-DM-

davidh:

It seems to me that the extensive use of ad hoc "explanations" such as you, other believers, and various apologists offer for a book which was allegedly inspired by a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient "God" should be completely unnecessary. It seems to me that a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient "God" could have, should have, and would have done a much better job of it had "He" anything to do with the writing of a book.

The fact that such explanations from "his" followers and apologists is necessary seems to me to indicate that the Bible is NOT "The Word of God," that it could NOT possibly have been inspired by any such perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient "God." And while it is OK with me for you and others to disagree, something that you should keep in mind is that it is this very sort of thing, namely the ridiculous (to me) need for apologists to continually explain and soft-peddle the embarrassing parts of the Bible, the ridiculous ad hoc argumentation, which lead to my eventual rejection of Christianity as false and not worthy of my belief.

--Don--

Mojaz

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by davidH:
...Nowhere in the Bible did god ever say that human sacrifices were to be made to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EK 20:26 [Young's Literal Translation]
And I defile them by their own gifts,
by causing to pass away every opener of a womb,
So that I make them desolate,
So that they know that I am Jehovah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You just proved davidH correct.

Congratulations.

Now if you're able to comprehend the English language in its written form, you'll understand that nowhere in EK 20:26 does it advocate human sacrifice amongst humans for any reason. God abhors such a thing. Although many atheists and pagans have enjoyed such things historically.

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Mojaz ]</p>

Mojaz

The OT is the Jewish Torah.

-DM-

As the KJV puts it: " 25Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; 26And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.

If you were able to comprehend the English language in its written form and if you also understood the most basic reasoning errors, you would know that:
1) If I provide a verse which does not specifically refute what davidh has said, that does not prove him right. To think as you do that it does is one of the most basic reasoning errors.
2.) Whether I provide a verse which disputes what davidh says or not, it is nevertheless always dangerous to say what isn't, what doesn't exist. That is also one of the most basic principles of argumentation. (It would be much better, for example, to say: "I know of no such verse, do you?")
3.) This verse implies that "God" allowed the people in question to defile themselves by sacrificing their firstborn, and that he did so for the purpose that they might know that he is Lord. Had he NOT allowed them to do so, "He" would not have had the opportunity to pollute them in their own gifts, to make them desolate, and "His" purpose that they would know that "He" is "Lord" have been thwarted.
4.) Worse, 25 says that "He" purposefully gave them statutes that were NOT good, all presumably for that purpose, knowing full well in "His" alleged omniscience, of course, that they would sacrifice their firstborn.

He may just as well have ordered them to do so inasmuch as it seemed to these people that doing so would appease "God" and inasmuch as "He" did nothing to rectify the situation. THAT is the significance.

Further, as some commentaries correctly point out, EX 22.29 does, in fact. mean what it seems to mean.

"Human sacrifice was exceptional among the ancient Hebrews, although we still read, 'The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me' (Ex. 22:29, cb. 13:2). The Israelites very early SUBSTITUTED, like Abraham (Gen. 22:13), an animal sacrifice to 'redeem' the first born (Exod. 13:13-15, 34:20; Numb. 18-15). NEVERTHELESS, in a desperate crisis, the first-born was sacrificed as the supreme gift to the deity.... The immolation of Jephthah's daughter (Judg 11:30-40), which has been compared to Agamemnon's proposed sacrifice of his daughter Iphigenia (saved by Artemis), is the result of a vow made to the deity to obtain victory. Prisoners of war were occasionally sacrificed either for blood revenge (Judge 8:18-21) or as part of the ban (1Sam 15:33). Both these barbaric ancient rites were regarded as sacrifices to the deity ...." [From "Harper's Bible Dictionary," pp 824-5]
---------

What a fellow, this YHVH. Osama Bin Laden seems to think much like "Him."

--Don--

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Don Morgan ]</p>

Enlighten Me

How could anyone question that God advocates human sacrifice in the Old Testament when he made his own son a human sacrifice in the New Testament!

-DM-

Really?

This was apparently "His" plan. If he abhors such a thing, you would think that he would have come up with a different plan, a plan that demonstrated that he abhors such a thing.

--Don--

Enlighten Me

That was my point. The Christian religion is based on human sacrifice. Why do people find human sacrifice abhorent in the religions of others (Aztec, Incan, etc.), but accept it in their own?

-DM-

I know. And thanks for reminding us!

--Don--

eowynn

In the Ten Commandments, it is said that "Thou shalt not kill." The Bible also says that if one follows the Ten Commandments, one will be redeemed. Then, it appears, God asks for human sacrifices, after He/she/it says do not kill, ever. It seems contradictory to me, but then what is one to expect? the truth?

Muad'Dib

The commandment was not a categorical injunction against all killing, as some English translations (such as the NIV) seem to imply by their choice of words; the Hebrew term used is closer to our word "murder" than "kill."

Now, every murder involves killing, but (legally at least) not every killing is murder. A killing in self-defense, for example, is not considered murder by most of us, or by our legal system. If you go on and read the rest of the OT law and Joshua and Judges, examples of killing that were not considered murder by the OT authors include the stoning of adulteresses, killing rebellious children, and the slaying of religious apostates.