So what do you understand by Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah?
Did God bother to stop him? Did God allow the sacrifice to complete - in His name?
Fallacies about Faith
by tec 340 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
tec
The Spirit came upon Jephthah, leading him where he was to go.
NOT.... leading him to make a vow to sacrifice his child, or whatever actually happened. There are conflicting understandings among more than just the jws.
Peace,
tammy
-
Qcmbr
You don't find it disgusting that God would ask once. You don't find it disgusting that God would allow and accept a later sacrifice he could have stopped (really - how hard would it have been to get a goat to come out first?)
Finally - you don't find it disgusting that the supposed price for your sins is a human sacrifice?
Please never wonder why your moral standards on this matter are rejected out of hand (by me at least).
-
tec
The story of Abraham regarding human sacrifice shows that God does NOT require human sacrifice... thereby putting an end to that (as it certainly happened a lot in the surrounding nations, and even today - re: blood sacrifice of wts); the lesson of Jephthah is that one should not make such vows to begin with (backed up in what Christ also taught)... recall also that God desires MERCY... NOT sacrifice (hosea 6:6) and that is backed up in all scriptures by prophets, and also Christ.
The people who killed Christ were not sacrificing Him to God either.
Peace,
tammy
-
snare&racket
He doesnt require human sacrifice?.......... Erm jesus.....
you are making it up as you go along Tec, this isnt the bible, its the theology of Tec, opinion, conjecture.....
Why guess? Be honest and say "i dont know".
-
Qcmbr
Most of us can see what the story says, that you can't and are defending it is tragic. The OT record is replete with God murdering people, instituting blood sacrifices (animals mainly but at a pinch he was happy to take down opposing priests or cities), initiating genocides, inspiring blood obsessed scriptures and so on. The supposed culmination of all this blood letting was the human sacrifice of Jesus. Your god is evil. Your morals on this issue are flawed.
-
cofty
Abraham was entirely willing to murder his son to prove his faith in god.
It was this unquestioning obedience that puts him among the examples of faith related in Hebrews 11 for christians to imitate.
Faith is not a virute.
-
Qcmbr
...and we haven't even started on the flood where everyone save 8 died. That was not the fault of any human - it was an entirely supernatural event from start to finish. OT god loved to kill and was very good at it. He even got pissy when you try to stop his holy killing machine, teh Ark of teh Covenant, from falling onto the ground.
He seems quite excited and prepared for the grand bloodletting at the end as well.When will this god get satisfied by all the millions of humans he sacrifices for his divine purposes?
-
Qcmbr
Joshua 7:10-15 - human sacrifice
10 The Lord said to Joshua, “Stand up! What are you doing down on your face? 11 Israel has sinned; they have violated my covenant, which I commanded them to keep. They have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen, they have lied, they have put them with their own possessions. 12 That is why the Israelites cannot stand against their enemies; they turn their backs and run because they have been made liable to destruction. I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction.
13 “Go, consecrate the people. Tell them, ‘Consecrate yourselves in preparation for tomorrow; for this is what the Lord , the God of Israel, says: There are devoted things among you, Israel. You cannot stand against your enemies until you remove them.
14 “‘In the morning, present yourselves tribe by tribe. The tribe the Lord chooses shall come forward clan by clan; the clan the Lord chooses shall come forward family by family; and the family the Lord chooses shall come forward man by man. 15 Whoever is caught with the devoted things shall be destroyed by fire, along with all that belongs to him. He has violated the covenant of the Lord and has done an outrageous thing in Israel!’”
-
adamah
Yup, that's it, in a nutshell: Abraham was declared "righteous" since he "listened, obeyed, and was blessed" by Jehovah for following his orders, and put his faith in Jehovah.
TEC said- Yes, except for the 'jehovah' part. There is no 'jehovah'.
Quibble much?
You know full-well that I'm referring to 'our Father who art in Heaven', the God of Jesus; don't be intentionally obtuse (or you risk people concluding that you're actually dense).
EVEN WHEN God later asked him to kill his son, Isaac: Abraham followed orders and didn't stop to think of what was in his (Abraham's) heart: he was completely willing to kill his son since God asked him to do so.
TEC said- Well, the account says nothing about what was in Abraham's heart.
You forget that supposedly Divinely-inspired Paul filled in the gaps in Hebrews 11, claiming that Abraham had faith that Isaac could be resurrected. Paul provided details of the state of Abraham's 'heart' (well, his brain: you know that many ancient Hebrews believed humans thought with their hearts, NOT their brains). I remember explaining all of that in the prior thread on faith and Hebrews, so review, if you've forgotten.
TEC said- But this goes beyond the point that I had made with regard to Snare thinking that i had said it was righteous to follow your own heart (because who knows what might be IN your heart). Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to God, yes... while at the same time knowing that God had already promised him that his offspring would come through Isaac. He even said when Isaac asked him, that God would provide the sacrifice... and God DID provide the sacrifice. So while he might not have known how all of these seemingly contradictory promises/requests would play out, he knew that God would keep his promise.
Abraham said God would provide the sacrifice, but he was actually telling Isaac a half-truth (AKA lil' fib), since Abraham forgot to mention to the would-be sacrifice that he was referring to Isaac, whom God HAD provided to Abraham as a blessing; now God demanded him back! In fact, the account serves as the role model for Jesus, who knew that God comes first, and family members are replaceable: that's the explanation for the JWs shunning of family members to this day, based on the principle 'the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away'....
Anyway, you're speculating beyond what the details of what the account says, since God hadn't explicitly told Abraham that He'd provide a suitable stunt ram at the last minute: if God HAD told him that, it wouldn't be a test of Abraham's FAITH, would it? And it wouldn't change the test of faith: Abraham STILL had to place trust in God that He would do as He promised. It changes nothing, since Abraham STILL had to be willing to kill Isaac.
Besides, since the ram was provided BY God, only to be offered TO God, doesn't your God have ANY sense of shame, or isn't even slightly embarrassed to engage in such self-gratification in public? Shouldn't God do that kind of stuff in private, or maybe He actually enjoys having spectators look on while He's getting off on Himself?
See, nothing was actually 'sacrificed': Abraham didn't OWN the sacrifice, so HE experienced no loss: God can do magic, so HE didn't experience any loss. NO ONE sacrificed anything, just like God giving the World his only begotten son is similarly a non-sacrifice, since God is the source of ALL wealth. It's a gobsmackingly-moronic system, where the ONLY ones to benefit are the priestly class who offered sacrifices but kept a piece of the meat (and are the same ones who wrote the story where they instituted the sacrifical rites, and benefitted from the scheme).
That's the problem with faith: it represents a WILLINGNESS to follow orders in the name of a higher power without stopping to ask questions, or consulting one's own heart or conscience. Why bother, since one's own human conscience is irrelevant, since believers know that the Bible says that the human heart is treacherous, and cannot be trusted anyway: that's the whole "faulty compass" thing.
TEC said- Now this part, I must disagree with. What point is there in Abraham questioning God... and being ALLOWED to question God... then, regarding Sodom and Gomorrah? One most certainly can question, think, reason, test. Christ taught in such a way so as to get people TO use their brains, examine their hearts, etc.
Holy Hades, TEC: I explained it before, but will repeat, in short form:
In Sodom affair, Abraham interceded on behalf of others; God didn't command HIM to kill the Sodomites; that's what the two angels were doing.
In the 'binding of Isaac' affair, God COMMANDED Abraham to kill Isaac; unlike the intercession on behalf of the Sodomites, God's request that he kill Isaac was considered as a TEST of Abraham's faith. Abraham passed, since God was conviced Abraham would actually plunge that knife into Isaac.
God says to jump, and the only faith-driven response is to jump (and it's questionable to wait to ask "how high?")
Hence why Jihadists trust in Allah, JWs trust in Jehovah's power to resurrect and die refusing blood (based on a lie), when we all KNOW there will be no do-overs, no second-chances for those lives sacrificed in the name of 'faith'.
TEC said- Well, no, we don't all 'know' that. But regardless, one SHOULD test, reason, think, ask. The author of Hebrews said specifically that Abraham HAD done just that... reasoned that God would give Isaac back to him.
Well, that's the million-dollar question, isn't it, the very definition of faith?
TEC, do YOU think the JWs are going to be resurrected in the New System?
Do YOU think they're dying for nothing?
If you read my article on the misinterpretation of Genesis 9:5-6 (which explains the solution offered in Noah's Flood, which the JWs misread to come up with their flawed blood doctrine), you'd understand that the scripture is actually trying to PREVENT needless deaths exactly LIKE that which arises from refusing blood!
(BTW, I've updated the information in that article (esp the parts which look at the use of the singular and plural forms of blood in the Hebrew passage, i.e. 'dam' and 'damim', the words in English being 'blood' AND 'bloods', which carry a completely different connotation IF such a distinction existed in English). It's worth reading again if it's been awhile....)
TEC Said- Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed simply because they did not know the God of Abraham existed... but rather because of the cries that had gone up to God BECAUSE of the actions of that town. Because of the blood that town had spilled of others, and perhaps even the innocent among them.
Yeah, there's plenty of extra-biblical stories and Hebrew myths that sprung up around the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which I discuss in the blog article (link above). I suspect that the main reason behind the legends is much like how the stories of Paul Bunyan serve as a way to explain the natural appearance of America (eg the Grand Canyon is said to appear as it does today as a result of Paul Bunyan dragging his axe in the ground).
TEC said- Mmm. I find it interesting (but not surprising) that so far everyone has ignored or deflected from the point that God came in answer to those who cried out to him from the harm done them BY the people of S&G. Preferring instead to defend S&G... the ones who were doing the raping/blood-spilling/etc... of strangers passing through their town.
Do you think foreign countries have a RIGHT to establish their own laws, and practice their own religious beliefs?
I'm guessing NOT, based on your 'buying in' to the story book written by those whom you think of as being on "your team". Your team captain can do no wrong, of course, and much like the actions of Saul, if God conducted the killings, it cannot be wrong.
That's the irony of claiming the Bible contains absolute moral values: the only one I see in action is, "might makes right".
TEC Said- Does a person need to know God to know that raping/spilling the blood strangers that come into your town is wrong? God acted on behalf of the innocent BEING harmed and destroyed. The blood of those who had been harmed/slain cried out to Him, same as Abel's did. In the story, the two angels were sent to investigate, giving anyone the opportunity to prove their own righteousness, by doing good to those strangers. (do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing so, some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it) But according to the story, it was Lot who took them in, trying to protect them. Every other man, young and old, came to do them harm, and harm Lot also for protecting them... tec
That's all conjecture, of course (and smacks of moral relativism)... adamah
TEC said- Actually, that was one question, and then things that happened from the story... the angels were sent to investigate, and Lot is the one who met them at the gate and sheltered/protected them.
Again, what right does Lot have to move to a foreign land and expect the natives who live there to adopt HIS cultural practices, esp when his morality indicated a REJECTION of the normative family values that he rejected? Lot disassociated himself from God and Abraham, and then acted the role of a "righteous man", when he wasn't: that was the overriding message of the author of the account.
BTW, I wrote in pt III of my Lot series on speculation about what may explain the Sodomites behavior of raping visitors, driven by ancient superstitions and paranoia from perceiving they may be under an alien invasion from spirit beings:
but remember that Lot and Abraham were foreigners living in a foreign land as aliens (non-citizens), where the inhabitants worshipped their own Gods and had their own customs. The story smacks of religious hegemony, since it wasn't like they had any authority to move into a foreign land and expect others to worship their Gods, and adopt their customs, etc. It would be like S. Americans who cross into the States illegally, and expect us to become Catholics, do things like they're done in Guatamala, etc, etc.
TEC said- So? It was not Abraham and Lot crying out to God about S&G... but others who lived in that land, or who passed through S&G.
Read my article on Lot: I get into that kind of stuff in much greater detail, based on research (and there's some much later extrabiblical rabbinical tales of Lot's daughter having been killed for showing mercy to a starving man; it's been a favorite story for millenia, where the thinking evolved with time).
In fact, I suspect that's likely the intent of the story of Lot in Sodom: the account was designed to stress the point that given the circumstances under which the account was written (during or after captivity in Babylon), the Jews were strangers living immersed in a foreign culture against their will, and Lot was the poster boy of a boisterous outsider who didn't exactly fly under the radar and lay low, but instead made a showy display of his strange customs and was clueless to how he fit into the surrounding culture: instead of being rewarded for his cluelessness and sticking to "true values", he was made the anti-hero who VIOLATED those same principles every chance he got. The story ends with him becoming the forefather to the enemies of the Chosen People.
TEC said- And this is NOT conjecture, lol?
The difference is some conjecture is based on evidence and research, and not whisperings from Jesus.
EVERYTHING you know about God are ideas which came from somewhere: your game is based on claiming Jesus gives you some special insight, and that's the oldest game in the book: in fact, the Holy Bible encourages that kind of thinking that the reader is "special".
Of course, the author's intent was likely lost on the author of 2nd Peter (who wrote his epistle some 1,000 years AFTER the Genesis account was written (!), relying on the Greek Septuagint, no less....), who declared Lot to be not a heel, but a hero (AKA a righteous man) to fit into Xian theology.
TEC said- More conjecture. Besides that though... you think a man cannot be righteous and then later commit actions that are not righteous?
The POINT is the contradictory claim, where 2nd Peter sums up Lot's life LONG AFTER he was dead, and declared him to be "righteous", EVEN AFTER the drunken incest. Drunken Xian males who commit incest must see Lot as their patron saint: Saint Lot, the protector of pedophiles, who was foregiven of his sins and is now in Heaven along with Uncle Abraham and other men of faith. Lovely, isn't it?
Of course, Lot didn't make Paul's heroes of faith list, so there's another NT contradiction (as well as the OT/NT contradiction).
Just because one person mentioned Lot and one person did not... does not make it a contradiction. One person claiming that Lot was righteous and another claiming that Lot was unrighteous... then you might have your contradiction.
Read the article, as I explained WHY the author of Genesis was often "too cool for school" by being 'subtle' when he could've spelled it out explicitly and even THAT would be too subtle for some readers. He likely wasn't anticipating Xians later hijacking his writings (which were written for his culture's religion) in order to create a spin-off, an action that other authors strongly polemicized and demanded the death penalty for corrupting "pure worship" of Jehovah.
Yet when asked if they would go so far as to kill someone, all of today's theists on this board (correct me if I am wrong) say their God / Jesus /voice would never ever tell them to do such a thing. If God did it to Abraham, He could do it to youi.
Name another example after Abraham's test of faith... where anyone else was asked to sacrifice their child.
Holy Hades, TEC: you'd think ONE time should be sufficient to get the point across, loud and clear?
That's just sad excusiology, like holocaust deniers who say "OK, well Hitler may have been responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews, but can you name ANOTHER example of atrocities he committed?"
BTW, your selective memory is kicking in, as you're forgetting all about when King David killed the descendents of Saul (including his young grandchildren) to avenge Saul's murder of the Gibeonites. Seems God told David that he was carrying a grudge about it until that time, and was causing a drought:
http://www.illustratedbiblestories.ca/raindance_comm_1.htm
Sounds more like scape-goating to me!
And so much for individual responsibility of the wrong-doer himself (Saul)? God held Saul's offspring accountable for the sins of their father (and grandfather), a good example of the ancient belief in inherited obligations for sins, a variation of the community responsibility for sins as I mentioned above.
Adam