LP675

It appears I owe you an apology. I’m sorry for my abrasive tone.
If you can’t grasp why this is relevant I will have to give up at this point. Too much :banghead: for me.

LP

Amaleq13

I appreciate the apology but it isn't necessary. Avoiding it in the future will only be to your benefit.

ten to the eleventh

Woo hoo! I made it all the way to the end! Here's my take, and I hope LP hasn't left the building, as he seems to be the sole remaining opposition:

Judges 11-29 : Then the spirit of the Lord came upon J., who passed thru etc. to the Ammonites. J. made this vow to the Lord: "If you etc.

32: So J. crossed over to attack the Ammonites, and the Lord delivered them unto his hands.

34: When J. arrived home in Mizpah, it was his daughter etc.

39...she died a virgin.

I think the point here is to demonstrate whether or not God acted immorally / unethically. To me, these are the relevant questions:

1) Was there an established pattern of two-way communication,and contract-making, between the people and leaders of Israel and God at the time of the story? This question matters because all we have in the story is that J. "made this vow to the Lord," and that he made this vow in the context of the spirit of the Lord coming upon him. It is reasonable to assume that God heard the vow (which I will take here as the equivalent of offering to make a contract with God). It may be reasonable to assume that because the spirit of the Lord "was upon him" at the time he made the vow, that J. and God were in a two-way exchange.

However, we do not know if God actually responded "Yes, J., I accept the conditions of this contract." What I'm sure all parties in this discussion will agree to, however, is that God knew that J. believed that this contract was accepted. We can at least be reasonably certain that God did not respond in the negative, telling J. that he would not accept the bargain offered. If we answer question 1) in the affirmative, then we must accept that J. was reasonable in concluding that his offer had been accepted. Most importantly, if God was, at the time, in the habit of corresponding with the leaders of Israel, and failed to decline J.'s vow in a matter comprehensible to J., then we must conclude that God at least tacitly accepted the contract.

2) Did God know that the first creature to greet J. upon his return would be his daughter? Yes, by most understandings of God, He did.

Therefore, especially in light of the absence of recriminations or even condemnations of J.'s actions by God or his representatives, I think it is reasonable to assume that God approved of the killing of J.'s daughter.

Edit: I should add, that in contrast to LP's condemnation of J. for his act of human sacrifice, there is not only no criticism of J. within the bible, but rather there is praise for him as a "man of great faith" in Hebrews. I do not understand LP's condemnation of J., when there is only praise to be found for him in the Bible.

Let's make a comparison for clarity:

I own a house that I have rented out to many people over the years. I have had a signed lease with every tenant, and I have maintained two-way communication with each of them. When something in the house breaks, they call me, and I have it repaired. When they are late on their rent, I charge them a fee.

Now, part of the deal I have with my tenants is that I will maintain the yard, lest the property become weed-infested. A tenant calls me, and promises that should I mow the grass this Saturday, he will shoot whatever animal is in his house at the time and grill it for me to eat. I hear him make this statement, and I don't respond, but simply hang up. I know that he has a dog in his house at all times. I know that, barring any further communication on my part, I will be offered barbecued dog after I mow the grass Saturday. Saturday morning, I mow the grass. I see my tenant pick up his gun and start looking for his dog. I watch him aim and fire. The dog dies, and is cooked up for me. Am I at least partially responsible for the death of the dog? I would think so.

Problem is, I love dogs. I work in dog rescue and hate to see dogs mistreated. My tenant should know that I don't want to see a dog killed. Why in the world wouldn't he have turned to me and asked, "Do you really want me to kill my dog? Can I back out of my promise?" How does what has transpired make any sense? No one would have been surprised if I had said, "Hey buddy, I was going to mow the grass anyway, please don't shoot your dog." As a matter of fact, people I know would have thought that I was crazy for not saying anything, but proceeded to mow the grass with full knowledge of the consequences.

This debate seems pretty easily resolved to me. If LP can show me material problems with my reasoning and analogy, I would like to see them.

ten to the eleventh

Now THIS is interesting. From the Tektonics site (a huge and very well-known Christian apologetics site) we have the following:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_02_04.html

"Here are our key questions for this passage:

1)Did the "spirit of the Lord" inspire Jephthah's vow?
2)Did Jephthah make the vow knowing a human might be involved?
3)Did Jephthah actually sacrifice his daughter?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we have a very disturbing story indeed, one that suggests that God endorsed a human sacrifice -- implicity if not explicitly. Let's examine some particulars."

My answers:
1) Unknown.
2) I would say he probably didn't have his daughter in mind, or at least considered it unlikely that she would be the candidate. One thing must be admitted, though: GOD knew.
3) I don't see how it could be honestly argued otherwise. LP and everyone else here seems to be taking for granted that she was indeed killed.

So, on this point, a major Christian apologetics group and I totally agree: If the daughter was killed, then we do "have a very disturbing story indeed."

LP675

I think I can. I will need another few (maybe 4) days till I have a chance to do it though. Sorry for the delay.

LP

ten to the eleventh

LP675, when you give your response, would you please comment on the tektonics excerpt I quoted as well? It seems they agree with my conclusion, but not with the premise that the daughter was killed. I'm sure they are just as, if not more eager, than you to acquit God (so to speak) of any immoral behavior. Why do you think they took the very difficult, if not impossible, route of arguing that the daughter was not killed? Here's the excerpt again:

LP675

Sorry, I will try to do it tonight. (My internet went down over the weekend).

LP675

I just wish the author had bothered to explain why. He never does. I suspect he simply says it because he thinks he has found some cunning way around the problem, and hasn’t really put to much thought into these statements. I think his arguments to the effect 'Jephthah's daughter wasn’t killed' were pretty fanciful (I am sure you will agree). And this introduction is just as weak in my view, he hasn’t explained why it would suggest 'God implicitly endorsed human sacrifice'.

The point 1) I thought he dealt with ok, and I think I made roughly the same point in my response to SkepticalIdealist:
Now regarding your satement here:
I answered this one when SkepticalIdealist said:

And I replied:
You said

I am not sure why this is so. According to your reasoning if there was ‘an established pattern of two-way communication, and contract-making’ whereby apparently upon any utterance made by any Israelite leader God was duty bound to audibly respond, why would Jephthah not have wondered at God not responding? Shouldn’t he have waited until God said “Yes, ok we have a deal�?

I don’t think you are being realistic in asserting that God has to audibly answer in the affirmative or negative every time an Israelite leader makes a vow, asks a question, or utters a statement. He has made people aware of his desires in various ways including in the scriptures, and if Jephthah had obeyed God’s commands there would not have been a problem.

ten to the eleventh

LP675, thanks for responding.

Yes, I would agree. It seems a heck of a reach.

I see that I wasn't considering the idea that God had somehow inspired Japtheth to make that particular vow, which I should have been, as I see some see the story that way. That is not my reading. Biblical scholars do consider the story to indicate that J. did indeed make the vow while possessed of the spirit, however. I conservatively draw from the statement only that the spirit of the Lord was upon Him, that J. and God were in fact communicating. However, as I explained in my analogy,and will again, I don't think God had to audibly respond to the vow to implicate Himself morally.

As far as J. being "a great man of faith," I think the more important idea is not necessarily that he was so great, but that there is no condemnation (such as yours) of him to be found, as we would expect. I suggest this to say that the author of Judges did not perceive any crime on J.'s part. Typically, condemnations of bible characters are explicit, and nowhere is J. condemned for the "immoral act" of killing his daughter.

These are all lesser points, however. My main point, I don't think you addressed well. In my analogy, was my landlord character at least partially responsible for the death of the innocent dog? Is my analogy fair?

By suggesting that such communication was quite common, particularly in a biblical context, I was suggesting that God had indeed at least heard J.'s vow, and that J. was reasonable to assume that He had. Clearly, the text that "the spirit of the Lord came upon J." indicates that J. (certainly at least in that immediate context) heard J.'s vow. His lack of reply, and further his action of behalf of J. in the battle would, to any fair mind, indicate His tacit acceptance.

Traditional understandings of "God" hold that it would be impossible for God not to hear the vow. The "spirit coming upon" simply serves only to emphasize the importance, and fact of, J.'s communication with God.

Try to understand. I don't believe in God. I don't believe that this story occurred. What I do believe is that the story was written as an etiology for a tradition (that of mourning the daughter) based on a long-existing legendary anecdote. The story has, a bit too pointedly, the extremely popular theme of tragic irony. Think of all the Twilight Zone episodes with the same theme. It is, too me, and to many biblical scholars, a popular folktale, the kind of fable that is good for telling around campfires, with the moral being that one should be careful what kind of vows one makes with God.

The story does not in any way attempt to judge the culpability of God. God is simply a character with well-known characteristics used to make the story happen, like a genie is in SO many other stories. God is just the genie in this story, and the focus is not on the genie, but on the main character's (J.) foolish bargain and subsequent ironic tragedy.

I think you view the story through the eyes of a modern apologist, seeking to make the bible morally perfect, but failing to recognize that "God" was not the same entity to the writers of the story then as he is to you and most modern Christians now. God's culpability in this story is simply not an issue. God was a character with no moral responsibility, He was an absolute and unquestionable authority. There was no question then as to whether God acted rightly or wrongly. He just did what he wanted, and he was to be feared and obey.

My point with this argument is that it does not do to try to apply our modern sense of ethics to justify the action, or, in this case, inaction, of God. My analogy fairly demonstrates that if we apply our modern perspective, God is guilty of an immoral, unloving act, and therefore, not perfect. If one insists that the bible, and it's various depictions of God, are to be taken at face value, and simultaneously insists that God acts perfectly according to our modern ethical sense, one must try very hard to ignore the obvious. In the Tektonics argument, they ignore the plain fact that J.'s daughter was killed, and in your argument, you ignore the necessary conclusion (by any traditional understanding of God) that God was just as, if not more, responsible for the death of J.'s daughter as J.

What you and other apologists seem to forget is that, to the author of Judges, God's moral responsibility was not an issue, and he wrote the story without considering it. It is in retrospective analysis, where we assume God MUST have behaved ethically that we must go to great lengths to argue for God's innocence.

Again, thank you for your response, and I hope that you will respond again.

ten to the eleventh

ten to the eleventh

Back to viewing this story from the perspective of modern apologist and critic:

Even if I agree that J. should have waited, God is not to be held blameless, however, for the same reasons that the landlord in my analogy is not. In this crime of murder, there are two guilty parties, and it is not the point that J. is more guilty, but that God shares some of the guilt. That the "spirit was upon him" would necessarily indicate that God was capable of and interested in communicating with J. Therefore, we must conclude that God, knowing that J. had made the vow, consciously opted to not respond. My point here is that that J. was guilty does not absolve God. It is not necessary that there be only one guilty party. Please respond to this.

I don't assert that. I simply assert the plain fact that given the perspective of the modern Christian, and the context of the story, God was capable of such communication, and that it would not have been terribly unusual or disruptive for God to have communicated. My assertion is especially justified because God is shown to have been in immediately prior communication with J. Would you deny that God heard the vow? Would you deny that God was capable of responding? Would you deny that it would have been nothing terribly out of the ordinary, given the context, for God to have responded?


Again, that J. disobeyed (if we accept that, which I don't think is necessary) alone does in no way absolve God. The contrary seems to be your implied argument. If that is your argument, please show me more clearly why it is correct.

The singular, overwhelming theme throughout the bible, and certainly to the point of the J. story is obedience. Israel's history, as written in the bible, to the point of the story had been a cyclic pattern of falling away from and returning to God's favor. With each falling away, when the people or leaders disobeyed, tragedy struck. Only through obedience could they gain favor and prosperity. J. had made a vow to the Lord. He was utterly bound to abide by it, barring some interference by God. To break the vow would have meant destruction. Where in the bible, especially to the point of the story, do we not have disobedience followed by destruction?

Did J. in some way disobey? I propose there could be seen, by the apologist, two instances. One, wherein he made the vow, and two wherein he fulfilled it. If the vow in itself constituted disobedience on the part of J., then we could see the punishment as being the loss of his daughter. But, God need not have seen J.'s daughter killed in order to punish J., and we could hardly argue that such a punishment was moral.

If the disobedience was his child-sacrifice, we see no punishment or even condemnation for it, as we would expect. This is because the greater disobedience would have been to violate the vow to God, and killing his daughter was the only option with which J. was left.

Again, you condemn J., but the bible does not. We are only left to pity him for his ironic tragedy.

To emphasize again: I do not think the story depicts J. as disobeying, and I think it is a real stretch to suggest that it does. But, even if we accept that fact, God is not absolved of responsibility for the death of J.'s daughter. How is it, then, that God is in no sense morally culpable?

ten to the eleventh