Did God Demanmd burnt Human Sacrifices?

[Radrook]

Some say that the Mosaic Law required offering of firstborn as literal burnt offerings to God. They base their accusations on the following scriptuure.

Exodus 22


29 "Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. [7]
"You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.

But what really did this invlve?
Did it involve the actual killing of firstbiorn?




Not at all!
It was just meant to be a ritualistic presentation of property to God as a gesture of respect for his ownership and universal sovereignty.

You see,
What such persons conveniently decide to hide from our view and the view of his unsuspecting victims is that the whole procedure DEMANDED a redemption of the human firstborn.

A symbolical buying back from God of both firstborn unclean animals and human firstborn meant that they would not be actually sacrificed.



In Jesus' day the ritualistic redemption of the firstborn was done via the giving of five shekels.

It was a symbolic act acknowledging that God owned all creation.
Nothing more.



Excerpt:


Who Owns Everthing?
'Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep...' (22:29-30). 'Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord' (23:19).


For the ancients the 'firstborn' son was the promise of the future as to family, the firstborn animal and firstfruits of crops, grapes and olives were the promise of future prosperity.

These were all to be offered to God. The firstborn of clean animals was to be sacrificed, the firstborn of unclean animals (say, a donkey) was to be redeemed or killed and the firstborn of humans was to be redeemed with silver.


But why were they offered to God? It was a confession that everything belonged to God, he was the creator and giver. Eve confessed 'With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man' (En 4:1; Deuteronomy 28:1-6; Leviticus 25:23).

It was a token of gratitude for what the Lord had done and promised to do. It was a signal for celebration when, having confessed and expressed thankfulness, they gave themselves over to joy (Deuteronomy 26:1-11).


http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/experie...severything.htm

Which again illustrates what have repeatedly pointed out.

That those who mislead you are hen-pecking and rooster- strutting and generally mangling everything biblical tthey come across in order to make it SEEM as IF it is so when in fact it isn't.

They also are quite adept at namecalling!
Which is totally irrelevant to their assertions about God or the Bible and still doesn't prevent their pathetic arguments from topling like the proverbial house of cards.

[Iacchus]

The thing is we as people do it all the time don't we? Say, how about a nice juicy fat steak? Mmm good ... You know, why shouldn't God get hungry too? ;) It certainly doesn't seem out of context with how life works on this planet does it? So maybe this is what people were emulating when they sacrificed to God?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The thing is we as people do it all the time don't we? Say, how about a nice juicy fat steak? Mmm good ... You know, why shouldn't God get hungry too? ;) It certainly doesn't seem out of context with how life works on this planet does it? So maybe this is what people were emulating when they sacrificed to God?



The reasons for those sacrifices are explained in the Bible itself and have absolutely nothing to do with God being hungry.

Why not read the Bible to see what it itself tells you instead of trying to impose your own understanding on it?

It is a wiser more respectful approach.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

The reasons for those sacrifices are explained in the Bible itself and have absolutely nothing to do with God being hungry.

Why not read the Bible to see what it itself tells you instead of trying to impose your own understanding on it?

It is a wiser more respectful approach. The spirits live their lives through us, and yes the spirits do eat. While they do just about everything else imaginable as well. ;)

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The spirits live their lives through us, and yes the spirits do eat. While they do just about everything else imaginable as well. ;)

On what source or sources are you basing that conclusion on?

[Doctor X]

Yawn. . .

. . . should he ever actually read the texts and scholarship. . . .

Child Sacrifice:

While traditionally more of a Christmas subject [Stop that.--Ed.] here is some more information on the subject of child sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible. Redemption in Exodus:

Different authors were responsible for different portions of the Pentateuch. I will use the Documentary Hypothesis as presented in Friedman.

Exod 22:28-29 "You shall not delay your fulfillment and your flowing.
"You shall give me the firstborn of your sons.
"You shall do this to your ox and to your sheep: Seven days it will be with its mother. On the eighth day you shall give it to me."

Exod 34:19-20 Every first issue of the womb is Mine, from all your livestock that drop a male as firstling. . . . . . . And you must redeem every first-born among your sons.

Exod 13:1-2 YHWH said to Moses, "Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." [From RSV--Ed.]

"Redemption" does not happen until Exod 13:13b: "'Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem.'"

Exod 22:28-29 is part of the Elohist or E material. Exod 13 is controversial. Friedman notes the possibility of the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian or D material. Frankly, given the "distance" between redemption and the requirement, I think it possible that Exod 13:13b is an addition. However, assigning both Exod 22:28-29 and Exod 13 to E creates a "doublet" or a repetition of material. So, yes Spin, I can disagree with Friedman. . . . Someone hand Toto some smelling salts. . . .

Now, Exod 34:19-20 is assigned to the Yahwist/Jahwist or J material. Back to Levenson:

Though Exodus 34 and 13 show faithful YHWHists how they might--indeed, must--evade the sacrifice of their first-born sons, these texts also point up by contrast the absence of any such provision in the corpus of law in which Exod 22:28-29 appears.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks in Jeremiah 19:5-6:

They have built shrines to Baal, to put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal--which I never commanded, never decreed, and which never came into My mind. Assuredly, a time is coming--declares the Lord--when this place shall not longer be called Topeth or Valley of Benihinnom ["Valley of the son of Hinnom" in RSV.--Ed.], but Valley of Slaughter.

Levenson gives the date for Jeremiah between late 7th and early 6th centuries BCE. Friedman argues strongly for the connection between the D material and Jeremiah and that the same author wrote-edited both. He further speculates it is Baruch son of Neriyah. Anyways he dates the first "part" of D to before Josiah died in 609 BCE and the second after the Babylonian destruction and exile in 587 BCE. The relevance of that is the lateness of the texts. Levenson comments:

The threefold denial of the origin of the practice in YHWH's will . . . suggests that the prophet doth protest too much. . . . If the practitioners of child sacrifice, unlike Jeremiah, thought that YHWH did indeed ordain the rite, then we may have here some indirect evidence that the literal reading of Exod 22:28b . . . was not absurd in ancient Israel, . . . It appears, instead, that Jeremiah's attacks on child sacrifice are aimed not only at the practice itself, but also at the tradition that YHWH desires it.

It's a fair cop! Ezek 20:25-26:

I [YHWH.--Ed.], in turn, gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts--that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord.

The RSV and other translations preserve perhaps a better translation:

Moreover I gave them statues that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know I am the Lord.

in that they preserve the reference to immolation--"passing through fire." Levenson cites this in support of the contention:

. . . that only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH. . . .

But, whereas Jeremiah vociferously denied the origin of the practice in the will of YHWH, Ezekiel affirmed it: YHWH gave Israel "laws that were not good" in order to desolate them, . . . The evil that he once willed is the law that requires sacrifice of the first-born.

Combining this with the blunt statement that YHWH did indeed ordain child sacrifice, Ezek 20:25-26 has over the centuries had most exegetes running for cover.

Friedman dateth Ezekiel to the Babylonian exile. Smith cites this to indicate, "that in the seventh century child sacrifice was a Judean practice performed in the name of Yahweh." Schmidt agrees that this, ". . . indicates that YHWH gave Israel over to such a abomination, that is, if one is justified in assuming that the sacrifice of the firstborn was intimately related to, if not the same as . . . Molek sacrifice."

Isaiah 30:27-33

For the oven (topteh) has long been prepared, yea for the king (lammelek) it is made ready, its pyre made deep and wide, with fire and wood in abundance; the breadth of YHWH, like a stream of brimstone, kindles it (Day).

Smith considers this the best evidence for the early practice of child sacrifice in Israel. Schmidt agrees that it ". . . clearly implicates YHWH in the child sacrifices performed at the Tophet. . . . If no such connection were intended in the use of this cult language to describe Assyria's total destruction, then one would have expected some disclaimer to that effect." Day notes that the, ". . . importance of this passage lies in the fact that it is set in a context speaking of the total destruction of the Assyrians. . . . . . . and is inconsistent with the view that merely dedication was involved."

Do Not Try to Pick Up Chicks in THIS Herem:

Collins article mention'd in post above discusses the herem, ". . . or ban, the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction." There is a "." underneath the "h" for ye purists, indicating het. This section alone makes Collins' article worth a read. Basically, he notes that the various YHWH-ordered smiting of various Somethingorotherakites--such as 1 Sam 15:3: "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." Apparently he likes bunnies. . . . Anyways, the herem is not an odd practice. The Moabite Stone erected by the 9th century BCE King Mesha has him squishing "Nebo from Israel" and offering "seven thousand men, boys, women, girls, and maid-servant" to Ashtar-Chemosh. [Text of Moabite Stone is from the ANET.--Ed.]

The point Collins stresses:

The enemy is deemed worthy of being offered to God. [That refers to the argument of Niditch.--Ed.] One hopes that the Canaanites appreciated the honor. Rather than respect for human life, the practice bespeaks a totalistic attitude, which is common in armies and warfare, wherein the individual is completely subordinated to the interests of the group. Niditch is quite right, however, that the ban as sacrifice requires "a God who appreciates human sacrifice," and that those who practiced the ban "would presumably have something in common with those who believed in the efficacy of child sacrifice."

For those who might consider that those "devoted" to YHWH were given light cleaning duties in the Tabernacle, consider Lev 27:29 "No one devoted who is to be utterly destroyed from among men shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death."

References:

Albright WF. "The Moabite Stone," Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691035032/qid=1089187395/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8055445-3759946?v=glance&s=books), JB Pritchard, Ed., 3rd. Ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Collins JJ, The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence, JBL 120 (2003): 3-21.

Day J. Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Friedman RE. Who Wrote the Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353/qid=1080647130/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-9499964-0449663)

Levenson JD. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300065116/qid=1080646921/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Lüdemann G. The Unholy in Holy scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664257399/qid=1080647208/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books)

Niditch S. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195076389/qid=1080647354/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books). New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Schmidt BB. "The Aniconic Tradition," The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802841619/qid=1087214495/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0920779-1461501?v=glance&s=books). Edelman DV, ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Smith M. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080283972X/qid=1086774305/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3411020-6434368?v=glance&s=books). 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2002.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Doctor X
[B]Yawn. . .

. . . Believe me when I tell you that it is not so much inability to unravel all this mess than it is laziness on my part to go through to meticulously as I am required. I will get to it later. Since right now I lack the needed energy to do so.

Preferably piece by piece. It probably took you a while to weave it in this tortuous way so no surprize that unweaving it will require a little bit of effort. : )

As to your extracubiblical as usual anti biblical sources--they come a dime a dozen. I prefer to rely on what the Bible tells me instead of some interpretation of some scholar hell bent on proving the Bible wrong or else prone to see things in his own particular mundane atheistic or agnostic preferred manner.

[Doctor X]

. . . Believe me when I tell you that it is not so much inability to unravel all this mess than it is laziness on my part to go through to meticulously as I am required.

Thus, when it has been given to him a few times over the last month, he never considered it--yet proclaimed it was "wrong."

As to your extracubiblical (sic) as usual anti biblical sources--they come a dime a dozen.

Exodus
Isaiah
Ezekiel
Jeremiah
Deutermonomistic History

None of these are "extrabiblical." If one wishes to attempt a Poisoning the Well, one should at least use effective poison.

. . .Bible tells me instead of some interpretation of some scholar hell bent on proving the Bible wrong. . . .

Argumentum ad hominem et Poisoning the Well and wrong, of course. Slight familiarity with these scholars would reveal that.

Scholars are not "hell bent on proving the Bible wrong" they are interested in learning what the texts say and to whom they were intended to speak.

Simply dismissing evidence because he "does not like it" fails.

--J.D.

[Edited for a scribal substitution.--Ed.]

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

On what source or sources are you basing that conclusion on? Sorry for not answering directly here (requires too much thought), but what about the notion of the Last Supper, where Christ asked the disciples to partake of His flesh and blood? ... the bread and wine in other words. It does kind of sound similar doesn't it? In that Jesus Himself became the sacrifice, of which everyone partook of his blood and flesh? (spiritually that is).

[Zep]

Genesis 22:2
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

...read through verse 12 as well.

This suggests that God expected a burnt offering in the form of a human sacrifice.


For more details, try here: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/human_sacrifice.html

[Doctor X]

Zep:

Indeed.

"I'm Not Dead!!" "You're Not Fooling Anyone, Isaac!" Genesis 22:

The text of Genesis 22 is complicated. Note that in the beginning you have "God"--Elohim--then suddenly you wander into YHWH. The Redactor of J and E [RJE--Ed.]--whom scholars feel combined the texts into one--is considered responsible for the "saving" of Isaac. At least, that part is his work. Gen 22.11-16a represents this combination. Exactly which portions of 11-16a is J, E, and Redactor is difficult to prove.

As Friedman describes in Who Wrote the Bible?, citing Spiegel as a reference:

As extraordinary as it may seem, it has been suggested that in the original version of this story Isaac was actually sacrificed, and that the intervening four verses were added subsequently, whe the notion of huma sacrifice was rejected (perhaps by the person who combined J and E).

In E, Isaac never again appears in the narrative.

Here is how the chapter works out according to Friedman:

E: 22:1-10; 16b-19

RJE: 22:11-16a

J: 20:24-24

It can drive you a little nuts trying to follow the sources in your basic RSV/JPS! Friedman, who made the Documentary Hypothesis accessible to those who are not scholars, finally came out with a version of the Pentateuch with the sources in different type. It is much easier to see how 22:1-10 flows right into 16b-19.

Here is how it looks, using the colors above, the RSV from BlueLetterBible (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gen&chapter=22&version=rsv&Go.x=29&Go.y=5[/url) to save me some typing, Friedman's translation to correct some parts, and with name Elohim used by E for "god" to highlight the differences. Note also, that the change from Abram to Abraham never occurs in E. It is felt that the RJE "fixes" this subsequently:

And it was after these things and Elohim tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!"

And he said, "Here am I."

He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his ass, and took his two boys with him and Isaac, his son. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place that Elohim had said to him. On the third day: and Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from a distance. And Abraham said to his boys, "Sit here with the ass; I and the boy will go over there, and we will bow, and we will come again to you." And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife.

So they went both of them together.

And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!"

And he said, "Here am I, my son."

He said, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for a burnt offering?"

Abraham said, "Elohim will provide himself the sheep for a burnt offering, my son."

So they went both of them together.

And they came to the place of which Elohim had told him, and Abraham built an altar there, and arranged the wood, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. And Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

And an angel of YHWH called to him from the skies and said, "Abraham, Abraham!"

And he said, "Here am I."

And he said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear Elohim, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."
And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and here was a ram behind, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place "YHWH Yir'eh," as is said to this day: "In YHWH's mountain it will be seen."

And an angel of YHWH called to Abraham a second time from the skies. And he said, "I swear by me--word of YHWH--that because you did this thing, and did not withhold your son, your only one, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."

And Abraham returned to his boys, and they got up and went together to Beer-sheba, and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba.

Note the parallels in the E story--Elohim calls to Abraham who responds "here I am," Abraham calls to Isaac who responds "here I am." Also note the strange reward--because Abraham gave his only son he is rewarded with more sons. Strange if his son still lives.

Of course, since E and J are both texts recovered from the redacted text, there is no "proof" of Isaac's death. However, it is very odd that the RJE suddenly prefers the J story exclusively when it deals with Isaac.

--J.D.

References:

Friedman RE. Who Wrote the Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353/qid=1080647130/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-9499964-0449663) San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997.

Friedman RE. The Bible with Sources Revealed (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060530693/qid=1089618275/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-8697961-1966443?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2003.

Spiegel S. The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=pT8RTjf96z&isbn=187904529X&itm=3). New York: Schocken, 1969.

[Radrook]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zep
[i][b]Genesis 22:2


This suggests that God expected a burnt offering in the form of a human sacrifice.


[QUOTE]
To you.

[Radrook]

In respons to "doc X"

Before we delve into the argument proper there are a few preliminary things that need to be made absolutely clear.

Not all statements are equal.

Scholars are very careful when making statements.
That is why scholars use qualifiers.
This prevents readers ferm reaching conclusions unwarranted by what was said or written.


The importance of Qualifiers.

Qualifiers are words which are used to modify what one expresses to better reflect what one is thinking.

For example the statement:

Joe is a thief.

Is not the same as the statements:
Joe seems like a thief.
It appears that Joe is a thief.
It seems that Joe is a thief.
It might be that Joe is a thief.

Most likely Joe is thief

The first is an assertion--a statement of fact.
The others mere conjecture.
The authors express them that way to prevent readers from dogmatically attributing certainty where certainty has never been claimed.


The scholar who uses modifiers should be commended.
It is a show of honesty.


After all, claiming certainty when certainty is not justified would set the scholar up for peer ridicule. So to avoid such ridicule and the attendant loss of professional prestige via articles of criticism about his dubious research modus operandi--wise and honest scholars use modifiers such as

most, many, few, seems, appears to, seem likely, maybe, might b that, could be that, perhaps, and so on.

In the excerpts that were provided we have a plethora of modifiers which indicate clearly that most of the statements are opinion and nothing more. Educated opinion with some data thrown in, but opinion nevertheless as the profuse usage of quantifiers and qualifiers clearly prove.


Sadly however, there are those whose penchant for Bible demolition inexorably drives
them to ignore such qualifiers. So the qualifiers are ignored and the statements falsely represented as statements intended to be taken as irrefutable facts.


Now, what this constitutes is a GROSS misrepresentation of what the scholar--who went out of his way to use qualifiers intended.

Keep these things in mind as you read the following attempt at passing off mere educated opinion as irrefutable fact despite the qualifiers that the authors purposefully used to prevent that type of misrepresentation of the data.

Also, in reading the material below it is very important to distinguish between what the "doc" remarks and the actual scholar is saying.

The problem is that the "doc" inserts his comments in such a way as to make the distinction between his ow statements and those of the scholars either very difficult and almost impossible. So great care must be taken to separate what is the scholar's true opinion and what are merely intrusive distracting side comments by the "doc"

There are also cryptic areas which I find almost unintelligible due to the "doc's" assumption that we can follow his line of thought easily.
I have tried to the best of my ability to deal with such cryptic areas.
__________________________________________________ ____

Another thing to keep in mind are the "doc's" chosen sources.


Source Motives

The "doc" makes much ado about his sources.
As if scholar credentials were sufficient to guarantee accuracy.
That would require us to ignore source motives.
But source motives should never be ignored.
Why?
Because source motives can cause bias.
So when one is presented with evidence.
One should always wisely ask:
1. Are the sources unbiased?
2. Do they have an ax to grind -- something to be gained?
3. What particular message are they trying to convey and why?

In this particular case:
4. What are the religious philosophical backgrounds of the sources?



Source Backgrounds and motives:

After reviewing
the sources which the "doc" provides it becomes more than clear that he chose them merely based on their totally biased support of his particular antibiblical atheistic views.

This is partially evident by the titles of the literature they authored:

The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence,
The Unholy in Holy scripture:
The Dark Side of the Bible
Who Wrote the Bible?
The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity
The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity

What Brand Scholars?

Such scholars and their so-called scholarship are the product of atheistic, agnostic, evolutionary higher learning that has gradually become the vogue. In short, the sources are a presentation of this particular view of God and the Bible.

. Other scholars dispute all the semi-claims made here.
But such scholars are conveniently left out.
Which, in cogent reasoning parlance is called slanting.

Slanting

What is slanting?
Well, slanting is the presentation of sources, such as peer testimonies, survey results, statistical data, all preponderantly supporting of a certain viewpoint in order to create the illusion of unanimity of opinion.

Opposing views are given short thrift if any thrift at all.
Actually, when such arguments are presented at the university level
in composition rhetoric and argumentation classes they are
unceremoniously given an [F] or perhaps a merciful [D]based on this fallacious approach. As my professor used to say: I do not believe in giving out [Fs] I only give out [Ds] since I know you are not going to get to be an editor with [D] grades anyway"



That having been said.
Let's take a look at the supposedly irrefutable evidence that the "doc" provides.



Doctor X JREF Shihan Registered: Oct 2002 Location: Posts: 1354 should he ever actually read the texts and scholarship. . . .


Response

Absolutely unnecessary.
The info he has gratuitously provided is more than enough for my
refutation purposes.



Child Sacrifice: While traditionally more of a Christmas subject [Stop that.--Ed.] here is some more information on the subject of child sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible.


Redemption in Exodus: Different authors were responsible for different portions of the Pentateuch. I will use the Documentary Hypothesis as presented in Friedman. quote:

He [the doc?] is about to base conclusions on an hypothesis.
Now, everyone here knows what a hypothesis is--right?
A hypothesis is less than a theory.
It doesn't have the sufficient evidence to elevate it to the theory level and very much less to the level of fact.

So either the "doc" believes us to be totally ignorant of this, or else he himself is ignorant of the true meaning or serious implications. Otherwise, why would he cut his own throat by offering up mere hypothesis in support of something he wishes to be accepted as fact. sigh!

Of course that's what happens when one blindly trusts anything any certificate-toting scholar tells merely because he totes a certificate.

In any event, this is totally unconvincing in my book.
Very poor scholarship as well.
Not of the source author of course.
Authors who admit that their works are mere hypothesis are being honest with their readers. Only those who irresponsibly try to pass off hypothesis as fact are being unethical and dishonest.
__________________________________________________ __

Exod 22:28-29 "You shall not delay your fulfillment and your flowing. "You shall give me the firstborn of your sons. "You shall do this to your ox and to your sheep: Seven days it will be with its mother. On the eighth day you shall give it to me."

Exod 34:19-20 Every first issue of the womb is Mine, from all your livestock that drop a male as firstling. . . . . . . And you must redeem every first-born among your sons.


Exod 13:1-2 YHWH said to Moses, "Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." [From RSV--Ed.] "Redemption" does not happen until

Exod 13:13b: "'Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem.'"

Repetitiion in order to annoy?

As explained CLEARLY before, such giving was ritualistic and had absolutely NOTHING to do with an actual taking of a human life. Israel was specifically prohibited from imitating such practices as expressed in Leviticus. The prophets later made this clear by repeating in detail.
Ironically, they never suspected that their repetition or reminders would become suspect.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________



Exod 22:28-29 is part of the Elohist or E material. Exod 13 is controversial. Friedman notes the possibility of the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian or D material.

Frankly, given the "distance" between redemption and the requirement, I think it possible that Exod 13:13b is an addition. However, assigning both Exod 22:28-29 and Exod 13 to E creates a "doublet" or a repetition of material. So, yes Spin, I can disagree with Friedman. . . . Someone hand Toto some smelling salts. . . . Now, Exod 34:19-20 is assigned to the Yahwist/Jahwist or J material. Back to Levenson: quote:


Response


Noting the Possibility!
He thinks it is possible!

The author at least has the honesty to refrain from using the word "probable"
That doesn't stop the "doc" from plunging ahead with his assertions of fact.
But the reader should be made aware that the scholar made no such statement of fact. The scholar only expressed what he perceived as a mere possibility. That is a far cry from the dogmatic claims that the "doc" is making in this scholar's name.


The fella also [???] latches on to distance between written texts as a valid reason for suspicion. He demands that texts to be chronologically next to each other in order for the author's statements to be to be exempt from suspicion.

If we follow his modus operandi, then we would be forced to suspect a statement about democracy made during Abraham Lincoln's day because it is simply too chronologically distant from a statement made by Bush.

Or a suspicion of Bush's statement because it was made too far apart from Lincoln's. In short, he uses this absurdity to dismiss condemnation of child sacrifice as drivel.
__________________________________________________ __________________

Though Exodus 34 and 13 show faithful YHWHists how they might--indeed, must--evade the sacrifice of their first-born sons, these texts also point up by contrast the absence of any such provision in the corpus of law in which Exod 22:28-29 appears. The lady doth protest too much, methinks in



Response

Now he demands unnecessary repetition of what was assumed was common knowledge at the time. Common knowledge needs no such repetition. Unnecessary repetition would have made the Bible perhaps Ten times or more its present volume. Which of course modern scholars would have pointed out as evidence that it is not of divine origin since a divine author would know that such repetitions were unnecessary!

The ludicrous nature of this expectation can be illustrated in the following way:
Imagine that the Bible authors constantly repeated that adultery is evil whenever sexual relations are spoken about because they feared that if they didn't, then the readers would assume that contrary to all previous statements, the Bible author was now suddenly approving of adultery.

Such a conclusion on the part of the Bible authors, or Author necessitates the assumption that readers were somehow mentally handicapped in some mysterious way.
After all, only the mentally disabled are in need of that sort of constant repetition. Especially if the issue is common knowledge to the intended audience.

Bible authors and God assumed reader normal intelligence.
So they saw no need for that type of thing.

In short, this is an example of a very irrational unjustified requirement not leveled against any other literary work or author e that I know of except the Bible. It is this type of irrational stubborn unjust demands that completely make such scholarship ridiculously infantile in its approach.

Perhaps we should demand that Bush always repeat that he is an American lest he be confused with saying he is Russian or always demand he say that he loves democracy lest we accuse him of supporting communism??
__________________________________________________ _________________________




Jeremiah 19:5-6: quote:


They have built shrines to Baal, to put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal--which I never commanded, never decreed, and which never came into My mind. Assuredly, a time is coming--declares the Lord--when this place shall not longer be called Topeth or Valley of Benihinnom ["Valley of the son of Hinnom" in RSV.--Ed.], but Valley of Slaughter.


Levenson gives the date for Jeremiah between late 7th and early 6th centuries BCE.


Friedman argues strongly for the connection between the D material and Jeremiah and that the same author wrote-edited both. He further speculates it is Baruch son of Neriyah. Anyways he dates the first "part" of D to before Josiah died in 609 BCE and the second after the Babylonian destruction and exile in 587 BCE. The relevance of that is the lateness of the texts. Levenson comments: quote:


Wow!
Levenson!
Friedman!
But what are these scholars really saying?
Are they claiming the same certainty that their admirer--the doc is?

The scholarsargue strongly and they speculate
Let's consider the arguing strongly part for a moment.
Here it is in syllogistic form:

Arguing strongly is very significant to an argument's veracity.
He argued strongly.
That is very significant to the argument's veracity.

Yepo!
They Argue strongly and speculate..


In short, all we really have here is the arguing- strongly and speculation reasons given us as a basis to accept this their opinion as fact.

The problem with this is that anyone can argue strongly on behalf of anything.
Idiots argue strongly.
The insane argue strongly.
Those high on pot argue strongly.

Even worse is the "speculating" admission.

Why you may chance to ask?
Simply because speculation is well, speculation -- guesswork.
It might be educated guesswork--but it remains guesswork nevertheless.

In short, we are required to give FULL credence to this argument based on "speculation and arguing strongly" simply because it is Friedman and Nitch who are speculating and arguing strongly.

Thanks but no thanks.
I prefer to stay true to logic.
__________________________________________________ __________

The threefold denial of the origin of the practice in YHWH's will . . . suggests that the prophet doth protest too much. . . . If the practitioners of child sacrifice, unlike Jeremiah, thought that YHWH did indeed ordain the rite, then we may have here some indirect evidence that the literal reading of Exod 22:28b . . . was not absurd in ancient Israel, . .


Response


To really apreciate the flimsiness of this argument please consider its wording.

1. Suggests
2. Might give
3. Indirect evidence

Do you see the certainty that the doc sees here?
I don't.
I see qualifiers galore which the doc chooses to ignore.

The other statement is that the prophet protests too much.


Simply stated, if a prophet is too enthusiastic he immediately qualifies for suspicion.
So the prophets had better tone down their messages to this fellow's comfort levelin order to avoid suspicious accusations. Furthermore, notice that he says "we may have Which can be expressed as "we might have" "Maybe we have...." Perhaps we have" It might be that we have" "I think we might have"

All of which mean that it is his mere opinion based on suspicion based on his discomfort level in relation to the prophet's style and intensity. If the prophet would have said it in a mono syllabic way then it probably might have struck this scholar as being unconvincing because the prophet obviously did not speak strongly enough.

Which reminds me of a certain fella at a certain dental lab who kept saying that the work wasn't right until he arbitrarily said it was.

In short, he really has absolutely no justifiable basis to suspect but chooses to suspect ummmmm anyways.



__________________________________________________ ______________________


It appears
instead, that Jeremiah's attacks on child sacrifice are aimed not only at the practice itself, but also at the tradition that YHWH desires it. It's a fair cop!


Response

Again the flimsiness of the argument is very poignantly brought out by the usage of modifiers.
The operative phrase here is "it appears"
Which can be written as ."it SEEMS like"
He is going by on how things APPEAR to him and is striving to convince us that this is the way it should appear to you and to everyone else as well.

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________


Ezek 20:25-26: quote: I [YHWH.--Ed.], in turn, gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts--that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord.

The RSV and other translations preserve perhaps a better translation:



Response

1. PERHAPS!!!!!!



Again the modifier meaning maybe--or maybe not.
This modifier speaks volumes.

How?

Well--


IT ADMITS UNCERTAINTY
Whenever we say perhaps we are saying maybe

Perhaps I will be at the wedding and or perhaps I will not.
Man perhaps did or perhaps did not go to the moon.
The universe perhaps is or perhaps is not infinite.
Tme travel perhaps is or perhaps is not possible.

In short, the word [b]perhaps]/b] nullifies the sentence content and makes it neutral.
Makes no assertion at all!


[b]2. Better translation?]/b]

Meaning one that suites his purpose better.
Which means that ANY translation or mistranslation will do as long as it supports.

__________________________________________________ ____________________________

quote: Moreover I gave them statues that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know I am the Lord. in that they preserve the reference to immolation--"passing through fire." Levenson cites this in support of the contention: quote: . . . that only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH. . . .



But, whereas Jeremiah vociferously denied the origin of the practice in the will of YHWH, Ezekiel affirmed it:


YHWH gave Israel "laws that were not good" in order to desolate them, . . . The evil that he once willed is the law that requires sacrifice of the first-born. Combining this with the blunt statement that YHWH did indeed ordain child sacrifice,

Ezek 20:25-26

has over the centuries had most exegetes running for cover.

Friedman dateth Ezekiel to the Babylonian exile. Smith cites this to indicate, "that in the seventh century child sacrifice was a Judean practice performed in the name of Yahweh." Schmidt agrees that this, ". . . indicates that YHWH gave Israel over to such a abomination, that is, if one is justified in assuming that the sacrifice of the firstborn was intimately related to, if not the same as . . .

Response


Datings and citings.
Citing things in order to indicate means merely that he chose to cite something in order to indicate. Citing to indicate is no guarantee of irrefutability.

Molek sacrifice." Isaiah 30:27-33 quote: For the oven (topteh) has long been prepared, yea for the king (lammelek) it is made ready, its pyre made deep and wide, with fire and wood in abundance; the breadth of YHWH, like a stream of brimstone, kindles it (Day).


Smith considers this the best evidence for the early practice of child sacrifice in Israel. Schmidt agrees that it ". . . clearlyimplicates YHWH in the child sacrifices performed at the Tophet. .

Response

Smith considers.
Clearly to HIM.

Others have considered the identical data and it implicates no such thing to them.
It is all a matter of agendas.
Implicates!
Insinuates.
Indicates.
Suggests

All are subjective perceptions.


To me the accusation implicates the following:
Once there is a Bible radicalization agenda upon which a possible intended book and its royalties will depend, why--everything will indicate, insinuate, suggest, and implicate.
It is good business.

How is THAT for implications? : )

__________________________________________________ ______________________


If no such connection were intended in the use of this cult language to describe Assyria's total destruction, then one would have ;
expected some disclaimerthat effect."

Response

Expects?

Why?

He demands CONSTANT disclaimers.
Otherwise he will concoct wild accusations.
Is such a demand reasonable?
After all, things considered common knowledge to the intended audience require no disclaimers.

Here is the argument in syllogistic form:

No disclaimer indicates certain guilt
He provided no disclaimer.
He is certainly guilty.

_______________________________________________

Day notes that the, " . . . importance of this passage lies in the fact that it is set in a context speaking of the total destruction of the Assyrians. . . . . . . and is inconsistent with the view that merely dedication was involved."


response
Is this guy serious?
Does he really expect God to dedicate a whole Assyrian army to God's service?
Or is he using EQUIVOCATION?
The using of the same word in different contexts to mean the same thing?
Judge for yourselves.

__________________________________________________ ________________________


Do Not Try to Pick Up Chicks in THIS Herem: Collins article mention'd in post above discusses the herem, ". . . or ban, the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction."


Response

First, I do not particularly trust quoted material
with extensive ellipses where data has been erased.
It smacks of either trying to confuse or the deletion of incriminating material.

So I find it rather unfair that it be presented this way.

Anyway,

No one is arguing that the Assyrians were not devoted to destruction.



There is a "." underneath the "h" for ye purists, indicating het. This section alone makes Collins' article worth a read.




A sign big black sign on the chest with big red letters saying :

"Look! Look! Look what I have read!"


would be less obvious.


__________________________________________________ ________________


Basically, he notes that the various YHWH-ordered smiting of various people.

1 Sam 15:3: "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." Apparently he likes bunnies. . . .


Response

God has a right to destroy anyone he chooses to regardless of the protests or silly accusations of mere men. Those who do not like it can leave his universe in whatever manner they choose.

BTW
Good stuff to latch on to isn't it??

__________________________________________________ ______________________

Anyways, the herem is not an odd practice. The Moabite Stone erected by the 9th century BCE King Mesha has him squishing "Nebo from Israel" and offering "seven thousand men, boys, women, girls, and maid-servant" to Ashtar-Chemosh. [Text of

Moabite Stone is from the ANET.--Ed.] The point Collins stresses: quote: The enemy is deemed worthy of being offered to God. [That refers to the argument of Niditch.--Ed.] One hopes that the Canaanites appreciated the honor.

Response
The Moabite stone??? LOL
BTW
What one scholar says in relation to another is irrelevant from where I stand.
So constant references to scholar collusion or agreements are better
directed at readers who are mesmerized or deeply awed by that sort of thing.

I am not.

Especially in view that the authors cited all have the same errrr--
agenda. : )

__________________________________________________ _______________

Rather than respect for human life, the
practice
bespeaks a totalistic attitude, which is common in armies and warfare, wherein the individual is completely subordinated to the interests of the group. Niditch is quite right, however, that the ban as sacrifice requires "a God who appreciates human sacrifice," and that those who practiced the ban "would presumably have something in common with those who believed in the efficacy of child sacrifice."

Response

He agrees with Niditch and Nidicth presumes


presumably=He is presuming!

Anyone here familiar with what a presumption is?

A practice is assumed then commented upon as if fact
An agreement with another similarly motivated scholar is expressed.
Nothing more.
__________________________________________________ ____________________


For those who might consider that those "devoted" to YHWH were given light cleaning duties in the Tabernacle, consider Lev 27:29 "No one devoted who is to be utterly destroyed from among men shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death."


Response

Equivocation.



References: Albright WF. "The Moabite Stone,"
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, JB Pritchard, Ed., 3rd. Ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Collins JJ, The Zeal of Phinehas:

The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence, JBL 120 (2003): 3-21. Day J. Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Friedman RE.

Who Wrote the Bible?


Levenson JD.
The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son:


Lüdemann G.
The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity


Niditch S.
The Unholy in Holy scripture:
The Dark Side of the Bible

War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Schmidt BB. "The Aniconic Tradition,"

Smith M.

The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Edelman DV, ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2002. Last edited by Doctor X on 07-11-2004 at 05:30 PM

Response

LOLWROF

[Zep]

Originally posted by Radrook
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zep
[i][b]Genesis 22:2


This suggests that God expected a burnt offering in the form of a human sacrifice.


[QUOTE]
To you. Is, or is not, the Bible the inerrant word of God?

[Doctor X]

In respons (sic) to "doc X"

Thus the Coward et Hypocrite et Liar begins with trite argumentum ad hominem. He can hardly complain about his reception.

He will continue with this "hilarious" attempt to Poison the Well. I think the Noble Readership does not need me to identify it every time.

Meandering blathering about "qualifiers" in which the Coward et Hypocrite et Liar complains he cannot follow the scholarship follows.

Other posters with less of a pretense to understanding have. What is his excuse?

Perhaps this response to the references summarizes his approach:

LOLWROF

Unable to refute the material, the Coward et Hypocrite et Liar can only whimper argumentum ad hominem.

The Coward et Hypocrite et Liar then attempts to guess the "motives" of the sources. He performs an argumentum ad ignorantiam--he assumes since we do not know them he can make up whatever he wants and get away with it.

I have already posted the credentials of most of these scholars. That one of them served as the President of the Society of Biblical Literature, another is chaired professor at Harvard, another a named professor at Harvard, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseum rather buries his desire to slander him with his pap.

The Coward et Hypocrite et Liar blathers for some time in this vein. It would have been easier for him to simply review the sources--or even a current peer-reviewed journal on biblical literature, biblical archaeology, Near-Eastern studies, et cetera.

If anyone wishes me to dissect his mischaracterization of the sources, I am happy to do that.

Such scholars and their so-called scholarship are the product of atheistic, agnostic, evolutionary higher learning that has gradually become the vogue.

That ALL of the scholars are religious rather sinks him right there.

Johnny? Tell him about his wonderful consolation prizes!

Now can the Coward et Hypocrite et Liar actually respond to the evidences? [Stop that.--Ed.]

Non sequitur on the definition of "hypothesis" follows.

I detailed the evidence that lead scholars to the conclusion. Indeed, traditionally, commentators and scholars--like this Coward et Hypocrite et Liar--have not "liked" the conclusion. The Documentary Hypothesis is a term to encompass studies of multi-authorship that have been around for hundreds of years. Had the Coward et Hypocrite et Liar deigned to research it--amply and easily summarized in Friedman's references--he would know that and not waste bandwidth.

Can he attack/rebut the evidence of the Documentary Hypothesis?

Apparently not.

Now this is most unfortunate: when given the Exodus passages from the different authors he can only whine:

Repetitiion (sic) in order to annoy?

Yes . . . I gather being buried in evidence would prove annoying to this Coward et Hypocrite et Liar.

Now he actually tries to address the evidence:

As explained CLEARLY before, . . .

Ipse dixit and incorrect given the posts above and elsewhere.

. . . such giving was ritualistic and had absolutely NOTHING to do with an actual taking of a human life. Israel was specifically prohibited from imitating such practices as expressed in Leviticus.

Yet does he FORGET Leviticus:

[ b]Lev 27:29[/b] "No one devoted who is to be utterly destroyed from among men shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death."

Can he make Leviticus--the product of the Priestly school contemporary to J and E? He does not address the evidence.

Can he will away this Levitical demand for the hrm or "ban" which demands the sacrifice?

No.

He merely ignores it and declares it magically does not exist.

The prophets later made this clear by repeating in detail.
Ironically, they never suspected that their repetition or reminders would become suspect.

Let us review what the prophets actually wrote:

Ezekiel20:25-26 Moreover I [YHWH--Ed.] gave them statues that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know I am the Lord.

Seems the prophets contradict him . . . again. I also refer the Noble Readership to the discussions above on Isaiah, and Jeremiah which further contradict him.

This is his "rebuttal" to the Documentary Hypothesis:

Noting the Possibility!
He thinks it is possible!

The peer-reviewed literature awaits this overturning of over 100 years of hermeneutics. . . .

. . . they do not get enough laughs.

Unable to address the Documentary Hypothesis, he blathers about Presidents Lincoln and Bush. Ironic that they have different philosophies--Bush has not suspended habeus corpus. So much for that analogy.

Since he cannot apparently rebut the Documentary Hypothesis, he is left with the facts that the E and J authors represent two distinct texts. E refers to sacrifice without redemption and possibly lets poor Isaac become a nice roast.

P represents a different period and intent.

D also.

If he cannot refute 100+ years of scholarship, he has to deal with it.

Faced with the lack of redemption in E texts, he squeals "repetition" which is a non sequitur.

Was the Ezekiel passage "repetition?" Perhaps in a way he does not like!

Can he respond to Jeremiah?

Unfortunately not. He can only blather about "possibility" and declare the scholars are "speculating."

Can he respond to their arguments and the textual evidence.

No.

Next. . . .

I do have to take a moment to this:

Moi The RSV and other translations preserve perhaps a better translation:

1. PERHAPS!!!!!!

His absolute unfamiliarity with the primary languages and the process of translation is thus underscored.

Note also his inability to address the Ezekiel passage or what the scholars state.

Now our Coward et Hypocrite et Liar may find this a bit unfair, but I am afraid I trust the translation and textual criticism of CHAIRED PROFESSORS OF BIBLICAL HEBREW who can discuss the DEVELOPMENT of the language more than someone who has consistently demonstrated nothing but ignorance on the subject.

He is, of course, free to argue for a different rendering of Ezekiel. I must confess that he has thus far fail to address the ENGLISH arguments of scholars suggests we will wait in vain for this to happen.

THIS is all he can say about Ezekiel:

Datings and citings.
Citing things in order to indicate means merely that he chose to cite something in order to indicate. Citing to indicate is no guarantee of irrefutability.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

If any one wishes me to continue decimating his further blatherings, do let me know.

--J.D.

[Edited to redact to the Textus Recepticus.--Ed.]

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Zep
Is, or is not, the Bible the inerrant word of God?

Now now - you see, Zep, it's all about *drum roolllll* "SYMBOLISM!!!11one" :rolleyes:

[Zep]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan


Now now - you see, Zep, it's all about *drum roolllll* "SYMBOLISM!!!11one" :rolleyes: Cymballism? You talk of percussion at a time like this? (da-boom tish!)

Dr X, don't bother to continue further. I think WE got the point the first time round, not to mention supplying our own references to the argument. One can hear some scurrying backwards away from the light quite clearly from here.

[Doctor X]

Zep:

For a fleeting moment I had thought he might have actually read the texts quoted and considered the arguments and conclusions.

I remain an optimist.

Incidentally, Collins' address is available for free as a PDF on the SBL website. I highly recommend it. If the fool had bothered to look it up he would not have been frightened by those nasty ol' ellipses.

Boo!
. . .

I wonder if he "LOL" at Codex Sinaticus because it represents better textual witnesses than the ones used for the KJV. . . .

--J.D.

[wittgenst3in]

BTW Radrock, your first link is broken. After reading the html it's obvious why.
Originally posted by Radrook
After all, claiming certainty when certainty is not justified would set the scholar up for peer ridicule. So to avoid such ridicule and the attendant loss of professional prestige via articles of criticism about his dubious research modus operandi--wise and honest scholars use modifiers such as

most, many, few, seems, appears to, seem likely, maybe, might b that, could be that, perhaps, and so on.

For someone who's so upset about the usage of qualifiers, have a read of your own first posting. I've posted it here so you can't change it. None of the ten expressions above appear at all, with the single exception of 'seems' which is not used in a qualifing sense.

Originally posted by Radrook
Some say that the Mosaic Law required offering of firstborn as literal burnt offerings to God. They base their accusations on the following scriptuure.

Exodus 22


29 "Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. [7]
"You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.

But what really did this invlve?
Did it involve the actual killing of firstbiorn?




Not at all!
It was just meant to be a ritualistic presentation of property to God as a gesture of respect for his ownership and universal sovereignty.

You see,
What such persons conveniently decide to hide from our view and the view of his unsuspecting victims is that the whole procedure DEMANDED a redemption of the human firstborn.

A symbolical buying back from God of both firstborn unclean animals and human firstborn meant that they would not be actually sacrificed.



In Jesus' day the ritualistic redemption of the firstborn was done via the giving of five shekels.

It was a symbolic act acknowledging that God owned all creation.
Nothing more.



Excerpt:


Who Owns Everthing?
'Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep...' (22:29-30). 'Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord' (23:19).


For the ancients the 'firstborn' son was the promise of the future as to family, the firstborn animal and firstfruits of crops, grapes and olives were the promise of future prosperity.

These were all to be offered to God. The firstborn of clean animals was to be sacrificed, the firstborn of unclean animals (say, a donkey) was to be redeemed or killed and the firstborn of humans was to be redeemed with silver.


But why were they offered to God? It was a confession that everything belonged to God, he was the creator and giver. Eve confessed 'With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man' (En 4:1; Deuteronomy 28:1-6; Leviticus 25:23).

It was a token of gratitude for what the Lord had done and promised to do. It was a signal for celebration when, having confessed and expressed thankfulness, they gave themselves over to joy (Deuteronomy 26:1-11).


http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/experie...severything.htm

Which again illustrates what have repeatedly pointed out.

That those who mislead you are hen-pecking and rooster- strutting and generally mangling everything biblical tthey come across in order to make it SEEM as IF it is so when in fact it isn't.

They also are quite adept at namecalling!
Which is totally irrelevant to their assertions about God or the Bible and still doesn't prevent their pathetic arguments from topling like the proverbial house of cards.

Since the things you are presenting are certainly not taken by scholars as a certainty, and in some cases conflicting opinions are held (As shown by the Doc.) this would make you, by your own logic, not a 'wise and honest scholar'.

[Ipecac]

Here's a question.

Why would any "supreme" being of infinite wisdom, knowledge, and maturity require any kind of sacrifice? Or worship?

I'm not a god yet I wouldn't want to be worshipped. Wanting to be worshipped is a sign of a vain, insecure being. Is god vain and insecure?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Here's a question.

Why would any "supreme" being of infinite wisdom, knowledge, and maturity require any kind of sacrifice? Or worship?

I'm not a god yet I wouldn't want to be worshipped. Wanting to be worshipped is a sign of a vain, insecure being. Is god vain and insecure?

I'm willing to admit I'm vain and insecure, so I hearby demand a sacrifice of Pie and Beer, good beer, Canadian or Irish, with a good head and not too bitter. Or I shall say "NI" again...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ipecac

Here's a question.

Why would any "supreme" being of infinite wisdom, knowledge, and maturity require any kind of sacrifice? Or worship?

I'm not a god yet I wouldn't want to be worshipped. Wanting to be worshipped is a sign of a vain, insecure being. Is god vain and insecure? To keep it in context with the lives of the creatures that worship Him. Otherwise what would be the point of our being here?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Sorry for not answering directly here (requires too much thought), but what about the notion of the Last Supper, where Christ asked the disciples to partake of His flesh and blood? ... the bread and wine in other words. It does kind of sound similar doesn't it? In that Jesus Himself became the sacrifice, of which everyone partook of his blood and flesh? (spiritually that is). In case anybody needs to know (RabbiSatan), I meant to say preparation here. I was getting tired, I couldn't think and it required too much preparation, so I decided to add what was on the top of my head.

Aside from that though, I don't generally think about these things once I'm through posting on the board ... which, of course doesn't always make it easy to recall. ;)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Iacchus
To keep it in context with the lives of the creatures that worship Him. Otherwise what would be the point of our being here?

Huh?

The "point" of our being here is to live a good life while making the world better for our progeny, which is a far superior purpose than making some vain, self-centered egoist feel good about himself. We have movie stars for that.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ipecac

Huh?

The "point" of our being here is to live a good life while making the world better for our progeny ...Yes, this in effect is what I'm saying. That it probably doesn't make much difference to God. However, in order to keep it in context with those who tend to anthropomorphize everything ... If, you catch my drift? ;)

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
To keep it in context with the lives of the creatures that worship Him. Otherwise what would be the point of our being here?

So our sole purpose in life is to worship and appease a bronze age desert god?

Sounds kinds of sad, doesn't it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

So our sole purpose in life is to worship and appease a bronze age desert god?

Sounds kinds of sad, doesn't it? No, because that would be taking our life out of context. As I said, I'm not sure God gives two hoots about whether we worship Him or not. However, that isn't to say we can't anthropomorphize our relationship with Him, and in effect offer up our best sacrifices to him, and have Him dine at the same table so to speak. Isn't that kind of what we do when we have special guests over for dinner, where no expense is spared?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, because that would be taking our life out of context. As I said, I'm not sure God gives two hoots about whether we worship Him or not. However, that isn't to say we can't anthropomorphize our relationship with Him, and in effect offer up our best sacrifices to him, and have Him dine at the same table us so to speak. Isn't that kind of what we do when we have special guests over for dinner, where no expense is spared?

Why should I do that for a deity that doesn't give two hoots about me?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

Why should I do that for a deity that doesn't give two hoots about me? I didn't say that. I said He probably doesn't give too hoots about we whether we worship him or not, which is to say it doesn't glorify Him as the creator, if it means being totally dependent upon Him. In other words what's point of designing something (just to show how good you are) if it can't stand alone and requires continued maintenance on your part? Why build a car that continues to break down? It doesn't speak much for the designer does it?

So if anything, the worship we should experience towards God, would be that of awe, and the wonder of how everything works, not blind obeisance.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker


So our sole purpose in life is to worship and appease a bronze age desert god?

Sounds kinds of sad, doesn't it?

If indeed he were simply a desert god then it would be sad.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Piscivore


I'm willing to admit I'm vain and insecure, so I hearby demand a sacrifice of Pie and Beer, good beer, Canadian or Irish, with a good head and not too bitter. Or I shall say "NI" again...


Worship is just another word for following laws and regulations as set down by governments.
We meekly do that every day.
WE don't call it worship though.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Piscivore


I'm willing to admit I'm vain and insecure, so I hearby demand a sacrifice of Pie and Beer, good beer, Canadian or Irish, with a good head and not too bitter. Or I shall say "NI" again...


Worship is just another word for following laws and regulations as set down by governments.
We meekly do that every day.
WE don't call it worship though.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I didn't say that. I said He probably doesn't give too hoots about we whether we worship him or not, which is to say it doesn't glorify Him as the creator, if it means being totally dependent upon Him. In other words what's point of designing something (just to show how good you are) if it can't stand alone and requires continued maintenance on your part? Why build a car that continues to break down? It doesn't speak much for the designer does it?

So if anything, the worship we should experience towards God, would be that of awe, and the wonder of how everything works, not blind obeisance.

Why should I worship anything?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook


If indeed he were simply a desert god then it would be sad.

Yes, your particular deity is a bronze age desert god, a reflection of the culture of the people of the time.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook



Worship is just another word for following laws and regulations as set down by governments.
We meekly do that every day.
WE don't call it worship though.

So you worship your govt when you don't murder someone? Or rob banks?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Radrook



Worship is just another word for following laws and regulations as set down by governments.


Bull. Find me one definition of "worship" that includes civil obediance to temporal authority.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

Why should I worship anything? Ever experience the sense of wonder or awe about the nature of existence? What's the difference?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Piscivore


Bull. Find me one definition of "worship" that includes civil obediance to temporal authority.



The difference is merely that of WHOM or WHAT you are obeying--nothing more.

The fact is that following God's commands is no different than what citizens do every day--follow the demands of their governments or else be willing to pay the consequences.

If it is different--then show me how instead of demanding definitions.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Experience the sense of wonder or awe about the nature of existence? What's the difference?

A lot. I may experience awe when I contemplate the size of the universe, but I don't pray to it, I don't sacrifice to it, and I don't have a "relationship" to it.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker


Yes, your particular deity is a bronze age desert god, a reflection of the culture of the people of the time.

Well, if that is your perception I guess you will not worship him then. Those who don't perceive him that way will.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker


So you worship your govt when you don't murder someone? Or rob banks?

We obey!
Obedience is what worship is.
Obedience is what being a good citizen is.
So in MY BOOK the distinction between the twain is merely based on WHOM or WHAT you are obeying. Nothing more. If the distinction is greater or different than what i have just said, then show me.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook


We obey!
Obedience is what worship is.
Obedience is what being a good citizen is.
So in MY BOOK the distinction between the twain is merely based on WHOM or WHAT you are obeying. Nothing more. If the distinction is greater or different than what i have just said, then show me.

But we also change laws, challenge laws, introduce new laws, et
Do you challenge your god, change your god, or introduce a new god when the old one isn't working to spec?

[dmarker]

By the way a little something about burnt human sacrifices:

Judges
11:29
Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.

11:30
And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,


11:31
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.

11:32
So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.

11:33
And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

11:34
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; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

11:35
And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.

11:36
And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

11:37
And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.

11:38
And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

11:39
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 she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,

11:40
That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

Did the pages of your bible get stuck together in Judges?


edited to remove some extraneous material not at all related to these verses which can be found in the King James version of the Bible.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

A lot. I may experience awe when I contemplate the size of the universe, but I don't pray to it, I don't sacrifice to it, and I don't have a "relationship" to it. I have a sense of appreciation and wonder about my being here, however that doesn't involve me getting down on my hands and knees and praying to God before I go to bed at night. Which, is the whole point. I'm saying the worship of God need not be anything like this. It all depends on whether we're capable of outgrowing our immaturity or not.

[Doctor X]

dmarker:

Ah . . . Jephthah's daughter. I have to add that to my discussion one of these days.

Anyways, one of the most significant points is that YHWH ACCEPTS THE SACRIFICE!!

No substitution.

No "stay thine hand stupid!"

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

[Poof!--Ed.]

[Doctor X]

[Poof!--Ed.]

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Radrook
The difference is merely that of WHOM or WHAT you are obeying--nothing more.

The fact is that following God's commands is no different than what citizens do every day--follow the demands of their governments or else be willing to pay the consequences.

If it is different--then show me how instead of demanding definitions.

Fine- I will.

Originally posted by Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=worship)
wor·ship
n.
1. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
2. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
3. Ardent devotion; adoration.


Originally posted by Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=obeying)

o·bey
v. o·beyed, o·bey·ing, o·beys
v. tr.
1. To carry out or fulfill the command, order, or instruction of.
2. To carry out or comply with (a command, for example).

v. intr.
To behave obediently.

In the OT:

There are plenty of instances in the bible wherein the followers of god are admonished not to worship idols; are you saying that these inanimate bits of wood, stone, and metal will begin issuing commands if they are so worshipped? Or will they spontaneously issue commands that the weak minded will blindly follow?

In the NT:

Originally posted by Biblegateway.com (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+2:11&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Matthew 2:11
On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him
The wise men are said to have "worshiped" the baby- did a newborn infant outline a course of action to be obeyed?

Originally posted by Biblegateway.com (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+2:37&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Luke 2:37
and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying.

Was there a law requiring old women to fast in the temple, or was she trying to show devotion?

Originally posted by Biblegateway.com (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOHN+4:20&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
John 4:20
Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.

Did the Samaritan woman mean that laws were obeyed only on the mountain? That the Jews wanted them to only obey laws in the city?


Need I go on? Examples like this, where "worship" is used as it is defined above, are legion. Show me one where it is used otherwise, please.

Okay, let's try "obey":

What do you know; the bible is full of "obey"s, used as above. If the terms are interchangeable, why are there two words for it?

And wait, what do we have here?

Originally posted by Biblegateway.com (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=DAN+7:27&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Daniel 7:27
Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.

Worship and obey? Was the author of Daniel just being redundant?

C'mon, Rad- you're starting to equivocate like Iacchus with this nonsense.

[Radrook]

Yawwwwwwwn!



Originally posted by dmarker
By the way a little something about burnt human sacrifices:

Judges
11:29
Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.

11:30
And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,


11:31
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.

11:32
So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.

11:33
And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

11:34
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; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

11:35
And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.

11:36
And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

11:37
And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.

11:38
And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

11:39
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 she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,

11:40
That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

Did the pages of your bible get stuck together in Judges?


edited to remove some extraneous material not at all related to these verses which can be found in the King James version of the Bible.

The girl was alive and well and receiving visitors long after you claim she went up in a blaze of glory.

[Doctor X]

So now he denies the texts.

--J.D.

[Radrook]

Here is a nice article explaining the RIGHT way to understand what happened in reference to Jepthah and his vow and WHY it is the RIGHT way to understand it.


Jephthah's Vow:
Did He or Didn't He?
by Richard T. Ritenbaugh

Excerpt:
Scholars and theologians throughout the ages have wondered, "Did Jephthah really sacrifice his daughter? Or did he dedicate her to God for the rest of her life?" Until the Middle Ages, every commentator of record (even Josephus, cf. Antiquities, 5.7.10) wrote that he actually killed her, but enough evidence exists to suggest that he did not offer her on an altar, but made her a lifelong Nazirite, totally dedicated and holy to God (Numbers 6:8).....




But Jephthah knew the law. He knew that God requires parley before battle to give the opponent a chance to surrender or retreat. He knew that vows are sacred promises to be kept (Numbers 30). He also knew the history of Israel's approach to the Promised Land and Moses' negotiations with the kings of Edom, Moab and the Amorites well enough to make a legal point in his own negotiations (Judges 11:15-27). Obviously, Jephthah knew that human sacrifice is a detestable and hated act to God (Leviticus 18:21; Deuteronomy 12:31)....




Also, the words "he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed" show that he had divine approval for his actions. God would not have approved of human sacrifice. If God had not approved, the writer would have written of God's displeasure, as he did with Gideon's making of a golden ephod (Judges 8:27). And certainly it would not have become a tradition of praise, a customary event in Israel, if God was not pleased.




http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/page/literature.showResource/CT/RA/k/584
__________________________________________

In short, the opposing view requires that Jepthah be ignorant of or disrespectful of the Mosaic Law which condemned child sacrifices, that the writer of Judges also be ignorant of that disapproval and go completely contrary to God's Law by not condemning Jepthah, that the whole nation of Israel ignore the Mosaic Law and celebrate human sacrifice, and that even the Apostle Paul join in centuries later with approval by including Jepthah in his list of people of faith.


Such illogical requiremnents strongly suggest that the proper understanding is that Jepthah merely dedicated his daughter to God's service and that his reference to burnt sacrifice was in relation to the ritualistic aspect of the law and its redemptive intervention so as to prevent the actual carrying out.


This is not to say that I am trying to bring you over to my view via force of logic or in any other way. Only to say that this is my view.

[Doctor X]

. . . but enough evidence exists to suggest. . . .

"Suggest?"

Most ironic.

However, the text does not at all suggest a woman can be a Nazarite, and this story does not, in any way, suggest she became anything but dead.

Imagination is wonderful thing save in precision.

I remind, again, what is meant by "devotion:"

Lev 27:29 "No one devoted who is to be utterly destroyed from among men shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death."

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

However, will note, en passant, no attempt to address the Exodus, Jeremaiah, Isaiah, or Ezekiel passages.

That is at least progress.

--J.D.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Doctor X
[B]

[quote]"Suggest?"

Most ironic.

SIGH!


Naturally when posting this saw that coming as a matter of course. No big deal.
Not at all.
There is a big difference in trying to lead others to believe that the author is doing far more than suggesting as you routinely do and my mere posting of a person speaking about suggestons. You are comparing apples with kiwis.


However, the text does not at all suggest a woman can be a Nazarite, and this story does not, in any way, suggest she became anything but dead.


To YOU.
God appointed women as judges in Israel.
Also as prophetesses.
So why not allow one to become a Nazarite which is a far less prestigious position? I fail to see the logic in your conclusion.


Imagination is wonderful thing save in precision.[/qoute]

You should know by default.


[quote]
I remind, again, what is meant by "devotion:"

The same that it meant when those kids you claim were going up in smoke were offered only symbolically and were symbolically redeemed and went on to live happy normal lives among loving parents.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Doctor X


"Suggest?"

Most ironic.

However, the text does not at all suggest a woman can be a Nazarite, and this story does not, in any way, suggest she became anything but dead.

Imagination is wonderful thing save in precision.

I remind, again, what is meant by "devotion:"



--J.D.

You strangely are confusing things and people specifically singled out for destruction based on their idolatrous nature or sinful conduct with the devotion or setting aside of things and people for the purpose of doing God's will.

For the Levites that meant attending to duties in relation to the Tabernacle and later the Temple.

Being dedicated by God, devoted by God, or set apart by God for destruction purposes or to be destroyed has absolutely NOTHING to do with being set apart by God for the purpose of doing God's will as the Levites were doing or Israel as a nation was expected to do.

Whole cities were devoted or set apart for destruction purposes.
A city devoted or set apart that way was to be destroyed via military action against it.

That is the way it is commonly and correctly understood.
Your interpretation requires a great deal of illogical warping of context.


BTW

Words have original meanings but those meanings take on other shades of meanings and the words become much more versatile than they originally were.

If we strive to restrict words to their root meaning via ignoring their later acquired meanings then we will misinform. Ignoring imediate and general context compounds the problem.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker


But we also change laws, challenge laws, introduce new laws, et
Do you challenge your god, change your god, or introduce a new god when the old one isn't working to spec?

You are describing a democracy.
God's government is not a democracy.
It is a kingdom theocracy.
To expect democratic procedures under a kingdom is illogical.

BTW
Plato hated democracies and suggested instead his Republic which was much more restrictive but which from his view did not allow the undereducated masses to make important decisions via voting which they were intellectually unqualified to make.

[Doctor X]

Daddy's Little Girl or This Lady's Is for Burning:

Judges 11:29-40 Then the Spirit of YHWH came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manas'seh, and passed on to Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah of Gilead he passed on to the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to YHWH, and said, "If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be YHWH's, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering." So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and YHWH gave them into his hand. And he smote them from Aro'er to the neighborhood of Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim, with a very great slaughter. So the Ammonites were subdued before the people of Israel. Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. And when he saw her, he rent his clothes, and said, "Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me; for I have opened my mouth to YHWH, and I cannot take back my vow." And she said to him, "My father, if you have opened your mouth to the YHWH, do to me according to what has gone forth from your mouth, now that the YHWH has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites." And she said to her father, "Let this thing be done for me; let me alone two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions." And he said, "Go." And he sent her away for two months; and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had made. She had never known a man. And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.[RSV--Ed.]

The Biblical Hebrew term for "sacrifice" or "burnt offering" is ' ôl âh (Levenson, Smith, EHG), and it "denotes an offering entirely consumed by fire." (Smith, EHG). It is the same word used in the first chapter of Leviticus (Smith, EHG). Levenson stresses:

But what is missing in this story is any indication that child sacrifice, painful to father and offspring alive, was inappropriate from God'sstandpoint. Quite the opposite: Jephthah's actions are intelligible only on the assumption that his daughter--he had no son--could legitimately be sacrificed as a burnt offering to YHWH. Had she not been fit to sacrifice, the vow would have been unfulfillable, as he obviously wishes were the case (v 35).

Unlike the Redacted portion of the aqedah, YHWH does not order a substitution. YHWH does not act in any fashion that would indicate he finds Jephthah promise at all offensive.

--J.D.

References:

Levenson JD. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300065116/qid=1080646921/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Smith M. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080283972X/qid=1086774305/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3411020-6434368?v=glance&s=books). 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2002.

[Edited to correct the quote function.--Ed.]

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Doctor X
However, will note, en passant, no attempt to address the Exodus, Jeremaiah, Isaiah, or Ezekiel passages.

That is at least progress.

--J.D.


THe error of your general approach was addressed which would logically include these passages. You fail to include them as being addressed because you choose to stubbornly hold on to your untenable position. For that I have no cure.

[Doctor X]

No version of the immolation of Jephthah's daughter--no textual witness extant--supports Nazarite.

"To YOU" seems to consist of allowing whatever he really, really, really wants to avoid accepting what the text actually says.

He then tries to complain we should not limit the meaning to what the words say. Of course! He does not like what the words say!

Unfortunately, he cannot sentence the texts or their authors to his beliefs, and then, in a wonderful petitio principi, use them to support his beliefs.

Such is eisegesis and not exegesis.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Now this proves most unfortunate:

THe error of your general approach was addressed which would logically include these passages.

The sentence makes no sense, of course. The bottom line is he cannot address the textual evidence.

He prefers to pretend they do not exist. He fools no one buthimself with this approach.

You fail to include them as being addressed because you choose to stubbornly hold on to your untenable position.

Ipse dixit and incorrect, of course. I merely recognized that he had no answer for them. The position is not mine, but that of the indeed vast majority if not entirety of biblical scholars.

For that I have no cure.

Should the individual read the textual evidence, he may yet find himself cured of his pesky ignorance.

I remain the optimist.

--J.D.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Doctor X Daddy's Little Girl or This Lady's Is for Burning:
SIGH!

Before we commence to tango, let me make a helpful suggestion that if taken just might help.

Think for yourself.


Otherwise you will be blown about this way and that way by anyone toting a certificate and who really doesn't know or care whether you spell Moses as Moses or as Noses or Closes.



The Biblical Hebrew term for "sacrifice" or "burnt offering" is ' ôl âh (Levenson, Smith, EHG), and it "denotes an offering entirely consumed by fire." (Smith, EHG). It is the same word used in the first chapter of Leviticus (Smith, EHG). Levenson stresses:


Do you really believe that I care what Levenson stresses?
Why he stresses?
Where he stresses.
Or where he vehemently refuses to stress?



In any case:

I guess

The use of images in the Bible is common.
Fire, water, blood, hand, finger, mountain, cities, woman, rock, ocean, garments, darkness, light, bitterness, sweetness, stench, dog, pig, eye, ear, and countless more words are all used symbolically. Their root meaning doesn't prevent them from being used that way--you know. To show the absurdity of this view please consider that if every poet were to be restricted by the a word's root meaning he could never use metaphors. He would be creatively hamstrung!

Critics would be delving into root meanings and criticizing famous poets for using such words as flame, heat, fire, inferno, blazes, and so on. But they don't do they? That's because they recognize that words can be used in a metaphorical manner.

Actually, it is very ["hard"] (look up the root for hard!) to believe that you are not familiar with the auditory, olfactory, tactile, visual, and gustatory imagery used in the Bible.


[quote]
Unlike the Redacted portion of the aqedah, YHWH does not order a substitution. YHWH does not act in any fashion that would indicate he finds Jephthah promise at all offensive.

The real question here is why resort to extrabiblical writings when we are discussing the books officially recognized as inspired. At least I am. If you are not--then you are obviously and perhaps unwittingly holding a dabate with yourself. These other sources is irrelevant. As is bringing in versions which the Church rejects as uninspired or soimehow innaproprisate due to tampering or other evidence of being uninspired.

[Radrook]

Since the doc has shifted to talking robustly about me in the second even though I have been adressing him in the first person I suppose that he will not mind me doing the same.

Let me too be robust for just a moment here then.

First:
Not everything that shines is gold.
Not all dogs who have teeth bite.
Not all who claim irrefutability should.

A case in point is the doc.

The doc's persitent problem in his quest for recognition can be very simply described as a penchant for assuming from scanty evidence and making sweeping generalizations on data wrenched completely out of its context.

Which means that he ignores what precedes what was said or written, and what follows what was said or written in order to convince us that Levenson and his other admired writers are always right.

Of course he might convince the less knowldgeable among us. But the more savvy cannot help but notice that the Doc does trust too much as evidenced by the inordinate amount of quotations gratuitously thrust in our direction.

To which I would offer the suggestion that he rely more on his own vaunted intellectual prowess instead.

It makes for a more interesting debate in my book.

[scribble]

Ahem... Radrook... I'm still waiting for you to pick up *our* debate, pal.

Check your PMs if you need a link.

I'd correct you on some things here, but unlike you, I like to limit myself to only a few debates at a time so I can actually keep track of them.

It gives people a better impression of me when they know I'm not going to duck out in the middle, then be lured back in, act all confused about what we were talking about, then vanish again for days...

[Radrook]

Originally posted by scribble
Ahem... Radrook... I'm still waiting for you to pick up *our* debate, pal.

Check your PMs if you need a link.

I'd correct you on some things here, but unlike you, I like to limit myself to only a few debates at a time so I can actually keep track of them.

It gives people a better impression of me when they know I'm not going to duck out in the middle, then be lured back in, act all confused about what we were talking about, then vanish again for days...

I never ducked a debate based on fear of losing it if that's what you are implying. I have discontinued certain debates based on the illogical procedure being used.

I tend to become annoyed at that kind of thing. Such as repetition of the same thoroughly refuted argument and demands that I deal with the idential argument over and over on the same thread simply because it is reworded--as if I were some type of machine or maybe in an effort to annoy or wear me down.


Anyway, I have repeatedly requested a link and you have not responded as you did the first time.

I will go to the pm and look then.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Radrook
I never ducked a debate based on fear of losing it if that's what you are implying.


No, I'm implying nothing.


I have discontinued certain debates based on the illogical procedure being used.


I hope *you* aren't implying I've been illogical...


I tend to become annoyed at that kind of thing. Such as repetition of the same thoroughly refuted argument and demands that I deal with the idential argument over and over on the same thread simply because it is reworded--as if I were some type of machine or maybe in an effort to annoy or wear me down.


I hope *you* aren't implying that I've been repetitive.


Anyway, I have repeatedly requested a link and you have not responded as you did the first time.


No implications here, but a direct statement: THIS is what I'm tlaking about. You seem to be involved in too many arguments for you to keep track of. If you cut back a little and finished project A before you started on project B then...


I will go to the pm and look then.

... you wouldn't have to rely on me to do your work for you.

Put a little effort into our debate. I'll respect you more.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook
Yawwwwwwwn!
The girl was alive and well and receiving visitors long after you claim she went up in a blaze of glory.


You met her then?

Reread the last verse:

11:40
That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.


Why lament somebody who remained alive and well?

[dmarker]

Rad, if the girl had become a Nazir, she wouldn't have to forfeit sex nor marriage:

"In the Bible, a man dedicated to G-d. The Nazarite, after taking a special vow, abstained from intoxicating beverages, never cut his hair, and avoided corpses. An inadvertent breach of these rules called for purificatory rites. His vow was for a fixed term (though it could also be for life), at the end of which he was released. Samuel, the prophet, and Samson were Nazarites. The name is also spelled Nazirite."

[Ipecac]

Sorry, Radrook, Doctor X just handed you your head.

The verses are clear. She was sacrificed and died.

You are the one ignoring the plain meaning of the text.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook


You are describing a democracy.
God's government is not a democracy.
It is a kingdom theocracy.
To expect democratic procedures under a kingdom is illogical.

BTW
Plato hated democracies and suggested instead his Republic which was much more restrictive but which from his view did not allow the undereducated masses to make important decisions via voting which they were intellectually unqualified to make.

But the US and many other countries are democracies. Since I don't have to blindly obey every law without trying to change it, this doesn't come under worship.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Sorry, Radrook, Doctor X just handed you your head.

The verses are clear. She was sacrificed and died.

You are the one ignoring the plain meaning of the text.

Standard Christian gambit when faced with scripture that they don't like is to say that the text doesn't mean what it says.

Take this direct command from Jesus himself:

Matthew:
6:5
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6:6
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Any Christian who wants school prayer should be required to read this verse aloud and explain why they are disobeying their god.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Radrook


The real question here is why resort to extrabiblical writings when we are discussing the books officially recognized as inspired. ... These other sources is irrelevant.

That's funny, Rad- my bibles don't have the "Book of Ritenbaugh
" in them. When was he declared "biblical"?

[Radrook]

Very Robust!

Then I guess all of you can now go celebrate cause you all think your friend handed me my arse on a platter.


Looks like a threesome to me!

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Piscivore


That's funny, Rad- my bibles don't have the "Book of Ritenbaugh
" in them. When was he declared "biblical"?

Only an imbecile would understand what I wrote that way.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker


But the US and many other countries are democracies. Since I don't have to blindly obey every law without trying to change it, this doesn't come under worship.

Clear and simpple basic English and he STILL doesn't get it!

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Sorry, Radrook, Doctor X just handed you your head.

The verses are clear. She was sacrificed and died.

You are the one ignoring the plain meaning of the text.



Then why do you feel obligated on telling me for as if I cared?
Maybe I should spell it out for you in Greek?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker



You met her then?

Reread the last verse:

11:40
That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.


Why lament somebody who remained alive and well?

Now this retrard demands that I meet the people I talk about in the Bible personally.
Excuse me for being robust but---
What an *******!

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Radrook


Only an imbecile would understand what I wrote that way.

:hit:

Um.. that was sarcasm, dude. You are declaiming "extrabiblical" sources, yet you cited one yourself.

Don't make me report you to the mods for being insulting, now. ;)

[Ossai]

More observations about Radrook:
1. He believes in predestination / saved by grace (he has, in this thread, declared people must follow their nature – ignores freewill.)
2. He is inconsistent (claims that Lucifer, an angel, rebelled and therefore had freewill)
3. He lacks understanding of basic English word usage. (below


We obey!
Obedience is what worship is.
Obedience is what being a good citizen is.
So in MY BOOK the distinction between the twain is merely based on WHOM or WHAT you are obeying. Nothing more. If the distinction is greater or different than what i have just said, then show me.

From Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: obedience
Function: noun
1 a : an act or instance of obeying b : the quality or state of being obedient
2 : a sphere of jurisdiction; especially : an ecclesiastical or sometimes secular dominion

Main Entry: worship
1 chiefly British : a person of importance -- used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
3 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <worship of the dollar>


Radrook
The real question here is why resort to extrabiblical writings when we are discussing the books officially recognized as inspired. Officially recognized by whom? Inspired by what?

Ossai

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Piscivore


That's funny, Rad- my bibles don't have the "Book of Ritenbaugh
" in them. When was he declared "biblical"?


Ummmm that what you think I said ummmm?
Maybe remedial classes will help.
But you have to be willing to attend.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Ossai
More observations about Radrook:
1. He believes in predestination / saved by grace (he has, in this thread, declared people must follow their nature – ignores freewill.)
2. He is inconsistent (claims that Lucifer, an angel, rebelled and therefore had freewill)
3. He lacks understanding of basic English word usage. (below




From Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: obedience
Function: noun
1 a : an act or instance of obeying b : the quality or state of being obedient
2 : a sphere of jurisdiction; especially : an ecclesiastical or sometimes secular dominion

Main Entry: worship
1 chiefly British : a person of importance -- used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
3 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <worship of the dollar>


Radrook
Officially recognized by whom? Inspired by what?

Ossai

Content removed.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Radrook


Content removed.

I think we broke him.

Reported.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in
BTW Radrock, your first link is broken. After reading the html it's obvious why.

For someone who's so upset about the usage of qualifiers, have a read of your own first posting. I've posted it here so you can't change it. None of the ten expressions above appear at all, with the single exception of 'seems' which is not used in a qualifing sense.



Since the things you are presenting are certainly not taken by scholars as a certainty, and in some cases conflicting opinions are held (As shown by the Doc.) this would make you, by your own logic, not a 'wise and honest scholar'.

Content removed.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook


Now this retrard demands that I meet the people I talk about in the Bible personally.
Excuse me for being robust but---
What an a**hole!

Why would anyone lament someone who has been consecrated to god?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in
BTW Radrock, your first link is broken. After reading the html it's obvious why.

For someone who's so upset about the usage of qualifiers, have a read of your own first posting. I've posted it here so you can't change it. None of the ten expressions above appear at all, with the single exception of 'seems' which is not used in a qualifing sense.



Since the things you are presenting are certainly not taken by scholars as a certainty, and in some cases conflicting opinions are held (As shown by the Doc.) this would make you, by your own logic, not a 'wise and honest scholar'.

Content removed.

This post has been reported. I agree this crosses the line and is unneccessarily rude and obscene, even with the asterisks. I consider a warning in order.
This decision may, as always, be reported to the administrators.
tim - evil moderator
18.27 BST 07/13/04

[Radrook]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wittgenst3in
[B]BTW Radrock, your first link is broken. After reading the html it's obvious why.

For someone who's so upset about the usage of qualifiers, have a read of your own first posting. I've posted it here so you can't change it. None of the ten expressions above appear at all, with the single exception of 'seems' which is not used in a qualifing sense.



Since the things you are presenting are certainly not taken by scholars as a certainty, and in some cases conflicting opi

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Piscivore


I think we broke him.

Reported.

Content removed.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker


Why would anyone lament someone who has been consecrated to god?

Content removed.

[dmarker]

What I asked:

"Why would anyone lament someone who has been consecrated to god?"

Originally posted by Radrook


Go ask your f**kin imbecile mother.
Or maybe you too busy giving doc a blow job.

In other words, you have no answer. Showing your colors as a True Christian, you resort to crude verbal assault because your own book has been used against you in a debate that you started.

That website that gives instructions to Christians who want to debate atheists left out the most important instruction. Don't do it.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker
What I asked:

"Why would anyone lament someone who has been consecrated to god?"



In other words, you have no answer. Showing your colors as a True Christian, you resort to crude verbal assault because your own book has been used against you in a debate that you started.

That website that gives instructions to Christians who want to debate atheists left out the most important instruction. Don't do it.

Don't keep the doc waiting mamma.
He got a full load fer ya.
And you gots those big lips!

Hey Mau **********--was I talkin to you befiore yuou ****in jumped in with te rest of your queer friends?

[Ipecac]

Wow. A complete meltdown. And rather quickly, too.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Wow. A complete meltdown. And rather quickly, too.



How come you understand CLEARLY what Im saying NOW?

Piece of s**t.

Either this stops immediately or Radrook will be suspended.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Radrook

How come you understand CLEARLY what Im saying NOW?

Piece of s**t.


Because, in the purity of your hatred, you've finally become coherent. Congratulations!

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook


Don't keep the doc waiting mamma.
He got a full load fer ya.
And you gots those big lips!

Hey Mau f**ker--was I talkin to you befiore yuou f**kin jumped in with te rest of your queer friends?

You posted a strawman arguement to a public forum where I am a member. Yes, you were talking to me.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Because, in the purity of your hatred, you've finally become coherent. Congratulations!


Very unconvincing.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker


You posted a strawman arguement to a public forum where I am a member. Yes, you were talking to me.

The debate was between me and the doc.
He needs no assistance.
He is quite able to fend for himselk.
In fact, was doing so without any assistance at all.
I don't particularly like his assides and his irrelevancies.
But I can tolerate them in the name of rational discussion.


I don't mind others participating either in a spirit of fair play.
But if others jump in to mangle what I say, twist it around, accuse me of saying it, refute it and then celebrate a supposed victory then then the unfairness of the situation becomes provocative.

I left a certain so-called Christian denomination because its members were always provoking and then sitting back to chortle and express surpise whenever the person reacted to their antics.

If indeed we are here to explore subjects in the spirit of really exploring a subject and not just to claim victories or to gang up on one person in order to swamp him with inanities or in order to bAIT to see what response we can evoke, then there is no need for efforts based on collusions of this kind.

[Doctor X]

No one can think I enjoy this.

--J.D.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook


The debate was between me and the doc.
He needs no assistance.
He is quite able to fend for himselk.
In fact, was doing so without any assistance at all.
I don't particularly like his assides and his irrelevancies.
But I can tolerate them in the name of rational discussion.


I don't mind others participating either in a spirit of fair play.
But if others jump in to mangle what I say, twist it around, accuse me of saying it, refute it and then celebrate a supposed victory then then the unfairness of the situation becomes provocative.

I left a certain so-called Christian denomination because its members were always provoking and then sitting back to chortle and express surpise whenever the person reacted to their antics.

If indeed we are here to explore subjects in the spirit of really exploring a subject and not just to claim victories or to gang up on one person in order to swamp him with inanities or in order to bAIT to see what response we can evoke, then there is no need for efforts based on collusions of this kind.

The first post was not addressed to Doc. And I posted Judges 11:29 to 11:39 to make a post relevant to the subject that you brought up, burnt human sacrifice. Don't blame me if your own scriptures refute you, I didn't write them.

[Doctor X]

dmarker:

I gather the stress proved a bit much.

However, it cannot be easy to learn that the texts do not say what one thinks they say and they say things one does not want them to say.

No matter of torture or delusion saves Jephthah's daughter.

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Do you believe that people have a spirit? Because this is what ultimately guides us, not the printed words on some page.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Doctor X
dmarker:

I gather the stress proved a bit much.

However, it cannot be easy to learn that the texts do not say what one thinks they say and they say things one does not want them to say.

No matter of torture or delusion saves Jephthah's daughter.

--J.D.

True, Christians and other religious fundies do not like it when their own scriptures contradict them.

One of my favorites is Matthew 6:5 and 6:6

6:5
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6:6
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Very useful when debating school prayer, a direct command from Jesus himself to pray in private.

And the counter is "the devil can cite scripture for his own purpose" which is often attributed to the bible but comes from the play The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare Act I, Scene 3, line 80.

But when you quote scriptures against Christians and other strains of fundies, be prepared for some violent squirming as they try to escape the obvious.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe that people have a spirit? Because this is what ultimately guides us, not the printed words on some page. Is, or is not, the Bible the inerrant word of God?

[Doctor X]

dmarker:

But when you quote scriptures against Christians and other strains of fundies, be prepared for some violent squirming as they try to escape the obvious.

It is unfortunate that this happens. Denial of what the texts actually say, denies a great deal of history--what groups actually believed.

Returning to child sacrifice: why did passages support it and other passages try to condemn it? Ezekiel tries to condemn it and explain it. Coupled with other information it is because at one point it was a part of the popular religion.

"Christianity" is a wonderfully interesting mish-mash of argument and opinions. This is lost when people deny the texts.

--J.D.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Doctor X
dmarker:



It is unfortunate that this happens. Denial of what the texts actually say, denies a great deal of history--what groups actually believed.

Returning to child sacrifice: why did passages support it and other passages try to condemn it? Ezekiel tries to condemn it and explain it. Coupled with other information it is because at one point it was a part of the popular religion.

"Christianity" is a wonderfully interesting mish-mash of argument and opinions. This is lost when people deny the texts.

--J.D.

The variation is natural for a collection of works written in different times by different people. If you look at sci-fi and compare Isaac Asimov and Kim Stanley Robinson, you get two different views of terraforming other worlds. Asimov imagined that people would not take dangerous animals with them and Robinson definitely has polar bears occupying a terraformed Mars. A mere forty years separate Foundation and Caves of Steel from the Mars triology, but we have quite a bit of difference because culture changed that fast and the authors are two different men with differing viewpoints on the world.

I would say that same with child sacrifice. The scriptures differ on whether or not child sacrifice was popular at the time. And they also reflect on the authors' own views as well.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Zep

Is, or is not, the Bible the inerrant word of God? Whether it is or isn't is not the issue. Even Adolf Hitler can quote from the Bible and justify whatever evil he wants to do in the name of it -- if, in fact that was his intent. So in this respect the Bible could, and perhaps should? be treated like any other book. Good and evil is not determined by the Bible itself, it's determined by your own intentions and what you do with the Bible. So in this respect, as I said, it's the spirit that teaches us. And in my opinion, the Bible is a good reference in that regard.

Actually I'm not even sure I should have brought this up this thread, as it doesn't really apply to the original post. Sorry.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Whether it is or isn't is not the issue. Even Adolf Hitler can quote from the Bible and justify whatever evil he wants to do in the name of it -- if, in fact that was his intent. So in this respect the Bible could, and perhaps should? be treated like any other book. Good and evil is not determined by the Bible itself, it's determined by your own intentions and what you do with the Bible. So in this respect, as I said, it's the spirit that teaches us. And in my opinion, the Bible is a good reference in that regard.

Actually I'm not even sure I should have brought this up this thread, as it doesn't really apply to the original post. Sorry. The issue is that the Bible IS taken as the inerrant word of God by many people, so your response seems simply to be avoiding the issue here. And given that it IS taken by some as inerrant, AND that in some passages it does say clearly that God demanded a human sacrifce, the point does seem to be convincing, if not proven.

However, to address your response - you are now allowing that the Bible is not to be read absolutely literally, but treated more as a "Guide To Good Living". In that case I think you would find a great deal of agreement here - many of the positive aspects of biblical thought and teachings are condoned and adhered to by even "non-Christian" people, simply because it seems to be a sensible and ethical way of getting along with your neighbours. Does that surprise you? (It shouldn't.)


[edit - badde grandma]

[Radrook]

Wonder what Hitler amnd Jesus would have talked about if they would have ever met.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Zep

The issue is that the Bible IS taken as the inerrant word of God by many people, so your response seems simply to be avoiding the issue here. And given that it IS taken by some as inerrant, AND that in some passages it does say clearly that God demanded a human sacrifce, the point does seem to be convincing, if not proven.I'm simply not in agreement with them.


However, to address your response - you are now allowing that the Bible is not to be read absolutely literally, but treated more as a "Guide To Good Living". In that case I think you would find a great deal of agreement here - many of the positive aspects of biblical thought and teachings are condoned and adhered to by even "non-Christian" people, simply because it seems to be a sensible and ethical way of getting along with your neighbours. Does that surprise you? (It shouldn't.)Yes, this is pretty much how I look at the Bible myself. And, just in the way people are supposed to handle the American Flag in certain way, with a certain amount of respect, I would handle the Bible in a similar way. However, if I were to accidently drop it in a bucket of manure or something, I doubt very much that I would be condemned for it.

[Radrook]

Same goes for your book.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm simply not in agreement with them.


Yes, this is pretty much how I look at the Bible myself. And, just in the way people are supposed to handle the American Flag in certain way, with a certain amount of respect, I would handle the Bible in a similar way. However, if I were to accidently drop it in a bucket of manure or something, I doubt very much that I would be condemned for it.

Same goes for your book.
But with your book I'd make the exception of leaving it there where it belongs.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

Same goes for your book.
But with your book I'd make the exception of leaving it there where it belongs. What do you mean, leaving it on the Internet? and unpublished?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What do you mean, leaving it on the Internet? and unpublished?

I think he means in a bucket of manure. Rad is turning on you, Iacchus.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

I think he means in a bucket of manure. Rad is turning on you, Iacchus. Do you think so? That sounds like a declaration of war.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you think so? That sounds like a declaration of war.

Just as you want it.
My only regret is having supported your site when it most needed it. Besides that nohing lost.

[Swishy McJackass]

I thought this guy was leaving...

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Swishy McJackass
I thought this guy was leaving...

Sorry JACKASS!
I lied!
Now mall that over till your false donkey teeth fall out.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

Just as you want it.
My only regret is having supported your site when it most needed it. Besides that nohing lost. I see that your getting very close to your 666th post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41823) yourself. Of course when I posted my 2666th post, it happened to the one I posted on this very thread, referring to the Bible and Hitler. And I was wondering what if anything it might mean? Well, I guess it certainly does!

[Radrook]

Say, I did just hit infamous number post.
Ogh oh!
I'm in trouble now.

:) :D :)

Wonder what happens when the 666 edition of the book I mentioned hits the manure heap?


Spontaneous combustion?



:D

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Radrook
Sorry JACKASS!
I lied!
Now mall that over till your false donkey teeth fall out.


LOL! "Mall (sic) that over till your false donkey teeth fall out." What a surreal insult! I love it.

[Doctor X]

Flame-out is hardly a pretty sight.

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

The Name Jesus = 666 huh? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41823) Or, could it be Adolph Hitler perhaps?

http://www.dionysus.org/images/rad_666.gif (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41823)

Click anywhere on the picture to follow the link ...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Zep

Is, or is not, the Bible the inerrant word of God? Originally posted by Iacchus
Whether it is or isn't is not the issue. Even Adolf Hitler can quote from the Bible and justify whatever evil he wants to do in the name of it -- if, in fact that was his intent. So in this respect the Bible could, and perhaps should? be treated like any other book. Good and evil is not determined by the Bible itself, it's determined by your own intentions and what you do with the Bible. So in this respect, as I said, it's the spirit that teaches us. And in my opinion, the Bible is a good reference in that regard.

Actually I'm not even sure I should have brought this up this thread, as it doesn't really apply to the original post. Sorry. Now what did I say about my not posting on this thread? Guess there must have been a reason for it afterall. ;) Please see previous page (at bottom of page (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43094&pagenumber=3)).

[Radrook]

INGRATE

[scribble]

Originally posted by Radrook
INGRATE

Are you describing yourself?

Did you already forget the favors I did for you this morning?

[Hardenbergh]

Here's an example from the editorial page in the Kennebec Journal dated 07/14/04:

Don't use Bible for marriage laws

When I read Albert Boynton's letter (July 9) in which he quoted the Bible as saying that marriage must be between a man and a woman, I was reminded of an article I read recently. That article made the point that if we are to define marriage based on the Bible, we should be consistent and include other Biblical teachings regarding marriage.

For instance, marriage shall be between a man and one or more women, and marriage shall not prevent the man from taking concubines in addition to his wife or wives.

Here are just two of the many passages cited in the article: II Samuel 5:13 tells us that King David had several wives and concubines, while I Kings 11:3 is more specific regarding King Solomon. He had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

Another biblical law concerning marriage is that if a man accuses his wife of not having been a virgin on her wedding day and her parents cannot prove otherwise, the men of her town must stone her to death (Deuteronomy 22:13-31).

I hope most readers will agree that we should think twice before using the Bible as the basis for marriage laws.

Richard H. Diamond
Litchfield

[Radrook]

I think that Bush is pushing for a ban on homo marriages.
He obviously is not concerned with losing homo votes.
Maybe his minister convinced him to take that action.
He is a church-goer--right?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook
INGRATE Hey, you're the one who implied my book belonged in a bucket of manure (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43094&pagenumber=3), not me.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Hardenbergh
Here's an example from the editorial page in the Kennebec Journal dated 07/14/04:


I hope most readers will agree that we should think twice before using the Bible as the basis for marriage laws.

Richard H. Diamond
Litchfield

Riiiiiiight!
All the stonings going on.
These Christians have to be stopped from stoning people so much. Especially at weddings where guests get stoned and stumble out the door right into waiting stoners. Now that smarts!

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Hardenbergh

I hope most readers will agree that we should think twice before using the Bible as the basis for marriage laws.

Richard H. Diamond
Litchfield

Welcome Richard.

I think most people do ignore the bible when they legislate (thankfully), they just don't realise they do. I think people tend to think 'What would Jesus do?' rather than 'What has God already done?'.

[Hardenbergh]

I just want to make it clear that Richard H. Diamond is the contributor of a an editorial letter that I was quoting from the editorial page of the Kennebec Journal in Augusta, Maine. I don't agree with his views.

[Radrook]

I knew that this Iacchus fellow was not a Christan even before he started talking the trash about Jesus he's talking right now. Wasn't fooling anyone but himself.

All he's interested in is in that little book he wants to sell you and that false prophet he worships and that he talks about all the time.

That's why he invites you to his site so he can push the sale of his little senseless book. In fact, almost two thirds of his site is for that purposer. Talk about trying to ram something down people's throats!

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by Hardenbergh
I just want to make it clear that Richard H. Diamond is the contributor of a an editorial letter that I was quoting from the editorial page of the Kennebec Journal in Augusta, Maine. I don't agree with his views.

Gotcha. I was wondering Why you called youself Hardenbergh.

:)

[Iacchus]

Well here the darn thing is again ...

http://www.dionysus.org/images/rad_666_2.gif (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41823)

32 And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass. ~ Genesis 41:32 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Genesis+41)Please click on picture to follow link.

[Piscivore]

Why do you keep linking to that thread? Are you now implying that Radrook is Jesus?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Why do you keep linking to that thread? Are you now implying that Radrook is Jesus? Actually it all started with this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870539498#post1870539498). Which, was my 2666th post and follows through to where you are currently. While it's funny how after I posted it I realized it probably didn't belong in this thread, and then I noticed the post count, and wondered if it had anything to do with anything?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually it all started with this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870539498#post1870539498). Which, was my 2666th post and follows through to where you are currently. While it's funny how after I posted it I realized it probably didn't belong in this thread, and then I noticed the post count, and wondered if it had anything to do with anything?

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe that people have a spirit? Because this is what ultimately guides us, not the printed words on some page.

That one? What does that have to do with your Revelations nonsense?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

That one? What does that have to do with your Revelations nonsense? There were a series of posts that followed that post, so you might to at least read to the end of that page. Got it? There were several things said in other words.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There were a series of posts that followed that post, so you might to at least read to the end of that page. Got it? There were several things said in other words.

I did. There were a few unrelated topics discussed, you said "I see that your getting very close to your 666th post yourself. Of course when I posted my 2666th post, it happened to the one I posted on this very thread, referring to the Bible and Hitler. And I was wondering what if anything it might mean? Well, I guess it certainly does!" - Which post you linked to, "Do you believe that people have a spirit? Because this is what ultimately guides us, not the printed words on some page." (nothing to do with Hitler, that I see) and you, as typical, decided it meant something, but declined to state exactly what.

Then Rad said he posted his 666th post, and you immediately linked to that nonsense thread. Why?

[Doctor X]

This is like watching a Flat Earther and "the World is Hollow and We Live Insider" argue.

Anyways, since there seems to be no depth do which one of them will sink--demonstrating that "oh so Christian tolerance" regarding "homos"--I wonder if he will prove just as surprised to learn the OT views on homosexuality as he was with child sacrifice and genocide.

--J.D.

[Radrook]

Yaaaaaawn.

Sticks and stanes and break my banes but woids can neva hoit ma.

[pgwenthold]

Did God demand burnt sacrifices? Consider this...

Yay and God said to Abraham, "you will kill your son, Issak", and Abraham said, "I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here." --- Agent Buchwald

[wittgenst3in]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Did God demand burnt sacrifices? Consider this...

--- Agent Buchwald

Excellent family guy reference.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Did God demand burnt sacrifices? Consider this...

--- Agent Buchwald

And Abram yelled back "Rare or well done Lord? I say Rare or weeeeela done?"

Howtcha like that one Chucm? ummm?

Hayala---- Hayala haylowa!
Hayala---- Hayala haylowa!

Hayallllaaaa!



Hayala---- Hayala haylowa!
Hayala---- Hayala haylowa!

HumchuchaHumchucha!

:D

[Doctor X]

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."

--Bob Dylan, "Highway 61 Revisited (http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/highway61.html)"

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Perhaps you should try considering it from the standpoint of human nature, rather than from all this "thou shalt not do this" and "thou shalt not do that" crap? You know in the sense that people will quite often chose that which they hold most dear, over that which is better for everyone else a whole? In which case maybe God was merely testing Abraham, to see how selfishly attached he had become to his son? It would be wrong to suggest this had anything to do with "blind obeisance" though. If so, then that "god" is not worthy of worship.

Also, might I suggest that this was done more on Abraham's behalf, to illustrate that maybe he shouldn't put so much of himself into the life of his son? Indeed, parents have a way of doing that don't they?

[Doctor X]

Oh well. . . .

In which case maybe God was merely testing Abraham, to see how selfishly attached he had become to his son?

No. Sacrifices were done to give to the god what the god owned. By giving this up the sacrificer became worthy of benefit. As above, evidence suggests Abram sacrifices Isaac in the E version.

It would be wrong to suggest this had anything to do with "blind obeisance" though.

It is wrong to suggest it is not.

If so, then that "god" is not worthy of worship.

He is not.

Also, might I suggest that this was done more on Abraham's behalf, to illustrate that maybe he shouldn't put so much of himself into the life of his son? Indeed, parents have a way of doing that don't they?

Irrelevant and offensive apology.

--J.D.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Also, might I suggest that this was done more on Abraham's behalf, to illustrate that maybe he shouldn't put so much of himself into the life of his son? Indeed, parents have a way of doing that don't they?

I'm not seeing that. I'm pretty heavily invested in my son, you wouldn't see me putting him on an altar for any reason. I'd put myself in his place first. I do not consider this a failing; rather my first duty as a parent- to protect his well being, even over a busload of nuns.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Oh well. . . .

No. Sacrifices were done to give to the god what the god owned. By giving this up the sacrificer became worthy of benefit. As above, evidence suggests Abram sacrifices Isaac in the E version.

It is wrong to suggest it is not.

He is not.

Irrelevant and offensive apology.

--J.D. Hey, at least it gives us all something to argue about, right?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

I'm not seeing that. I'm pretty heavily invested in my son, you wouldn't see me putting him on an altar for any reason. I'd put myself in his place first. I do not consider this a failing; rather my first duty as a parent- to protect his well being, even over a busload of nuns. Hey, I didn't come here to point fingers at everybody, so you can pretty much take it whichever way you want. Parents do make the mistake of trying to live their lives through their children though, which is wrong and very selfish.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, I didn't come here to point fingers at everybody, so you can pretty much take it whichever way you want. Parents do make the mistake of trying to live their lives through their children though, which is wrong and very selfish.

I wasn't taking offense. Just disagreeing.

As for your last point, yeah, it does happen, and it is wrong. But, as Dr. X illustrates far more aptly than I could, that's not what the story says.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

I knew that this Iacchus fellow was not a Christan even before he started talking the trash about Jesus he's talking right now. Wasn't fooling anyone but himself.

All he's interested in is in that little book he wants to sell you and that false prophet he worships and that he talks about all the time.

That's why he invites you to his site so he can push the sale of his little senseless book. In fact, almost two thirds of his site is for that purposer. Talk about trying to ram something down people's throats! The difference between you and me is that I'm not a Bible thumper. And no, I'm not trying to ram anything down anybody's throat. Got it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

I wasn't taking offense. Just disagreeing.

As for your last point, yeah, it does happen, and it is wrong. Fair enough.


But, as Dr. X illustrates far more aptly than I could, that's not what the story says. I just prefer not to get all bogged down in all the "what if's," because most of it's irrelevant anyway. In fact I don't see how anybody can possibly gleen anything from the Bible if this is their approach, unless of course they're main intent was to refute.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I just prefer not to get all bogged down in all the "what if's," because most of it's irrelevant anyway.

I call Bullsh1t on that, because most of your sentences feature the words "if" or "maybe".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

Say, I did just hit infamous number post.
Ogh oh!
I'm in trouble now.

:) :D :)

Wonder what happens when the 666 edition of the book I mentioned hits the manure heap?

Spontaneous combustion?

:D Was this the acutal post here? While hey, it's not up to me what happens to that dang thing (the book). ;)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Was this the acutal post here? While hey, it's not up to me what happens to that dang thing (the book). ;)

Rad's been suspended (so I've heard), so you're arguing with a ghost.

I wouldn't take anything he said in the last two days to heart, anyway, man.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

I call Bullsh1t on that, because most of your sentences feature the words "if" or "maybe". Well I guess we all have our own pettiness which suits us now don't we?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Rad's been suspended (so I've heard), so you're arguing with a ghost.

I wouldn't take anything he said in the last two days to heart, anyway, man. It's all water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. ;)

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well I guess we all have our own pettiness which suits us now don't we?

Is it petty to call someone on it when they're lying? Then I'm petty. I can live with that. Your entire method of "research" is "what if" speculation. You saying "I just prefer not to get all bogged down in all the "what if's" is a lie.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Is it petty to call someone on it when they're lying? Then I'm petty. I can live with that. Your entire method of "research" is "what if" speculation. You saying "I just prefer not to get all bogged down in all the "what if's" is a lie. It's just the same old crap over and over again. Which, I have no use for of course.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's just the same old crap over and over again. Which, I have no use for of course.

Yup, you dodge, dissemble, equivocate and sometimes lie- we are not impressed, call you on it, show you your error- you spout some vauge and naive nonsense, words special to you in italics and linked to an unrelated thread and it starts all over.

If you have no use for it, why do you keep doing it? You even interject this hraka into threads you are not yet a part of- even Radrook called you on it.

Why?

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Piscivore


Yup, you dodge, dissemble, equivocate and sometimes lie- we are not impressed, call you on it, show you your error- you spout some vauge and naive nonsense, words special to you in italics and linked to an unrelated thread and it starts all over.

If you have no use for it, why do you keep doing it? You even interject this hraka into threads you are not yet a part of- even Radrook called you on it.

Why?

To support his crazy Solipsist world view - this is exactly why I stopped debating with Iacchus a while ago after I caught on to his modus operandi with debating - which is, to say the least, he doesn't debate at all, and simply babbles lunacy, evades, and babbles even more.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Yup, you dodge, dissemble, equivocate and sometimes lie- we are not impressed, call you on it, show you your error- you spout some vauge and naive nonsense, words special to you in italics and linked to an unrelated thread and it starts all over.

If you have no use for it, why do you keep doing it? You even interject this hraka into threads you are not yet a part of- even Radrook called you on it.

Why? Hey that's life. Read my signature!

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey that's life. Read my signature!

I'm not "science" and I'm not trying to "pin down life". Total nonsense.

This behaviour is not "just life", either. Most people I know are more mature than this. My children are more mature than this.

I'm asking you, if you "have no use for" "the same old crap over and over again"- why do you do it?

Here's hypothesis #3- you are a profoundly lonely man, and this is the best way you've found to keep people interacting with you.

If this is true, scrib and I have already told you that we'd be (exceedingly) happy to do so without the nonsense. If you feel intimidated, if you think we'll look down on you because you'll be relatively new to this world of science and rational thought- I can assure you that I, at least, will not.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

I'm not "science" and I'm not trying to "pin down life". Total nonsense. Except you seem to have your designs on pinning down me now don't you? ;)

[Piscivore]

If you "have no use for" "the same old crap over and over again"- why do you do it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

If you "have no use for" "the same old crap over and over again"- why do you do it? Because my body requires that I eat! :D

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because my body requires that I eat! :D

So now you're a coprophage?

You know that's not what I meant. If you "have no use for" "the same old crap over and over again"- why do you do it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

You know that's not what I meant. If you "have no use for" "the same old crap over and over again"- why do you do it? Yeah, that's what I'd like to know. Care to elaborate? ;)

[wittgenst3in]

Piscivore, you should never wrestle with a pig. You both end up dirty and the pig likes it.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by wittgenst3in
Piscivore, you should never wrestle with a pig. You both end up dirty and the pig likes it.

I just can't help giving the guy a chance. :shrug:

[Iacchus]

But seriously folks (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43260) ... :D

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But seriously folks (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43260) ... :D

I think posting just to link to the same thing would also qualify as spamming, but it's not as "textbook" I guess.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

I think posting just to link to the same thing would also qualify as spamming, but it's not as "textbook" I guess. Actually I started it here and then decided it would make a great thread. It also helps to qualify my position when people keep trying to pin me down and say that I'm being way too irrational. :D I just hate to keep repeating the same things ("crap" if you will) over and over again, don't you? ;)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Perhaps you should try considering it from the standpoint of human nature, rather than from all this "thou shalt not do this" and "thou shalt not do that" crap? You know in the sense that people will quite often chose that which they hold most dear, over that which is better for everyone else a whole? In which case maybe God was merely testing Abraham, to see how selfishly attached he had become to his son?

Why would an omnipotent, omniscient god have to "test" anyone "to see" how they would respond?

What a weenie punk.

(another instance of a religious one resorting to a non-omni god - isn't it odd that according to the bible, this supposedly all-powerful god seems to have a lot of human limitations?)

"Omnipotence, hmmm, gotta get me some of that." - Artemus

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Why would an omnipotent, omniscient god have to "test" anyone "to see" how they would respond?

What a weenie punk.

(another instance of a religious one resorting to a non-omni god - isn't it odd that according to the bible, this supposedly all-powerful god seems to have a lot of human limitations?)

"Omnipotence, hmmm, gotta get me some of that." - Artemus

Ah, but you see, God "works in mysterious ways (tm)" :D.

/end sarcasm

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan


Ah, but you see, God "works in mysterious ways (tm)" :D.

/end sarcasm

But the dumb thing is, he _doesn't_ work in "mysterious" ways. In fact, he works in ways that are very familiar - to humans.

I guess you could say it is a mystery why an omniscient, omnipotent being would behave as if he had human limitations.


(sarcasm noted)

[Z]

And that's common to ALL mythologies. God/Gods/whatever works in HUMAN ways. Why would that be? Oh, yeah, because HUMANS made them/it/whatever up to deal with things they couldn't understand.

Deity may exist as the primal motivator of the Universe, but Deity as we know it through religion is nothing but the excuse for things we don't comprehend. Once you understand something, you no longer need a God to cover for that thing.

The Knowledge of Good and Evil was the first death pang of God. More followed. More to come.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Why would an omnipotent, omniscient god have to "test" anyone "to see" how they would respond?Might I suggest that it gave Abraham the opportunity to examine himself?


What a weenie punk.Weenie punk? Who's a weenie punk? What, are you calling me stupid? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43063) :D

[Z]

No, he was calling God a weenie punk.

I am asking, gentleman to gentleman, that you desist from continual retro-linking between threads. Rest assured, there's a good chance we've read your ridiculous threads already - if we didn't, then you linking to it in the text of your replies isn't going to make us WANT to do so.

My request is a polite one, because I am becoming annoyed at this purile and juvenile practice. You are, of course, welcome to deny my request, as you wish.

Perhaps you would be better served using your sig line for this continual retro-linking?

Thank you.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

I am asking, gentleman to gentleman, that you desist from continual retro-linking between threads. Rest assured, there's a good chance we've read your ridiculous threads already - if we didn't, then you linking to it in the text of your replies isn't going to make us WANT to do so. The problem is and, quite often you see, I don't care to repeat myself over and over again.


My request is a polite one, because I am becoming annoyed at this purile and juvenile practice. You are, of course, welcome to deny my request, as you wish.No. So long as they continue with the all the ad hominem remarks and verbal abuse then it's the least I can do. It isn't any less juvenile than calling somebody a fool, stupid, idiot, moron, jackass, *sshole, etc., you know, all these nice little things? And, since I'm not one who likes to complain to the moderators about it, I think it's an excellent alternative. In fact, since I've started doing it, I've noticed most of the (direct) personal attacks have died down quite a bit. So hey, if you can keep the sh*t down towards me, maybe I won't have to add these things.


Perhaps you would be better served using your sig line for this continual retro-linking?We'll see.


Thank you. By the way, did you notice I didn't include a link in this post? ;)

[Z]

The problem is and, quite often you see, I don't care to repeat myself over and over again.

Yet you do... and rather often, too. Can't accept the concept that these things you keep linking to are, themselves, rebutted as well?

Nevertheless, denial accepted. (I'm not one to run to the mods either, so that's that)

Actually, I think the biggest contributing factor to the reduction in ad hominem and name calling is that, once we accept that we're dealing with a person whose logic and reason are impaired, it's much easier simply to laugh at your posts and carry on.

Rad, for a time, tried DESPERATELY to be taken seriously - and only showed himself for a total ... well, you know, towards the end, resulting in much name-calling. It was wrong, but understandable that, after presenting himself as such an intellectual, he should suffer such repercussions for his inanities.

You tend to be less vitriolic in your discussions, so although you continue to demonstrate your inanities and inability to reason properly, we have less reason to turn vicious on you. You were the less of two evils (between you and Rad) and besides, you post nothing but self-referential nonsense anyway (that is, nonsense that refers to nonsense, ad infinitum) so after a few comments flaming your character, invariably they die down.

However, as long as you continue to post meaningless gibberish about meaning and purpose, you're likely to continue being labled a fool and a moron. You may, of course, take pleasure to know that the wisest of men are those labeled fools, and the most foolish those labeled wise; WE may not see it that way, but it IS a common belief.

In fact, within your own sphere of belief, you are wise - if you fail to cling to your beliefs, there are disastrous consequences for your soul; ironically, though, if you WERE to relinquish your beliefs, your fear of said consequences would be relinquished as well.

This does put the man of faith in a precarious position, and for that I pity you.

For my own part, due to what I believe, your posting constitute nonsense and your methods of reason are foolish; hence, I have and will continue to label you appropriately, though I will attempt in the future to lower the volume of my dispersions against you. It is enough that you've shown to be a fool to us thus far; no need to hammer it at you at every turn.

I will continue to battle your foolishness, but know that I hold no personal hatred of you, nor wish you poorly.

[Iacchus]

Your post is well worth ignoring. Will refrain from responding to any further such postings, if possible. There, is that better? In other words if this is all I continue to hear from you is your condescending babble (I think one of Mercutio's favorite ways of putting it is "tripe"), I will put you on ignore.

[Hardenbergh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Your post is well worth ignoring. Will refrain from responding to any further such postings, if possible. There, is that better? In other words if this is all I continue to hear from you is your condescending babble (I think one of Mercutio's favorite ways of putting it is "tripe"), I will put you on ignore.

Harry Truman would love you. He believed in calling a spade a spade, too.

[Iacchus]

Well, thank you very much! :D

[Doctor X]

Radrook tried to put posters who honestly considered his opinions on Ignore rather than deal with them.

He found his audience dwindling whilst posters around him commented about what an arogant ignoramous he was.

He finally broke down.

Methinks his stream is not the one to swim.

--J.D.

[Z]

Iacchus, you are certainly welcome to place me on 'ignore' if that's your desire. Since I'm fairly certain you are unable (or stubbornly unwilling) to consider true reason, logic, or sense, then there really is no point in posting anything for your benefit. Nonetheless, in battling your nonsense, what I post may benefit the new member, lurker, or wandering passers-by.

If you choose to hide your head in the sand, surely we can accomodate you in this.

I personally refuse to use the 'ignore' function, simply because my own personal filters are adequate to the task. If someone's posts become senselessly hostile, I am more than mature enough to ignore them personally; otherwise, I find even the most ignorant fool can occasionally make an intelligent post, and I'd be untrue to my virtues if I willingly gave up access to a potential piece of useful info.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

I personally refuse to use the 'ignore' function, simply because my own personal filters are adequate to the task. Exactly! This is all I'm referring to here.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Your post is well worth ignoring. Will refrain from responding to any further such postings, if possible. There, is that better? In other words if this is all I continue to hear from you is your condescending babble (I think one of Mercutio's favorite ways of putting it is "tripe"), I will put you on ignore. Funny thing is...I thought Zaaydragon was on to something.

Are you, Iacchus, suggesting that I should put you (and your tripe) on ignore? I have no real need to--I feel no compulsion to reply to each new iteration of the same old message. I kinda wonder what it was in Zaaydragon's post that you found so offensive--could you either point out where he is so wrong, or admit he was too close for comfort?

[Iacchus]

It's all relative though isn't it? Albeit to the absolutness of the whole. ;)

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's all relative though isn't it? Albeit to the absolutness of the whole. ;)

:crazy:

[Iacchus]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the integration of the parts in the body, serve the design of the body as a whole?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Wouldn't it be fair to say that the integration of the parts in the body, serve the design of the body as a whole?
Um....No. (http://www.athro.com/evo/pthumb.html)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Um....No. (http://www.athro.com/evo/pthumb.html) And, if we weren't conscious and aware of ourselves in the whole sense, what purpose would our bodies serve? Some dictator off in the Middle East perhaps? Although we'd still have to have a mind in order to quip to their oders now wouldn't we?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And, if we weren't conscious and aware of ourselves in the whole sense, what purpose would our bodies serve? Some dictator off in the Middle East perhaps? Although we'd still have to have a mind in order to quip to their oders now wouldn't we? Complete non-sequitor. I know I am not clicking on your links; might I assume you are not clicking on mine? My link was to a discussion of the Panda's Thumb, including a discussion of the seemingly haphazard nature of selection, as a rebuttal to the notion of a "design of the body as a whole" (with "design" implying a designer, rather than a more neutral "structure" or "form"). Your reply bears no relation to that link, nor (as far as I can tell) to anything that has been posted in this thread.

What do you mean by "conscious"?
What do you mean by "aware"?
What does "in the whole sense" add to that sentence?
Why do you assume we "have to have a mind"?
Why do you use the word "purpose" here instead of simply "function"?

It may be that you have perfectly good definitions for each of these. If so, they are certainly not coming out in context. Your usages of these relatively commonplace terms seems to include some less common implications, and so I would like to know your definitions.