of that responsibility because he created Pharaoh that way. Our decision to believe in God or not is simply not an example of totally free choice.

I have not denied that God is indirectly responsible. But he did not create Pharoah that way, he became that way thru how he was raised and his own choices. Free will does not mean you can do anything, I would like to jump off a cliff and flap my arms and soar thru the sky but that does not mean I have the ability to do so. Just as you don't have the abilty to win the Pulitzer. But we were created to make spiritual decisions such as choosing to believe in God.

Quote:

dv: Also, earlier in the thread (on page 1) referring to Pharaoh learning about the Judaic God: (Note: you corrected minority to majority later. It has no bearing on this point.) Learning this much about those that Pharaoh ruled would seem to me to be the mark of a good (or at least intelligent) leader. Even in Pharaoh doesn’t care about his subjects as people, he would at least care to secure his own position. However, this intelligent leader, who apparently knows about the Judaic God, and what he is capable suddenly becomes stubborn in the face of his position being undermined? No, that doesn’t make any sense. If Pharaoh is as you describe him above and knew about Yahweh would have let the Jews go free after the first plague. Even if Pharaoh did not worship Yahweh, it would only make practical sense.

No, just because he may have known about Yahweh, he of course did not believe that He existed or could do anything like that which occured.

Quote:

dv: Thus the plain reading of the text is the interpretation that makes the most sense and we are left with the idea that God hardens Pharaoh’s heart and then punishes him for it, which then of course he allegedly does to all of us unbelievers too as you paralleled with your more recent post.

I think my interpretation is the plain reading of the text. It plainly says that initially Pharoah hardened his own heart then later God continued to do so as punishment for that choice.

Doctor X

Most unfortunate:

for the texts "plainly" indicates otherwise:

I can only renew my recommendation that the individual actually read the texts lest he continue to make such unfortunate eroneous declarations.

--J.D.