Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doctor X · 02-14-2004, 06:37 PM

Dado:

It is not a question of "winning."

It is a question of advancing the understanding of the texts--their history, intentions of their authors, how they have been reinterpreted, et cetera ad nauseum.

--J.D.

Amaleq13 · 02-14-2004, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Fine, Amaleq13 is here to torment me...

Torment you? When I have done so to thee? Surely I have only cast flowers and fluffy bunnies in your general direction.

You can expect torment from me only if the Bears beat the Patriots, amigo. (not holding my breath)

Since dado apparently isn't interested in a discussion and the Doctor has turned on me like a rabid dog, I won't bother bringing up Jephthah offering his daughter as a sacrifice to God (Judges 11).

Doctor X · 02-14-2004, 06:49 PM

How canst thou pretend to innocence whilst bringing forth from the Stygian depths that is the psyche the wretched History of the Bears versus the Patriots where the Patriots came expecting to play golf and had done upon their posteriors by the Bears what various Greek philosophers did upon their young boys?!!!

You hypocrite lectuer!!

Oh angst! Oh injur'd merit!

Anyways, whilst I pause in the glow of pathos--Mr. DeMile? I am ready for my close-up!--the Jepthah case is a perfect example. There is also the wonderful one where a Canaanite king sacrifices his son on the battlements and HIS god squishes the Israelites. YHWH was, apparently, busy at the time. . . .

Collins' article is well worth the read. He also discusses the concept of--Spin wilt no doubt pounce on my spelling!--the "heren" or "ban"--the sacrifice of prisoners to a god preserved in the OT.

Wonderful stuff . . . fits well on a poster with pictures of flowers and bunnies and stuff.

--J.D.

GakuseiDon · 02-14-2004, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Actually it is not a myth.

"Fundamentalism" results from a number of "fundamentals"--methinks it was 12--that were "accepted" by a meeting somewhere in the 1910-1920s. I am going off of my [Diseased.--Ed.] memory. One of the "fundamentals" was that the Bible is inerrant, "every word true," period, end of discussion. Marduk is correct in that description. It rose as a response to hermeneutics and other practices.

That's true, modern fundamentalism arose as a response to textual criticism and the influence of Darwinism, but it is a myth that "before the 1700's, everyone took every word of the Bible as literal truth."

From Thomas Paine, writing around 1790:
http://www.infidels.org/library/hist..._llandaff.html

Quote:

Augustine, one of the early champions of the christian church, acknowledges in his 'City of God' that the adventure of Eve and the serpent, and the account of Paradise, were generally considered as fiction or allegory. He regards them as allegory himself, without attempting to give any explanation, but he supposes that a better explanation might be found than those that had been offered.

Origen, another early champion of the church, says, "What man of good sense can ever persuade himself that there were a first, a second, and a third day, and that each of these days had a night when there were yet neither sun, moon, nor stars? What man can be stupid enough to believe that God, acting the part of a gardener, had planted a garden in the east, that the tree of life was a real tree, and that its fruit had the virtue of making those who eat of it live forever?"

Maimonides, one of the most learned and celebrated of the Jewish Robbins, who lived in the eleventh century (about seven or eight hundred years ago) and to whom the bishop refers in his answer to me, is very explicit in his book entitled 'Moreh Nebuchim,' upon the non-reality of the things stated in the account of the Creation in the book of Genesis.

"We ought not (says he) to understand, nor take according to the letter, that which is written in the book of the creation, nor to have the same ideas of it which common men have; otherwise our ancient sages would not have recommended with so much care to conceal the sense of it, and not to raise the allegorical veil which envelopes the truths it contains. The book of Genesis, taken according to the letter, gives the most absurd and the most extravagant ideas of the divinity. Whoever shall find out the sense of it, ought to restrain himself from divulging it. It is a maxim which all our sages repeat, and above all with respect to the work of six days. It may happen that some one, with the aid he may borrow from others, may hit upon the meaning of it. In that case he ought to impose silence upon himself; or if he speak of it, he ought to speak obscurely, and in an enigmatical manner, as I do myself, leaving the rest to be found out by those who can understand me."

This is, certainly, a very extraordinary declaration of Mairnonides taking all the parts of it. First, be declares, that the account of the Creation in the book of Genesis is not a fact, and that to believe it to be a fact gives the most absurd and the most extravagant ideas of the divinity. Secondly, that it is an allegory. Thirdly, that the allegory has a concealed secret. Fourthly, that whoever can find the secret ought not to tell it.

dado · 02-14-2004, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Dado:
It is a question of advancing the understanding of the texts

no, it is about being more interested in spending a saturday night playing/learning with my toddler daughter than in discussing my "cult" on the internet.

ciao.

spin · 02-14-2004, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
the "redeeming" is a later version--it provides an "out" which, incidentally, is continued today--according to Levenson methinks--as a payment given to the Rabbi.

I wasn't complaining.

I just added Ex 34:19-20 because it is the only other place where one finds the exact phrase, "your firstborn sons". It is obviously related and further elaborated, as you also point out ("a later version").

Oh, and give dado his sabbath.

spin

GakuseiDon · 02-14-2004, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Anyways, according to Collins and--to my memory Levenson [Death of the Beloved Son--Ed.], who is used as a reference by Collins--the "reedeming" is a later version--it provides an "out" which, incidentally, is continued today--according to Levenson methinks--as a payment given to the Rabbi.

Not that I am disagreeing with you - well, I guess I am! - but the "out" is actually in Ex 13:2, before the "child sacrifice" comment in Ex 22:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-b...Go.x=25&Go.y=9

Quote:

Ex 13:1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine."...

Ex 13:11 "And it shall be, when the Lord brings you into the land of the Canaanites, as He swore to you and your fathers, and gives it to you, 12 that you shall set apart to the Lord all that open the womb, that is, every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have; the males shall be the Lord's. 13 But every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. And all the firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem. 14 So it shall be, when your son asks you in time to come, saying, 'What is this?' that you shall say to him, 'By strength of hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all males that open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.'

Certainly this could be a symbolic sacrifice, but does it show that there ever was actual child sacrifice?

In Numbers, it explains it more clearly:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-b...o.x=20&Go.y=16

Quote:

Num 3:40 Then the Lord said to Moses: "Number all the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and above, and take the number of their names. 41 And you shall take the Levites for Me--I am the Lord--instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the livestock of the children of Israel." 42 So Moses numbered all the firstborn among the children of Israel, as the Lord commanded him. 43 And all the firstborn males, according to the number of names from a month old and above, of those who were numbered of them, were twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three.
44 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 45 "Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites instead of their livestock. The Levites shall be Mine: I am the Lord. 46 And for the redemption of the two hundred and seventy-three of the firstborn of the children of Israel, who are more than the number of the Levites, 47 you shall take five shekels for each one individually; you shall take them in the currency of the shekel of the sanctuary, the shekel of twenty gerahs. 48 And you shall give the money, with which the excess number of them is redeemed, to Aaron and his sons."

How does Collins explain that the firstborn go from being human sacrifices, to them working (presumably) in the temple? I can't see why we need to assume that there was child sacrifice in the first place. God saying "they are mine" indicates ownership, not that they are intended for sacrifice.

dado · 02-14-2004, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
I won't bother bringing up Jephthah offering his daughter as a sacrifice to God (Judges 11).

lol. you guys/gals. Jephthah's story is a parable on the dangers of breaking Aseret ha-Dibrot. if anything it's evidence of just how vile child sacrifice was considered: the raconteur of the fable had freedom to incorporate any punishment he liked - and he chose that one to make the story all that much more horrifying.

Quote:

Oh, and give dado his sabbath.

it's not his to give. it's mine to take.

spin · 02-14-2004, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin
Oh, and give dado his sabbath.

Posted by dado
it's not his to give. it's mine to take. [/B]

Look, you, get back to your daughter. Or else.

spin

SharpCircle · 02-14-2004, 08:14 PM

I love this forum

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

02-14-2004, 06:37 PM	#31
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Dado: It is not a question of "winning." It is a question of advancing the understanding of the texts--their history, intentions of their authors, how they have been reinterpreted, et cetera ad nauseum. --J.D.

02-14-2004, 06:49 PM	#33
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	How canst thou pretend to innocence whilst bringing forth from the Stygian depths that is the psyche the wretched History of the Bears versus the Patriots where the Patriots came expecting to play golf and had done upon their posteriors by the Bears what various Greek philosophers did upon their young boys?!!! You hypocrite lectuer!! Oh angst! Oh injur'd merit! Anyways, whilst I pause in the glow of pathos--Mr. DeMile? I am ready for my close-up!--the Jepthah case is a perfect example. There is also the wonderful one where a Canaanite king sacrifices his son on the battlements and HIS god squishes the Israelites. YHWH was, apparently, busy at the time. . . . Collins' article is well worth the read. He also discusses the concept of--Spin wilt no doubt pounce on my spelling!--the "heren" or "ban"--the sacrifice of prisoners to a god preserved in the OT. Wonderful stuff . . . fits well on a poster with pictures of flowers and bunnies and stuff. --J.D.

02-14-2004, 08:14 PM	#40
SharpCircle Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Dudley, England Posts: 27	I love this forum

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.