rfwu

I found this from www.religioustolerance.com.
God permits a human sacrifice: Jephthah led the fight against the Ammonites. He promised God that if he was victorious that he would conduct an human sacrifice, ritually murdering the first person to meets him on his return to his house. God gives him the victory, and does not intervene when Jephthah ritually murders his only daughter.
Judges 11:30-39 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering...And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child...And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed..."

And they say that this is good?

keyser_soze

Generally, most apologists will say "it doesn't mean blood sacrifice, she was going to be given up as a nun" or some such B.S. answer.....Yeah right, cause god asks for people to be sent to nunneries so often in the bible, vs. just asking for someone to be killed. They'll do anything to rationalize that steaming pile of shit.

happyboy

you know, if there IS a biblical Deity, then He's exactly the way the fictional character hannibal lecter described him: the ultimate killer, the ultimate predator. being all-powerful means you can indulge in whatever sick whims you have, and no one can punish you.

the old testament is FULL of stories of God's evil, and God's desire to take life. He was a rampaging serial killer in the old testament. He cleaned up His image to a tiny degree in the new testament, but the threat of hell only shows that He's become even more diabolical, no longer being satisfied with mere murder. now He's progressed to the status of "torturer."

happyboy

Baidarka

It is interesting to note that the story of Iphigenia from the Iliad seems to parallel this story of child sacrifice. (possible literary influence?)
There is also a possibility that there was an original sacrifice of Isaac story in which Isaac was actually sacrificed. There is a tendency to censor old stories to protect modern sensibilities (the people of every time consider themselves to be modern).
When Walt Disney retold Pinocchio he removed some of the most violent and disturbing aspects.
We now see new translations of the Bible with a genderless God and a new translation of the NT which attempts to soften its anti-Semitic aspects.
If the Bible stories were told and retold, written and rewritten it is probable that we have received a modified and censored version (God’s Phallus becomes his foot) of some of these stories and that the savagery that we find in the Bible is just the little that somehow escaped the censors attention (note that when Josephus retold the Bible stories in Antiquities that he left out anything that he thought unflattering to the Jewish people).
The roughness and savagery in the Bible is not so shocking if we compare it with other ancient literature or modern action movies. The problem is that many intellectually challenged Bible readers think that they are reading God’s word and that some how every word of the Bible is literal truth. So when we are told that Lot was a good man they must believe it no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary right there in the text .
According to the flood story in Gilgamesh the Gods who saved mankind could not do without the sweet smell of our burnt offerings. In describing the first sacrifice after the flood it says that the Gods swarmed like bees around the rising smoke.
It seems that aside from the embarrassing exception of the Jephthah story
( note that Jephthah is portrayed as the bastard son of a whore) the OT and Judaism(s) tried to make child sacrifice into an anathema and a major point of departure separating them from their “savage” neighbors and their own “savage “ past.
It is interesting that the NT passion story is a revival of the child sacrifice myth and it is probable that this human sacrifice aspect of Christianity was a major problem for the Church’s attempt to convert Jews because the concept of human sacrifice had become so repugnant to Jewish sensibilities.

jmborr

And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
You do not understand this passage. This passage is the sin of Jephthah. He attempted to "buy" God's will, and in doing this he weaved his own doom. Do not look at the killing of the child as wages required by God for services to Jephthah. This sacrifice was not seen as "good" by God.

Mageth

rfwu:

He promised God that if he was victorious that he would conduct an human sacrifice, ritually murdering the first person to meets him on his return to his house.

Actually, v. 31 says "then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering." Jephthah did not specify a human sacrifice, and presumably thought maybe a goat or sheep would come out to meet him. But god wanted the girl.

Mageth

jmborr:

You do not understand this passage.

And Thou Dost, I presume...

This passage is the sin of Jephthah. He attempted to "buy" God's will, and in doing this he weaved his own doom.

Not to mention the daughter's. And Jephthah's attempt worked - God delivered the Ammonites to him, so apparently he wasn't exactly offended by the offer (otherwise, why not just have the Ammonites give him a good spanking?).

God, I presume, if capable of delivering the Ammonites into Jephthah's hand, was also capable of providing for some other payment (a prize goat, for example), to meet Jephthah on his return. But no, God had to have the daughter.

Do not look at the killing of the child as wages required by God for services to Jephthah. This sacrifice was not seen as "good" by God.

How do you know how god saw it? v. 32 says "So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hand." God kept his end of the bargain. And thus required Jephthah to keep his.

Your post is a bit of extrabiblical interpretation, designed to make god not look such a bad guy (lotsa luck), and is not arrived at from a clear reading of the passage.

jmborr

And Thou Dost, I presume...
Yes, it is pretentious, but I wanted somebody to reply.

I don't understand why you are so appalled by the specific killing of the daughter. We all are bound to die since the day we are born. You can't be more innocent that in your first day. And this is because of God's will. So why do you pick on this story ?

Your post is a bit of extrabiblical interpretation, designed to make god not look such a bad guy
It's the first time I have read this in the bible and I wrote what it made sense to ME. In the first place, I don't understand how you can dare ask God to help you kill anybody. This seems plain wrong to me and I don't find such a thing in the gospels.

Mageth

I don't understand why you are so appalled by the specific killing of the daughter.

I'm appalled by the killing of anyone, and particularly so when god requires a father to offer his own daughter as a burnt offering, for whatever reason.

We all are bound to die since the day we are born. You can't be more innocent that in your first day. And this is because of God's will. So why do you pick on this story ?

I didn't "pick on" this story, if you'll notice. It wasn't my OP. Fact is, it's in the bible, so it's fair game.

So, with the attitude you expressed here, are you Pro-choice?

It's the first time I have read this in the bible and I wrote what it made sense to ME.

And your explanation is extrabiblical, obviously. Yet you jab at the OP with "You do not understand the passage."

In the first place, I don't understand how you can dare ask God to help you kill anybody.

God doesn't seem adverse to killing, in either the old or new testament.

This seems plain wrong to me and I don't find such a thing in the gospels.

In which you'll find the most glaring example of god requiring someone to be killed.

Continuing with the NT, you have Ananias and Sapphira. Apparently, Peter didn't have to ask to have them killed; god did it gladly on his own. And then one can read Revelation, where more of god's voluntary future bloodlust is revealed.

keyser_soze

Ownage on a global scale!!!!!
:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy