moonwatcher

So genocide is fine.....so long as you only commit it against the wicked?

Because they were wicked and slaughtered their own infants to their gods its OK to slaughter them, INCLUDING THEIR INFANTS, down to the last one?

A strange logic.

Christians like to claim atheism leads to moral relativism. Yet I so frequently hear christians defending genocide and the slaughter of infants. Strangely enough, despite the so-called lack of basis for morality in atheism I never hear atheists defending such things. Just the opposite.

JEST2ASK

Several somewhat related questions ....

Who according to the bible survived the great flood ...
How were false god's and false worship introduced , please site scriptural references ...

Do you think that the colonization of the " New World" was divine judgement against the wicked people's of those lands ???

Roller

Perhaps its worth noting that some scholars consider the possiblity that Abraham really sacrificed Isaac in the "original" story.

I'm not sure how to interpret this, but the story ends by saying: "Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba."

This seems like "Two men enter, one man leaves". Notice that its said "Abraham returned", not "Abraham and Isaac returned" or "they returned". Perhaps this is a remnant from that "original" story?

Or, perhaps, this is some ancient literary convention (something like those "we" passages in Acts).

Magdlyn

Leviticus and Exodus contradict each other.

RSV:

But:

"Redeem." Which seems to mean, sacrifice an animal when your first son is born. Obviously different Hebrews had a problem with this issue.

" anything which a man sets apart to the LORD out of all that he has, of man or animal or of the fields of his own property, shall not be sold or redeemed."

This does not really seem to indicate a family member. I am sure the "Oral Torah" has a lot to say on the fudging of this difficulty.

Magdlyn

Once again, the correct translation, "passed through fire" does not indicate slaughter or sacrifice, contrary to "The Message." :rolleyes Passing through seems to indicate coming out the other side, hm?

Ha! Good point.

triffidfood

Yes but, in a religious context, "the other side" could mean anything, couldn't it? Hades, paradise, some xxth heaven type holding station somewhere inbetween ... etc.

Otherwise, what do you feel the phrase *does* mean then? (I'm guessing, "fire" as some sort of symbolism for something, unkess 'singeing people a bit' was some sort of obscure biblical punishment I missed!? )

[Sorry, I'm tired ... you addressed that in your first post Magdlyn ... although I'm not sure about passing between fires/ passing over fire as an alternative, doesn't the text actually say "passing through fire [sing]"?]

yalla

I read recently that ''passing through fire etc'' was construed as child sacrifice until fairly recently.
This view was then 'revised' and considered to refer to an initiation ritual and not sacrifice.
Then this view in turn was revised in the light of the discovery of 1000s of urns containing the remains of juveniles and, separately I presume, animals.
The child sacrifice view is back in favour.
All the above relates to Phoenician and Carthaginian religion.
Just reporting, I have no idea myself.

Magdlyn

The Hebrews did not have a concept of an afterlife until contact with the Persians and Zoroastrianism, when Persia overtook Babylon in the 6th century CE. And it was still rudimentary when the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century.

I am not saying there is no evidence there was ever child sacrifice in the Levant or northern Africa. However, the references to to it in the Hebrew Bible are so obscure and vague, there is no way to draw a conclusion simply from them. Life was hard back then and kids probably often died before age 5, just as they do in many nations today. It woud be counter-intuitive to have people killing their own kids left and right. Maybe it was done now and then in desparation, to "appease" the gods.

(But as far as fire being used as a symbolic purification, well, even John the Baptist said the one coming after him would baptize with fire, didn't he?)

The letters "MLK" which appear in the Hebrew Bible may not even refer to a god at all. MLK does mean king, but may also have other meanings, such a immolation.

However, warring factions often accuse each other of child sacrifices, orgies and other questionable practices, to this day.

The Wikipedia article on Moloch is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

I'd say the jury is still out.

Chili

Why don't we just let the talking snake be the judge?

JEST2ASK

:notworthy: :rolling:

I think this is the first time I have seen you make a straight foward joke ....
very good ...