FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Elsewhere > ~Elsewhere~
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-29-2004, 09:20 PM   #161
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X
blt to go:

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.

dx: However, the demands for the sacrifice of the first-born is in the "Mosaic Law." See above.
Fraid not, first born tithe for humans was always redeemed. Contrary to the flawed DH.

Quote:
dx: I did not mention this passage just for length. As scholars such as Levenson have observed, it is not just that she is sacrificed, but that the god would ACCEPT the sacrifice.
No, all the bible does is report the incident it DOES NOT say that God accepted the sacrifice.

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?


dx: It is a story. It is a bit like Agamemon and Iphegenia. Jepthtah makes a bold promise and the consequences prove more than he expected. Compare to the sacrifice of Mesha's son--and heir--to his god to destroy the Israelites.

The problem is that the OT is not history. There are texts that reflect history--try even to remake it--but the events, such as this, are legendary.
Evidence it is not history? Actually biblical accounts are very different in literary style from the style of myths.

Quote:
dx: The big question for scholars is how extensive was human sacrifice? Also how "recent" was it? The E writer repeats the demand for sacrifice of the first born; however, he does not portray sacrifices save for Isaac--who, it can be argued actually does "get it" because he completely disappears from E's narrative!
Evidence for the existence of the E writer?

Quote:
dx: The addition of a "redemption" later in the P text, Jeremiah's "protesting too much," and finally the Ezekiel passage indicate that it was a practice that became supressed or at least condemned. Jeremiah tries to make something "the other guys" did. Ezekiel tries to explain--not unlike a NT apologist!--that that was an "old law" YHWH devised to scare people! The fact that Ezekiel has YHWH admit he required the "passage through fire" indicates the practice once existed.
No, see my earlier post about the Ezekiel passage how you took it out of context.

Quote:
dx: Who knows? Part of the internal debate of the texts is the move from worship of gods--including YHWH--outside of a central area--"high places." Hence the prohibitions of worship, sacrifice in any place other than the central area or by the Aaronid derived priests. Did centralization result in repression of the practice? Or, like that attacks on "high places" and Asherah, was it something that happened until the time of the text writing?

I do not know.

--J.D.
Unfortunately you know very little about understanding the scriptures in context also.
Ed is offline  
Old 03-29-2004, 09:39 PM   #162
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed
Actually biblical accounts are very different in literary style from the style of myths.
Now that's a claim I haven't seen before. I would be interested to see you provide some examples, and an explanation why the examples you provide differ in literary style from the myths in the Bible, bearing in mind of course, the differences in culture. Some scholarly references would be of interest also.
Jeremy Pallant is offline  
Old 03-30-2004, 01:50 AM   #163
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

Ed:
Quote:
dx: However, the demands for the sacrifice of the first-born is in the "Mosaic Law." See above.

Fraid not, first born tithe for humans was always redeemed. Contrary to the flawed DH.
Of course, the Bible says exactly the opposite.

Leviticus 27:28-29: "Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death".

You couldn't BE more wrong.
Quote:
dx: I did not mention this passage just for length. As scholars such as Levenson have observed, it is not just that she is sacrificed, but that the god would ACCEPT the sacrifice.

No, all the bible does is report the incident it DOES NOT say that God accepted the sacrifice.
Where does it say that God intervened to prevent it?

It does not. Therefore God accepted it.
Quote:
Evidence it is not history? Actually biblical accounts are very different in literary style from the style of myths.
Ah, yes, the old "literary style" argument.

...Usually trotted out by non-creationist Christians: both the six-day creation and the Noah's Flood story were "clearly allegorical" because of the "literary style" used.

Followed by more babble about "context" which is not worthy of a response.
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 03-30-2004, 01:57 AM   #164
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2,875
Default

Perhaps a moderator could split the literary style topic to a separate thread where Ed can respond specifically? I'd like to know how much familiarity he has with Ugaritic texts before he reached his conclusion.

Joel
Celsus is offline  
Old 03-30-2004, 06:15 AM   #165
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

I agree. I'd like to see Ed make some actual arguments for his claims rather than asserting them as if they were self-evident truth.

Talking animals are a characteristic of fairy tales, therefore the second Genesis creation story has a characteristic of fairy tales.
lpetrich is offline  
Old 03-30-2004, 01:11 PM   #166
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: michigan
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
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.
Finally, the statement that should effectively close this line of the thread and return us to the hardened heart pharaoh.

No question this is should be the number one argument regarding human sacrifice. While NOGO simply makes reference to Hebrew 9, let me blatantly point it out:

“It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience-concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

“But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb. 9:9-14)

The demonstration of Christ as the ultimate sacrifice actually works against the claim that Mosaic law demanded Jewish children for sacrifice. A review of Leviticus chapters 1 – 6 give very specific instructions regarding sacrifice. Most importantly the sacrifice must be male, and “without blemish.� (Note, the claim that the “first-born� was sacrificed would not necessarily meet these two requirements) These sacrifices were a symbol or demonstration of what Christ was going to do. (Hebrews 10) To sacrifice a human under Mosaic Law would have made Christ’s merely “ho-hum� another human sacrifice.

Simply put, the animals sacrificed would lead up to the “ultimate� sacrifice of a human.

HOWEVER, as pointed out, the underlying problem—God demanding human sacrifice, not only remains, but is accentuated!! In fact, it is unarguable!

If God’s Plan (Plan A) was that Adam/Eve would not sin, but live happily ever after, then as soon as they did, He knew that the ONLY way to rectify the situation was the human sacrifice of Jesus (Plan B)

OR, if God knew that Adam/Eve would blow it, Plan A was ALWAYS to have Jesus be a human sacrifice.

As NOGO points out, while we may debate the Mosaic Law issue, the underlying statement, “God demands human sacrifice,� by Jesus alone, becomes unassailable.

So (I would claim) at that point the debate on Mosaic Law, while interesting, at its base level becomes “to-may-to� “toe-ma-to.�
blt to go is offline  
Old 03-30-2004, 09:31 PM   #167
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brighid
How is it that you come to conclusion?

This man forcibly took a woman who did not consent to be his wife as a war booty, he then "allowed her" (oh so gracious a host) to mourn the loss of her family and the he made her his wife by raping her. I doubt a woman who has been taken from her family (that he and his brothers have just murdered), then shaved her head, clipped her fingernails, and spent the last month mourning for her mutilated family members would be all that "willing" to have sex with this man, much less become his WIFE!! Sorry bud, but that IS rape, emotionally and physically.
Having sex is not how one became a wife to a hebrew, they had simple ceremonies. While sex is a part of being a wife it is more than that.
Also read Deut. 21:14 in the NASB:

"It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. "
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

God says that he should not mistreat her, this plainly includes rape. The humbling refers to the killing of her family. There is no rape, try again.

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. IOW having a husband in ancient times was the main source of security for women. So they did not have the option to be as choosy as a 21st century western woman that lives in a society with a decent police force.


Quote:
brig: See women aren't possessions and therefore can't be "taken" to be the "wife" of a man simply because he finds her physically attractive. And if women are nothing more than possessions to be owned and stolen from other men, and this is the way your God wants or wanted it ... this is just another reason to think your God is nothing but an evil bastard completely unworthy of worship. He is worthy of my moral outrage and ire, but my worship - never.
No, the scriptures plainly teach that women are created in the image of God just as men are. And are to be treated with all the respect that entails. Also, only if God exists is there any real reason to treat women with respect and tenderness. If there is no God then evolution tells men they are stronger than women and therefore have the right to treat them anyway they want as long as they can get away with it. There is no objectively rational reason to treat women with respect.

Quote:
birg: The only thing I have wasted is my valuable time attempting to have a discussion with an individual who is clearly unwilling to objectively and accurately evaluate the plain language of the Bible, and therefore accepts the moral attrocities of the Bible and excuses His God much the same way Holocaust deniers defend Hitler and the genocide of the Jews.
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.

Quote:
brig: I will allow those who have much greater patience continue to disect your lack of reasoning and evidence, and cast it into the light where your arguments will fester like the infected bits of flesh that your sickening line of thought truly is.

Brighid
Ouch! Actually I have enjoyed our interaction and am sorry to see you go. BTW how do you determine whether something is sickening or not?
Ed is offline  
Old 03-30-2004, 11:29 PM   #168
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,373
Default

Quote:
No, all the bible does is report the incident it DOES NOT say that God accepted the sacrifice.
This is very cute Ed. However, God did not intervene or say don't do that after the first one since MANY sacrifices took place. To me, you're just embarassing yourself with this remark.
Drew J is offline  
Old 03-31-2004, 01:08 AM   #169
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

Quote:
"It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. "
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

God says that he should not mistreat her, this plainly includes rape. The humbling refers to the killing of her family. There is no rape, try again.
Rape wasn't mistreatment. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a man cannot rape his wife. Nowhere in the Bible is a woman's consent considered relevant, except when determining whether a married woman is guilty of adultery by cooperating with her rapist.

You cannot apply modern moral codes to the ancient Hebrews. Try again.
Quote:
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. IOW having a husband in ancient times was the main source of security for women. So they did not have the option to be as choosy as a 21st century western woman that lives in a society with a decent police force.
Why should she CARE about being "an obvious target for rape or involuntary prostitution"? The alternative, being forced to marry the murderer of her friends and relatives, is MUCH WORSE than either of these things!

YOU need to learn more about WOMEN, Ed. Before you get yourself into deep, deep trouble.
Quote:
No, the scriptures plainly teach that women are created in the image of God just as men are. And are to be treated with all the respect that entails.
Nope.

Insults to Women in the Bible
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 03-31-2004, 01:08 AM   #170
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed
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.
Eviednce presented: {}

Quote:
No, the scriptures plainly teach that women are created in the image of God just as men are.
In the likeness of a male being???

Also, we are supposedly evil sinners -- is Mr. G. capable of committing sins?

Traditional Xtian doctrine often resembles Bipolar Disorder, and apologists like Ed find this split convenient. They can quote whichever polarity is convenient, and play dumb about the other polarity.

Quote:
And are to be treated with all the respect that entails. Also, only if God exists is there any real reason to treat women with respect and tenderness.
Actually, one can easily deduce the opposite from the Bible.

And there are plenty of non-theological ethical theories that Ed seems unaware of.

And the divine-command theory does not really tell us anything, as Plato recognized long ago in Euthyphro.

Quote:
If there is no God then evolution tells men they are stronger than women and therefore have the right to treat them anyway they want as long as they can get away with it.
Excrement of the male bovine. "Evolution" is not a god. It does not command "Might Makes Right".

And I wonder if Ed is simply projecting his manner of ethical reasoning on evolutionary biology.

Quote:
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.
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.

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."
lpetrich is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:53 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.