Freethought & Rationalism Archive

excreationist · 08-06-2003, 05:54 PM

Billy Graham is cool: (or EasternGate, etc)
Are you going to respond to what I wrote?

Azathoth · 08-06-2003, 06:42 PM

2. Take them back and turn them over to social relief programs/processes in Israel.

Similar problem here: there were no social relief programs/processes adequate to take care of this many dependent people. [Remember, most of these people would have been nomadic dependents (without agricultural or industrial skills) or minor children (consumers without the ability to contribute to their upkeep), at a time before the agricultural surpluses of Israel could support such a large group of resident aliens.

Interesting.Your source seems to forget that the being he's discussing,is supposed to have limitless power.

Such a being could easily keep that many people alive for the requisite time they'd need to assimilate into Israelite society.And it could do so in a way keeping with it's modus operandi.

There was another incident where that creature supported a large group of people for fourty years,in much harsher conditions.The Israelites,to be specific.

Supporting another group of people,completely independant of the resources that the Israelites had,would be equally simple.Simply put,if YHWH wanted those people alive,they would be.

Doctor X · 08-06-2003, 09:33 PM

Secular et winstonjen:

You are too kind.

Herem:--the Ban

As stated, the passage in question represents "the ban" or "the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction." YHWH demands this sacrifice, and Saul fails to perform it--fully.

Later apologist, such as the writer of the vaunted article, appear to lack this understanding. To avoid what the text clearly states, he makes up historical incidents and concerns--"gee willikers, Saul!! How can we feed the kids?"

Indeed, in the primary reference, Collins cites 1 Sam 15.3 as a representative example:

Quote:

"Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when the came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy (hrm) all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

If one believes the vaunted article, apparently the Israelites had no reason to keep useful animals. . . . YHWH proves a most considerate deity--he cares about the animals so much he demands their destruction as well!

Someone inform PETA. . . .

Collins continues:

Quote:

In Num 21:1-3, the Israelites respond to a setback at Arad by making a vow to the Lord, that "if you will indeed give this people into our hands, then we will utterly destroy their towns." When the Lord duly hands over the Canaanites, the Israelites "utterly destroy them and their towns." The fulfillment of the promise shows that more than the destruction of property was involved. We are reminded of the vow of Jephthah in Judg 11:31: "If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me . . . shall be the Lord's to be offered up by me as a burnt offering." Jephthah clearly intended human sacrifice, though not the sacrifice of his daughter, as transpired.

Child Sacrifice:

Collins continues:

Quote:

It is now widely recognized that human sacrifice was practiced in ancient Israel much later than scholars of an earlier generation had assumed. Abraham is not condemned but praised for his willingness to offer up his son, . . . Exodus 22:28-29 appears to require the sacrifice of the firstborn and does not provide for substitution in the manner of the parallel text in Exod 34:19-20. . . . Their practice [Judean kings.--Ed.] cannot be dismissed as due to foreign influence, but had venerable precedents in the cult of YHWH.

One needs to recognize these attrocities for what they represent--mythic representation of human sacrifice to one's god.

Or . . . one can just make thing up and bury one's head in the sands on the shores of the River DeNile.

--J.D.

References:

John J. Collins, "The Zeal of Phinehas: the Bible and the Legitimation of Violence," Journal of Biblical Literature, 122, 3-21, 2003.

Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: the Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

George Foot Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (ICC; New York: Scribner, 1901), 299.

Susan Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 28-29.

Philip D. Stern, The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel's Religious Experience (BJS 211; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

winstonjen · 08-06-2003, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Secular et winstonjen:

You are too kind.

[No they're not - Ed.]

excreationist · 08-06-2003, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Azathoth
....Interesting. Your source seems to forget that the being he's discussing, is supposed to have limitless power....

Yeah, like letting Moses part the seas and making the sun stop in the sky for Joshua, etc.
On the other hand, remember Exodus 20:5-6:
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them [other gods]; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments."

So their children, even the infants, weren't so innocent after all...

Child Sacrifice:
Judges 11:30-39:

Quote:

And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD 's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."
Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."
"My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD . Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry."
"You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

When God decided to grant Jephthah's wish, he would have been aware who or what was going to be sacrificed. Unlike the Abraham story, where Isaac's (or according to the Moslems, Ishmael's?) sacrifice was stopped by an angel and an animal was provided instead, God didn't intervene at all. God could have made the one who met Jephthah an enemy or a thief or something - but instead he made his only child be the one.

Doctor X · 08-06-2003, 11:25 PM

excreationist:

Indeed.

Apparently, in the E version of Abraham versus Isaac, there is no substitution of Isaac, Isaac never comes down from the mountain, and disappears from the rest of the narrative. This suggests that in the earlier E version Isaac was sacrificed.

--J.D.

Sandslice · 10-10-2003, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
I find this commentary/brief analysis from Matthew Henry as explanative yet concise:

"The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry. The whole history shows the hatefulness of sin, and the guilt of tempting others; it teaches us to avoid all occasions of evil, and to give no quarter to inward lusts. The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes, but for slaves, a custom everywhere practiced in former times, as to captives. In the course of providence, when famine and plagues visit a nation for sin, children suffer in the common calamity. In this case parents are punished in their children; and for children dying before actual sin, full provision is made as to their eternal happiness, by the mercy of God in Christ."

It is important to know who these people were who were judged and all other supporting contextual information. When talking about justice, context does indeed make a difference. This should be a good starting point.

Regards,
BGic

1. So, if you believe that a cause of violence is religious notion of righteousness, it BY ITSELF justifies atrocities otherwise excluded by military rules of engagement, even such as they existed back then? Since when is it considered justice to destroy the innocent?
2. Again, I reiterate. If you believe that another person might lead you away from Jehovah, it's not only acceptable but expected that you kill that person. Even to the point of genocide. This is clearly biblical (Deut xiii for example.)

Oh, and finally:

Quote:

-The fate of the innocent (women, children) victims was directly due to the misdeeds of the Amalekite warrior-class and their leadership

Therefore yer arguments are internally contradictory: on one hand, you quote Henry's assertion that the women were the worst of the "criminals" and on the other summarise Miller's assertion that the women were innocent. WHICH IS IT?

(Oh, as to the "sovereign plan for redemption:" this is demonstrably futile. It has nothing to do with free will, as the problem existed before free will; think about this. If you are fully aware that touching the coil of an active generator is very, very bad for yer health, would you do it anyway? Same applies to Jehovah. If They are indeed omniscient, then They must have known before the beginning about this plan. Therefore, They could have created all of Existence in a form that would not need such a plan, and therefore are fully culpable for sin and all of its consequences as we understand them.)

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

08-06-2003, 05:54 PM	#101
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	Billy Graham is cool: (or EasternGate, etc) Are you going to respond to what I wrote?

08-06-2003, 06:42 PM	#102
Azathoth Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The centre of infinity Posts: 1,181	2. Take them back and turn them over to social relief programs/processes in Israel. Similar problem here: there were no social relief programs/processes adequate to take care of this many dependent people. [Remember, most of these people would have been nomadic dependents (without agricultural or industrial skills) or minor children (consumers without the ability to contribute to their upkeep), at a time before the agricultural surpluses of Israel could support such a large group of resident aliens. Interesting.Your source seems to forget that the being he's discussing,is supposed to have limitless power. Such a being could easily keep that many people alive for the requisite time they'd need to assimilate into Israelite society.And it could do so in a way keeping with it's modus operandi. There was another incident where that creature supported a large group of people for fourty years,in much harsher conditions.The Israelites,to be specific. Supporting another group of people,completely independant of the resources that the Israelites had,would be equally simple.Simply put,if YHWH wanted those people alive,they would be.

08-06-2003, 11:25 PM	#106
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	excreationist: Indeed. Apparently, in the E version of Abraham versus Isaac, there is no substitution of Isaac, Isaac never comes down from the mountain, and disappears from the rest of the narrative. This suggests that in the earlier E version Isaac was sacrificed. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.